Bab 9
Metoda Ilmiah
Metoda Ilmiah
Unsur Metoda Ilmiah
Metoda Ilmiah
• Dalam bentuk paling dasar, metoda ilmiah terdiri
atas dua komponen:
• Ada temuan ilmiah (context of discovery)
• Ada justifikasi (context of justification)
Temuan ilmiah
• Supaya dilengkapi dengan argumentasi/penelaran
ilmiah
• Ada kalanya diawali dengan pertanyaan ilmiah
dalam bentuk rumusan masalah
Justifikasi ilmiah
• Supaya dilengkapi dengan rancangan serta
peralatan yang memadai
Metoda Ilmiah
Unsur Metoda Ilmiah
Format Metoda Ilmiah
• Lembaga memiliki gaya sendiri untuk format
metoda ilmiah
• Dalam banyak hal, lembaga mengeluarkan
pedoman tentang format metoda ilmiah yang
mereka gunakan
• Ada komponen penting yang pada umumnya sama
untuk setiap format metoda ilmiah
Format Penulisan
• Ada sejumlah format untuk menulis/melapor
temuan ilmiah
• Biasanya ditentukan oleh lembaga yang menerima
laporan temuan ilmiah (perguruan tinggi, jurnal
ilmiah)
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method is usually described in five steps.
However, some identify only three or four steps, while
others say there are six or seven steps. The number of
steps is not important. What is important is the process
that the researcher follows (a hypothetico-deductive
paradigm). The scientific method should be regarded as a
series of steps but, rather, as a set of overlapping and
interdependent procedures for systematically studying
phenomena and revealing knowledge. In other words, it is
a way of thinking when doing research. In fact, the
philosopher John Dewey referred to the scientific method
as a “habit in mind”. The steps of the scientific method
described here need not be followed in order, although
researchers usually write up their reports as if they were.
They do this more to meet the conventions of researched
writing established over the years and to show that each of
the steps was attended to in their research than to show
that they began with the first step of the process. To
illustrate the steps in the scientific method of research, we
will refer to the previous example of the student whose car
would not start.
Step 1 The first step in the scientific method is usually
characterized as the sensing or realizing that some
problem exists through familiarity with a topic. For
example, something might happen that cannot be easily
explained, or the way to accomplish some goal may not be
evident.The realization that the car did not start even
though it had worked previously served to establish the
existence of the problem for the student.
Step 2 The problem is clarified; that is, the nature, and
specifics of the problem are identified. In our example, the
student recognized the problem to be, simply, “How do I
get the car started?” The problem is a question that
determines, to a large extent, the direction the
investigation will take. For example, had the student
recognized his problem as “How will I get to school
today?” or “Whom shall I ask to fix the car?” his
subsequent behavior would have been very different.
Step 3 the third step is devising the plan for the
research. To do this, a statement describing a possible
solution to the problem is made, and procedures are
identified to test the plausibility of this tentative solution.
Going back to our example, the student first thought that
the problem might be with the battery, and so he
developed a strategy to test that possibility. Finding that
solution to be implausible or unsupported by his
observations, he reasoned that the problem might be due to
damp terminals on the starter motor, and he proceeded to
test this. He continued to make plausible guesses about the
cause of his inability to get the car started until he found
one that was supported by what he saw in his investigati-
gations. Each guess he made led to a strategy. A plan for
investigating the plausibility of the solution.
Step 4 This step is decision making. Based upon the
data collected in the previous step, the researcher
evaluated the adequacy of the proposed solution. If the
data support the solution, it is accepted as reasonable. The
student in our example rejected the reasonableness of two
possible solutions before he found one that was adequately
supported by his observation.
Step 5
The final step involves interpretation and
generalization of the findings into the larger body of
knowledge about the phenomenon. This might involve
consideration of previous knowledge in terms of the new
knowledge or further experimentation. Both consideration
of what is already known and further experimentation in
light of the new knowledge might be appropriate. We saw
this in our example when the student replaced the wornout fuse. In a sense, he was investigating whether or not
the car would start with a new fuse in place of the old one.
Furthermore, as he was driving to school, the student
considered his knowledge about the fuse in his car in
terms of what he knew about blown fuses in general and,
therefore, determined to search for a short circuit.
HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE METHOD
Procedure for the construction of a scientific theory
that will account for results obtained through direct
observation and experimentation and that will, through
inference, predict further effects that can then be verified
or disproved by empirical evidence derived from other
experiments.
Developed by Sir Isaac Newton during the late 17th
century (but named at a later date by philosophers of
science), the hypothetico-deductive method assumes that
properly formed theories arise as generalizations from
observable data that they are intended to explain. These
hypotheses, however, cannot be conclusively established
until the consequences that logically follow from them are
verified through additional observations and experiments.
In conformity with Descarte’s rationalism, the
hypothetico-deductive method treats theory as deductive
system in which particular empirical phenomena are
explained by relating them back to general principles and
definitions. The method, however, abandons the Cartesian
claim that those principles and definitions are self-evident
and valid; it assumes that their validity is determined only
by the exact light their consequences throw on previously
unexplained phenomena or on actual scientific problems.
Metoda Ilmiah
Pokok Pikiran
Bertrand Russell
• Pengetahuan teoretik untuk memahami dunia.
Pengetahuan praktis untuk mengubah dunia
• Ilmuwan yang membangun ilmu memiliki dua
kebaikan: (1) kesabaran luar biasa di dalam
observasi, dan (2) keberanian besar di dalam
merumuskan hipotesis
• Sebagai aturan, perumusan hipotesis adalah bagian
tersulit di dalam karya ilmu, serta merupakan
bagian yang, tidak boleh tidak, harus ada
kemampuan tinggi
John Locke
• Pengetahuan di dunia dimulai dari persepsi indriah
(sense perception) dan refleksi
• Mereka memberikan kepada pikiran bahan
pengetahuan untuk membangun ide
• Pemahaman akan pemikiran dan proses
mengetahui, perlu memahami bahasa sebagai
media untuk berpikir dan berkomunikasi
• Diperlukan kata umum sebagai konsep abstrak
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
(dari John Locke)
Locke was thoroughly suspicious of the view that a
thinker could work out by reason alone the truth about the
universe. Much as he admired Descartes, he feared that
this speculative spirit in him, and he despised it in the
Scholastic philosophers. In this sense he rejected
metaphysics. Knowledge of the world could only be
gained by experience and reflection on experience, and
this knowledge was being gained by Boyle, Sydenham,
Christiaan Huygens, and Newton. They were the true
philosophers who were advancing knowledge. Locke set
himself the humbler task, as he conceived it, of
understanding how this knowledge was gained. What was
“the original, certainty, and extent of human knowledge,
together with the grounds and degrees of belief, opinion,
and assent?”
Empiricism. As for “the original,” the answer was
plain. Knowledge of the world began in sense perception,
and self-knowledge in introspection, or “reflection” in
Locke’s language. It did not begin in innate knowledge of
maxims or general principles, and it did not proceed by
syllogistic reasoning from such principles. In the 17th
century there had been much vague talk about innate
knowledge, and in Book I of his Essay Concerning
Human Understanding Locke examines this talk and
shows its worthlessness. In Book II of his Essay he begins
by claiming that the sources of all knowledge are sense
experience and reflection; these are not themselves,
however, instances of knowledge in the strict sense, but
they provide the mind with the material of knowledge.
Locke calls the material so provided “ideas.” Ideas are
objects “before the mind,” not in the sense that they are
physical objects, but that they represent them. Locke
distinguishes ideas that represent actual qualities of objects
(such as size, shape, or weight) from ideas that represent
perceive qualities, which do not exist in objects except as
they affect observers (such as colour, taste, or smell).
Locke designates the former primary qualities and the
latter secondary qualities.
Locke proceeds to group and classify the ideas, with a
view to showing that the origin of all of them lies in
sensation and reflection. Although ideas are immediately
“before the mind,” not all of them are simple. Many of
them are compounded, and their simple parts can be
revealed on analysis. It is these simple ideas alone that are
given in sensation and reflection. Out of them the mind
forms complex ideas, though Locke is ambiguous on this
point. For while he uses the language of “forming” or
“compounding” and speaks of the “workmanship” of the
mind, the compounding is frequently in accordance with
what is perceived “to go together” and is not arbitrary.
Locke’s reflection upon cause and effect, had they been
elaborated, would undoubtedly have led him into acute
difficulties. He does admit one failure. As an empiricist he
can give no account of the idea of substance; it is, he
thinks, essential and not to be denied, and yet it is not a
simple idea given in sensation or reflection nor is it
derived from simple ideas so given. In fact he can say little
of it; it is “a-something-I-know-not-what.” Thus, the case
for empiricism cannot be said to be entirely established by
Book II, but Locke thinks it strong enough for him to
persist the view that knowledge of the physical world is
wholly derived from sense perception.
Language. According to Locke, Book III, on language,
“cost [him] more pains” than any other book of his Essays;
yet it is the book that has been most neglected. To
understand thinking and knowing one must understand
language as the means of thought and communication.
Words are conventional signs, but signs, according to
Locke, not immediately of things but of ideas of thing, so
that he carries his theory of ideas into his account of
knowledge. Frequently, the idea signified by the word is
not clear, and sometimes words are used even when there
are no ideas corresponding to them. This is particularly so
in the case of general words, without which language
would be so impoverished as to lose most of its worth. The
use of general words, in Locke’s mind, is bound up with
the theory of universals. Does the general word stand for a
particular idea that is used in representative capacity? Or is
the universal nothing more than a creation of the mind,
through abstraction, to which is attached a name? In
considering natural substances Locke is inclined strongly
toward a conceptualism according to which the use of
general words is possible only because they signify
“nominal essences.” In this view what is meant is not the
real essence but an abstract concept, something brought
about through “the workmanship of the understanding.”
Locke also discusses the names of simple ideas and of
relations, and it is interesting to find the crude beginnings
of a discussion of what were later to be called logical or
operative words. Book III contains also a valuable account
of definition, which denies the theory that all definition
must be per genus et differentiam (by comparison and
contrast). The final chapters deal with the inevitable
imperfections of language and with avoidable abuses.
Metoda Ilmiah
Pokok Pikiran
Immanuel Kant
• Ada tiga langkah di dalam penemuan pengetahuan:
Pertama:
• “sensation” tak terstruktur, menurut ruang dan
waktu
Kedua:
• “perception” melalui hubungan konsep kosalitas,
kontingensi, …
Ketiga:
• “penilaian” disusun ke dalam sistem
David Hume
• Pikiran memperoleh ide dari kesan. Kesan hanya
berarti kalau dapat membawa obyek suber kesan ke
dalam pikiran
• Dua arti pada ide
• Analitik -> hubungan ide
• Empirk -> fakta
• Kosalitas memastikan adanya hubungan perlu di
antara fakta
HUMAN KNOWLEDGE
(dari David Hume)
An Enquiry Concerning Human Knowledge is an
attempt to define the principles of human knowledge. It
poses in logical form significant questions about nature of
reasoning in regard to matters of fact and experience, and
it answers them by recourse to the principle of association.
The basis of this exposition is a twofold classification of
objects of awareness. In the first place, al such objects are
either “impressions,” data of sensation or of internal
consciousness, or “ideas,” derived from such data by
compounding, transposing, augmenting, or diminishing.
That is to say, the mind does not create any ideas but
derives them from impressions. From this Hume develops
a theory of meaning. A word that does not stand directly
for an impression has meaning only if it brings before the
mind an object that can be gathered from an impression by
one of the mental processes mentioned. In the second
place, there are two approaches to construing meaning, an
analytical one, which concentrates on the “relations of
ideas,” and an empirical one, which focuses on “matters of
fact.” Ideas can be held before the mind simply as
meanings, and their logical relations to one another can
then be detected by rational inspection. The idea of a plane
triangle, for example, entails the equality of its internal
angles to two right angles, and the idea of motion entails
the ideas of space and time, irrespective of whether there
really are such things as triangles and motion. Only on this
level of mere meanings, Hume asserts, is there room for
demonstrative knowledge. Matters of fact, on the other
hand, come before the mind merely as they are, revealing
no logical relations; their properties and connections must
be accepted as they are given. That primroses are yellow,
that lead is heavy, and that fire burns things are facts, each
shut up in itself, logically barren. Each, so far as reason is
concerned, could be different: the contradictory of every
matter of fact is conceivable. Therefore, any demonstrative science of fact is impossible.
From this basis Hume develops his doctrine about
causality. The idea of causality is alleged to assert a
necessary connection among matters of fact. From what
impression, then, is it derived? Hume states that no causal
relation among the data of the senses can be observed, for,
when a person regards any events as causally connected,
all that he does and can observe is that they frequently and
uniformly go together. In this sort of togetherness it is a
fact that the impression or idea of the one event brings
with it the idea of the other. A habitual association is set up
in the mind; and, as in other forms of habit, so in this one,
the working of the association is felt as compulsion. This
feeling, Hume concludes, is the only discoverable
impressional source of the idea of causality.
Hume then considers the process of causal inference,
And in so doing the introduces the concept of belief.
When a person sees a glass fall, he not only thinks of its
breaking but expects and believes that it will break; or,
starting from an effect, when he sees the ground to be
generally wet, he not only thinks of rain but believes that
there has been rain. Thus belief is a significant component
in the process of causal inference. Hume then proceeds to
investigate the nature of belief, claiming that he was the
first to do so. He uses this term in the narrow sense of
belief regarding matters of fact. He defines belief as a sort
of liveliness or vividness that accompanies the perception
of an idea. A belief is more than an idea; it is a vivid and
lively idea. This vividness is originally possessed by some
of the objects of awareness, by impressions and simple
memory images of them. By association it comes to
belong to certain ideas as well. In the process of causal
inference, then, an observer passes from an impression to
an idea regularly associated with it. In the process the
aspect of liveliness proper to the impression infects the
idea, Hume asserts. And it is this aspect of liveliness that
Hume defines as the essence of belief.
Hume does not claim to prove that the propositions, (1)
that events themselves are causally related, and (2) that
they will be related in the future in the same ways they
were in the past, are false. He firmly believed both of
these propositions are insisted that everybody else
believed them, will continue to believe them, and must
continue to believe them in order to survive. They are na-
tural beliefs, inextinguishable propensities of human
nature, madness apart. What Hume claims to prove is that
natural beliefs are not obtained and cannot be
demonstrated either by empirical observation or by reason,
whether intuitive or inferential. Reflection shows that
there is no evidence for them and shoes also both that we
are bound to believe them and that it is sensible or sane to
do so. This is Hume’s skepticism : it is an affirmation of
that tension, a denial not of belief but of certainty.
As a philosopher. Hume conceived of philosophy as the
inductive science of human nature, and he concluded that
man is more a creature of sensitive and practical sentiment
than of reason. Of the confident he is seen as one of the
few British classical philosophers. For some Germans his
importance lies in the fact that Immanuel Kant conceived
his critical philosophy in direct reaction to Hume. Hume
was one of the influences that led Auguste Comte, the
19th-century French mathematician and sociologist, to
positivism. In Britain, his positive influence is seen in
Jeremy Bentham, the early 19th-century jurist philosopher,
who was moved to utilitarianism (the moral theory that
fight conduct should be determined by the usefulness of its
consequences). …
Metoda Ilmiah
Pokok Pikiran
Leibniz
• Di dalam alam semesta, ditemukan wujud
“sederhana” dan “sempurna.”
• Ada beberapa prinsip:
• Prinsip ekstrim (minimum dan maksimum)
• Prinsip kekekalan
• Prinsip kesinambungan
• Hubungan terkuat ditemukan melalui deduksi dan
empiri
John Stuart Mill
• Penalaran berasal dari pengalaman
• Pernyataan ilmiah berupa
• Eksistensi fakta
• Hubungan fakta (koeksitensi, urutan, kemiripan,
kosalitias)
A SYSTEM OF LOGIC
(dari John Stuart Mill)
The distinctive features of Mill’s A System of Logic …
(1843) was the idea that the rules of reasoning are
obtained from experience, as opposed to the traditional
view that they a part of the mind’s construction, or of the
universe. A statement, he said, asserts either the existence
of a fact or the relation between facts, which may be those
of coexistence, sequence, resemblance, or causality. Its
truth is tested by its correspondence with the reality we
perceive by our senses or by reasoning inductively from
the perception, that is, from the particular to the general. In
stating that logic is the method of testing the factual
validity of statements, Mill was the forerunner of the
scientific method.
Metoda Ilmiah
Pokok Pikiran
Rene Descartes
Ada empat pikiran meliputi:
• Meragukan hal yang belum diketahui dengan pasti
• Memecah masalh ke dalam bagian-bagian
• Mulai memecahkan bagian yang mudah dan
beranjak ke yang susah
• Caranya harus cermat dan lengkap
Aristoteles
• Metoda induksi
• Metoda deduksi
Roger Bacon/Grosseteste/Galileo
• Metoda resolusi
• Metoda komposisi
Newton
• Metoda analisis
• Metoda sintesis
Metoda Ilmiah
Pokok Pikiran
Model Logico-hipothetico verification
• Rumuskan hipotesis secara logis dan didukung
oleh ilmu
• Menguji hipotesis secara empiris (sampai ke kasus
ekstrim atau kasus destruktif)
Model Herschel
• Memecah fenomena kompleks ke aspek yang
relevan untuk metoda
• Ada metoda hipotesis
• Ada metoda skema induktif
Model Whewell
• Fakta dipecah menjadi fakta elementer
• Ide diperjelas ke dalam konsep
• Perpaduan fakta dan konsep menghasilkan hukum
dan teori
Metoda Ilmiah
Pokok Pikiran
Model Aristoteles
A
Pengalaman
(empiri)
B
Penjelasan
(rasio)
Istilah yang digunakan
Aristotels
A = Metoda Induksi
B = Metoda deduksi
Roger Bacon/Grosseteste/Galileo
A = metoda resolusi
B = metoda komposisi
Newton
A = metoda analisis
B = metoda sintesis
Metoda Ilmiah
Pokok Pikiran
Metoda Ilmiah
Format
Format Metoda Ilmiah
Format paling mendasar
• Temuan (context of discovery)
• Pembenaran (context of justification)
Format dikembangkan
•
•
•
•
Pertanyaan ilmiah (rumusan masalah)
Jawaban ilmiah (rumusan hipotesis)
Rancangan pengujian
Pengujian (pembenaran)
Format rinci
• Dikembangkan di masing-masing lembaga
• Beberapa di antaranya ditampilkan di sini
Metoda Ilmiah
Format
MASALAH
PERTANYAAN ILMIAH
KAJIAN
TEORETIK
ARGUMENTASI ILMIAH
TEMUAN
ILMIAH
HIPOTESIS
HIPOTESIS
JAWABAN ILMIAH
RANCANGAN
PENGUJIAN
INSTRUMEN
UKUR
PENGUMPULAN
DATA
JUSTIFIKASI
UJI
HIPOTESIS
UJI
HIPOTESIS
KESIMPULAN
Metoda Ilmiah
Format
SUMBER
MASALAH
LUAS
INTI
RUMUSAN
MASALAH
HIPOTESIS
HASIL UJI
HIPOTESIS
LUAS
PEMBAHASAN
IMPLIKASI
Metoda Ilmiah
Format
APAKAH
SUDAH TERJAWAB
RUMUSAN
MASALAH
PENYUSUNAN
KERANGKA
BERPIKIR
KHASANAH
ILMU
RUMUSAN
HIPOTESIS
MENAMBAH
KHASANAH ILMU
DITERIMA
DICARI JAWABANNYA
HASIL
BERPIKIR
RANCANGAN PENGUKURAN
PENGUJIAN
DIBAHAS
LAGI
PENGUJIAN
HIPOTESIS
DITOLAK
Metoda Ilmiah
Format
LATAR
BELAKANG
IDENTIFIKASI
MASALAH
PEMBATASAN
MASALAH
MENGAPA
BERTANYA
APA SAJA YANG
DIPERTANYAKAN
TERLALU LUAS!
DIBATASI
RUMUSAN
MASALAH
PERTANYAAN
ILIMIAH
POSISINYA
DI ANTARA
PENELITIAN
SEJENIS
TUJUAN/
KEGUNAAN
UNTUK
MENJAWAB
KERANGKA
KONSEP
PENGERTIAN ILMIAH
VARIABEL YG DITANYAKAN
KERANGKA
BERPIKIR
HIPOTESIS
ARGUMENTASI
UNTUK MENJAWAB
JAWABAN
ILIMIAH
RANCANGAN
PENELITIAN
INSTRUMEN
EKSPERIMEN/UKUR
RANCANGAN
UNTUK MENGUJI
HIPOTESIS
CARA EKSPERIMEN/
ALAT UKUR
PENGUMPULAN
DATA
UJI
HIPOTESIS
PEMBAHASAN
JUSTIFIKASI
JAWABAN
ILMIAH
KESIMPULAN/SARAN
Metoda Ilmiah
Format
RUMUSAN MASALAH
VARIABEL
X
VARIABEL
Y
TEORI
TEORI
ANALISIS
ANALISIS
SINTESIS TEORETIK
X
SINTESIS TEORETIK
Y
KONSTRUK
KONSTRUK
DEFINISI
OPERASIONAL
KISI-KISI
INSTRUMEN
UKUR X
KERANGKA BERPIKIR
KAITAN X DAN Y
HIPOTESIS
KAITAN X DAN Y
INSTRUMEN
UKUR X
DEFINISI
OPERASIONAL
KISI-KISI
INSTRUMEN
UKUR Y
INSTRUMEN
UKUR Y
RANCANGAN
PENELITIAN EMPIRIK
SUMBER
INFORMASI X
DATA EMPIRIK
X
SUMBER
INFORMASI Y
PENGUJIAN HIPOTESIS
KAITAN X DAN Y
HASIL PENELITIAN
DATA EMPIRIK
Y
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Masalah
1. Hakikat
•
•
•
•
Merupakan pertanyaan ilmiah
Biasanya disajikan dalam kalimat tanya
Memerlukan jawaban ilmiah
Menentukan arah dan cakupan penelitian
2. Klasifikasi
• Ada banyak cara untuk mengklasifikasikan
masalah
• Di sini direkomendasikan klasifikasi Dillon
Orde 1 : tentang substansi dan ciri
Orde 2 : tentang perbandingan
Orde 3 : tentang ketergantungan
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Klasifikasi Dillon
•
Zero Order
O. Rhetorical
•
First Order: Properties
1. Existence/affirmation
negation
2. Instance/identification
3. Substance/Definition
a. Nature
b. Label
c. Meaning
4. Character/Description
5. Function/Application
a. Modes
b. Uses
c. Means
6. Rationale/Explication
None
No knowledge or no answer
Individual attributes of P or
of Q
Whether P is
Whether this is a/the P
What is P
What makes P be P
Whether “P” names P
What P or “P” means
What P has
What P does
How P acts
What P can do
How P does or is done
Why or how P has a certain
attribute
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
•
Second Order:
Comparison
7. Concomitance
a. Conjunction
b. Disjunction
8. Equivalence
9. Difference
a. Disproportion
b. Subordination
Comparative attributes of
P and Q
Whether P goes with Q
Whether P and Q are
associates
Whether P and Q are
alternatives
Whether P is like Q, and
wherein
Whether P and Q differ
Whether P is more/less
than Q
Whether P is part/whole
of Q
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
•
Third Order:
Contigencies
10. Relation
11. Correlation
12. Conditionality
a. Consequence
b. An tecedence
13. Biconditionality
(causality)
•
Extra Order:
Other
14. Deliberation
15 Unspecified
– 16. Unclear
Contigent attributes of P
and Q
Whether P relates to Q
Whether P and Q covary
Whether or how if P then
Q or if Q then P
Whether if P then Q,
or what X if P
Whether if Q then P,
or what X then P
Whether or how if P then
Q and if Q then P
Other attributes of ways
of knowing P
Whether to do and think P
to know P in other ways
No known
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
3. Model Struktural
Orde dua: Perbandingan
X1
Yx1
=?
X2
Yx2
Orde tiga: Ketergantungan
X
Y
X
X
Y
Y
Z
X1
Y
X2
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Contoh model struktural
X1
Y
X2
SES
nAch
Intel
SES = Social Economic Status
Intel = Intelligence
nAch = need for achievement
Ach = achievement
Ach
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Klasifikasi lainnya dari
Aristoteles (Posterior Analytics)
Lundsted (1968)
Bunge (1967)
Steiner (1978)
Shulman (1981)
Smith (1981)
Johnston and Pennypacker (1980)
Laudan (1977)
Fischer (1970)
Aritoteles (Topics)
Rescher (1982)
Tidak dirinci di sini
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Albert Einstein dan L. Infeld
• The formulation of a problem is far more often
essential than its solution, which may be merely a
matter of mathematical or experimental skill.
• To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard
old problems from a new angle requires creative
imagination and mark real advance in science.
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
4. Isi Masalah
• Ciri, perbandingan, ketergantungan pada
klasifikasi Dillon pada masalah adalah variabel
• Variabel berisikan aribut dari subyek (makhluk,
benda, peristiwa)
Atribut
Hasil ujian
Upah bulanan
Panjang belalai
Kecepatan lari
Kekuatan
Intensitas
Temperatur
Kecepatan
Subyek
mahasiswa
pegawai
gajah
kijang
besi beton
cahaya
kebakaran
olah data
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
5. Pengertian Variabel
Arti variabel perlu jelas sehingga perlu
dijelaskan, mencakup
• Arti (untuk dipahami)
• Ciri (untuk argumentasi ilmiah)
• Indikator (untuk pembuatan alat ukur)
Abstrak (konstruk)
tesis
spesifik
general
Konkrit (fakta)
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Fakta : kenyataan yang dapat langsung diukur
seperti umur, tempat lahir, jumlah
anggota keluarga
Konsep : pengertian dari sesuatu yang nyata
arti pegawai, arti mahasiswa
Konstruk: besaran yang dikonstruksi oleh para
ilmuwan (abstrak) seperti sikap,
gelisah, minat, frustrasi
Spesifik: hanya berlaku pada suatu wilayah
yang sangat terbatas, seperti
di perusahaan XYZ
General: berlaku umum seperti di semua
perusahaan, di seluruh dunia, di
seluruh jagat raya
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Pengertian konsep dan konstruk dapat saja
berbeda-beda karena
• Digunakan oleh bidang ilmu berbeda, seperti
•
oleh psikologi
•
oleh sosiologi
•
oleh antropologi
• Di bidang ilmu sama, ada aliran berbeda
• Pada aliran sama, ada pakar berbeda
Digunakan di dalam konteks yang berbeda
memerlukan pengertian yang berbeda
(lihat format UNJ)
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
6. Operasionalisasi Variabel
Variabel dapat diukur, sehingga
memerlukan
•
•
•
•
•
Skala ukur
Alat ukur
Cara mengukur
Data hasil ukur
Pengolahan data
Validitas
– Data hasil ukur harus secara benar
mengukur apa yang harus diukur
Reliabilitas
– Data hasil ukur harus dapat dipercaya
yakni memberikan data yang
sesungguhnya
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
Variabel Manifes dan Variabel Laten
Variabel Manifes
• Dapat langsung terukur
• Misal: tinggi badan, hasil ujian, …
Variabel Laten
• Tidak dapat langsung terukur
• Misal: sikap, hasil belajar, … (konstruk)
Pengukuran Variabel Laten
• Melalui padanan variabel manifes yang
sesuai
• Misal: hasil belajar melalui hasil ujian,
sikap melalui hasil iuesioner
• Masalah: kecocokan (validitas) di antara
keduanya
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
7. Struktur Rumusan Masalah
• Rumusan masalah harus jelas sehingga
mungkin terjawab
• Rumusan masalah mengaitkan variabel yang
secara pengertian variabel (konsep, konstruk)
memang tidak terkait
• Ini berarti bahwa kaitan di antara variabel
terjadi karena hakikat ilmu dan bukan karena
kosep
• Perangkat masalah dapat terdiri atas satu
atau lebih rumusan masalah
• Di dalam satu penelitian, apabila terdapat
lebih dari satu rumusan masalah, maka
mereka harus merupakan satu kesatuan yang
ketat
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
8. Contoh Rumusan Masalah
• Apakah hasil belajar siswa lebih tinggi pada
cara mengajar direktif daripada cara mengajar
nondirektif? (orde 2)
• Apakah terdapat perbedaan kecepatan olah
data di antara quicksort dan bubblesort? (orde
2)
• Apakah terdapat perbedaan kekuatan
penopangan di antara tiang pancang
pantekan dan cor-coran?
• Apakah ada hubungan di antara harga barang
dengan jumlah pembeli di toko? (orde 3)
• Apakah hubungan emosional ayah dan anak
lelaki berbeda dengan hubungan emosional
ibu dan anak perempuan? (orde 3 dan 2)
Metoda Ilmiah
Masalah
9. Pelengkap Masalah
Latar belakang
• Memberikan alasan mengapa sampai ke
rumusan masalah
• Semua varaibel di dalam rumusan masalah
tercantum di dalam latar belakang, biasanya
dimulai dari Y dan disusul oleh X
• Jangan sampai ada jawaban pasti terhadap
rumusan masalah
Identifikasi masalah
• Menurut Descartes, masalah dipecah ke dalam
bagian-bagian
• Di sini disajikan bagian-bagian masalah apa
saja yang dapat ditemukan pada latar belakang
masalah
Pembatasan masalah
• Membatasi mana saja pada identifikasi
masalah ditetapkan sebagai masalah penelitian
Metoda Ilmiah
Hipotesis
Hipotesis
1. Hakikat
• Merupakan pernyataan ilmiah spekulatif yang
berasal dari hasil pemikiran
• Jika hasil pemikiran ini mengacu kepada
premis (teori, hukum) maka diperoleh hipotesis
deduktif
• Jika hasil pemikiran ini mengacu kepada data
yang ada maka diperoleh hipotesis induktif
• Biasanya hipotesis merupakan jawaban ilmiah
terhadap pertanyaan ilmiah (rumusan masalah)
• Hipotesis disajikan dalam kalimat pernyataan
• Rumusan hipotesis harus cocok dengan
rumusan masalah yang dijawabnya
Metoda Ilmiah
Hipotesis
2. Rumusan Hipotesis dan Rumusan Masalah
• Banyaknya hipotesis adalah sama dengan
banyaknya rumusan masalah (satu rumusan
masalah satu hipotesis)
• Isi hipotesis harus benar merupakan jawaban
yang tepat dari isi rumusan masalah (cocok)
3. Hipotesis Statistika
• Apabila data berbentuk acak atau probabilitas
maka biasanya pengujian hipotesis dilakukan
melalui statistika
• Dalam hal ini, di samping hipotesis penelitian,
disusun juga hipotesis statistika
• Di dalam hipotesis statistika, kita perlu
menentukan parameter statistika mana yang
kita gunakan
Metoda Ilmiah
Hipotesis
4. Contoh Hipotesis
• Hasil belajar siswa lebih tinggi pada cara
mengajar direktif daripada cara mengajar
nondirektif.
• Kecepatan olah data lebih tinggi pada
quicksort daripada bubblesort.
• Tiang pancang pantekan dan cor-coran
sama kekuatan penopangannya.
• Terdapat hubungan negatif di antara harga
barang dengan jumlah pembeli di toko.
• Hubungan emosional ibu dan anak
perempuan lebih besar dari hubungan
emosional ayah dan anak lelaki.
Metoda Ilmiah
Hipotesis
5. Pelengkap Hipotesis
• Hipotesis harus didukung oleh pemikiran
yang kuat (karena juga biaya dan waktu
untuk menguji hipotesis secara empirik
cukup besar)
• Pemikiran yang biasa digunakan untuk
sampai ke hipotesis adalah logika
Silogisme kategoris
Silogisme hipotetik
Silogisme disjunktif
Silogisme alternatif
Inferensi segera
Konversi
Obbersi
• Pemikiran harus cukup meyakinkan
Tidak ada kontradiksi
Tidak melompat ke konklusi (ada syarat
perlu dan syarat cukup)
Tidak bias atau timpang
Metoda Ilmiah
Hipotesis
Contoh: silogisme kategorik
• Masalah: Apakah gaji besar lebih disukai
karyawan daripada gaji kecil?
• Premis mayor: Menurut teori Maslow, manusia
memiliki keperluan hidup yang bertingkat (teori)
• Premis minor: Gaji besar lebih dapat memenuhi
keperluan hidup tingkat lebih tinggi daripada
gaji kecil
• Konklusi: Karyawan lebih menyukai gaji besar
daripada gaji kecil (hipotesis)
Metoda Ilmiah
Hipotesis
Syarat Pemikiran
• Memenuhi syarat logika
• Tidak boleh kontradiksi
• Tidak melompat ke konklusi (penyebab
berbeda belum tentu akibat berbeda)
• Memenuhi syarat perlu dan syarat cukup
• Tidak boleh timpang atau bias (di dalam
perbandingan, keunggulan yang satu
dibandingkan dengan keunggulan yang
lainnya, bukan dengan kelemahannya)
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
Rancangan Pengujian Hipotesis
1. Cakupan
Rancangan pengujian hipotesis secara
empiris mencakup sjumlah komponen,
meliputi
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rancangan prosedur penelitian
Rancangan tempat dan waktu
Rancangan populasi dan sampel
Rancangan alat ukur
Rancangan cara ukur
Rancangan pengumpulan data
Rancangan pengolahan data
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
2. Rancangan Penelitian
Rancangan prosedur, lokasi, dan pelaksana dapat
berbentuk kontinum
Penelitian Lapangan
Peneliti sebagai
Pengamat
Eksperimen
tulen
Peneliti sebagai
Peserta
Penelitian Laboratorium
Observai
naturalistik
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
Kontinum Prosedur
Eksperimen
tulen
Observasi
naturalistik
• Eksperimen tulen memungkinkan manipulasi
sehingga cocok untuk mencari sebab akibat
• Obsevasi naturalistik memungkinan
pengamatan yang tidak terpengaruh oleh
penelitian
• Di antara mereka terdapat berbagai prosedur
lainnya (lihat metodologi penelitian)
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
Faktor Penting pada Prosedur
Validitas internal
• Tidak terjadi kekeliruan karena terjadi
pencemaran di dalam prosedur
Validitas eksternal
• Hasilnya berlaku juga untuk kelompok lain pada
keadaan yang sama
Ceteris paribus
• Jika prosedur memerlukan kelompok berbeda,
maka semua lainnya (ceteris) adalah sama
(paribus) kecuali hal yang sedang menjadi
fokus penelitian
Metoda Penelitian
Rancangan
Kontinum Lokasi
Penelitian
Laboratorium
Penelitian
Lapangan
Penelitian Laboratorium
• Keunggulan: dapat melakukan kontrol terhadap
pengganggu (validitas internal tinggi)
• Kelemahan: hasinya belum tentu berlaku di
lapangan (validitas eksternal rendah)
Penelitian Lapangan
• Keunggulan: cenderung berlaku di lapangan
(validitas eksternal tinggi)
• Kelemahan: kurang dapat melakukan kontrol
terhadap pengganggu (validitas internal
rendah)
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
Kontinum Peranan Peneliti
Peneliti
sebagai
peserta
Peneliti
sebagai
pengamat
Peneliti sebagai peserta
• Dapat merasakan apa yang terjadi, biasanya,
pada penelitian budaya
Peneliti sebagai pengamat
• Dapat melihat secara lebih obyektif apa yang
terjadi, biasanya, pada penelitian ilmu alam dan
ilmu sosial
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
3. Tempat dan Waktu
Tempat
• Kalau hipotesis dapat berlaku umum, pengujian
hipotesis secara empiris berlaku di tempat
terbatas
• Pemilihan tempat menentukan keberlakukan
hasil pengujian hiopotesis secara empiris
Waktu
• Kalau hipotesis dapat berlaku untuk waktu yang
panjang, pengujian hipotesis secara empiris
berlaku pada kurun waktu tertentu
• Panjang waktu pengujian hipotesis secara
empiris berkaitan dengan prosedur penelitian;
berapa lama perlakuan baru efektif, berapa
lama baru perubahan bisa terukur
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
4. Populasi dan Sampel
Atribut dan Subyek
• Penelitian biasanya menyangkut sasaran berupa
atribut dari subyek tertentu (subyek pemilik atribut)
Populasi dan Sampel
• Ada populasi dan sampel atribut (data) dan ada juga
populasi dan sampel subyek (responden)
Populasi
Responden
Sampel
Responden
Penarikan
Sampel
II
Pengukuran
Pengukuran
I
Populasi
Data (sekor)
Penarikan
Sampel
Sampel
Data (sekor)
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
Populasi
• Biasanya tujuan pengujian hipotesis di dalam
penelitian mencari populasi data (atribut)
• Karena atribut dimiliki oleh subyek (responden),
maka dicari juga populasi subyek (responden)
Sampel
• Sebagian dari populasi yang tetapi tetap dapat
mencerminkan ciri pada populasi (representatif,
keterwakilan)
• Ada sejumlah cara untuk menarik sampel yang
representatif (lihat metodologi penelitian)
• Alasan penggunaan sampel: (a) populasi sukar
dicapai semuanya, (b) subyek rusak dalam
prosedur penelitian, jangan sampai seluruh
populasi rusak
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
5. Alat Ukur dan Pengukuran
Pemerolehan
• Gunakan alat ukur yang sudah ada
• Membuat alat ukur sendiri (lihat Konstruksi Alat
Ukur pada Metoda Ujian dan Metoda Survei)
Validitas
• Seberapa jauh hasil ukur (juga alat ukurnya)
cocok dengan apa yang seharusnya diukur
disebut validitas pengukuran
• Catatan: ada banyak istilah validitas, sehingga
perlu jelas validitas mana yang sedang
dibicarakan
Reliabilitas
• Seberapa jauh hasil ukur bisa dipercaya
(termasuk penilainya)
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
Peningkatan Validitas
• Ada tiga jenis validitas: isi, kriteria, konstruk
• Validitas isi dapat diperiksa oleh pakar
• Validitas kriteria (misalnya ujian penerimaan
pengawai sebagai prediktor dan perilaku
pegawai kemudian sebagai kriteria) melalui
korelasi di antara prediktor dan kriteria
• Validitas konstruk (maksud dari atribut yang
abstrak) melalui kecocokan dan perbedaan
dengan referensi yang telah diketahui
• Selanjutnya lihat teori pengukuran
Peningkatan Reliabilitas
• Melalui uji coba ke responden setara
• Menghitung koefisien reliabilitasnya atau
kecocokan penilai (ada banyak rumus)
• Melakukan analisis butir untuk memperbaiki
alat ukur (ada banyak rumus)
• Selanjutnya lihat teori pengukuran
Metoda Ilmiah
Rancangan
Cara Ukur
Cara Ukur
Ada banyak cara untuk menerapkan alat ukur
ke responden, berbentuk ujian atau survei
• Ada sejumlah cara ujian
• Ada sejumlah cara survei
Faktor dalam Pengukuran
• Suasana pengukuran yang baik
• Keterkumpulan hasil ukur (semua, sebagian?)
• Waktu untuk pengumpulan hasil ukur (lama,
cepat?)
• Keterlaksanaan tanggapan (dijawab semua
butir, sebagian?)
• Biaya dan tenaga pelaksanan
Metoda Ilmiah
Pengolahan Data
Pengumpulan dan Pengolahan Data
Pengumpulan data
•
•
•
•
•
•
Melalui pelaksanaan pengukuran
Ada kalanya memerlukan koding
Penyusunan ke dalam bentuk tabel
Pemeriksanaan reliabilitas
Deskripsi responden
Deskripsi data
Pengolahan data
• Data nonprobabilistik: melalui rumus
matematika atau riset operasional
• Data probabilistik (acak): sering melalui
statistika atau riset operasional
Metoda Ilmiah
Pengolahan Data
Pengolahan Data secara Statistika
• Pemeriksaan syarat data (skala, sekor, …)
• Pemeriskaan syarat rumus (normalitas,
homogenitas, linieritas, ortogonalitas)
• Penentuan parameter dan statistik yang paling
memadai
• Penggunaan statistika parametrik atau
nonparametrik
• Penentuan risiko untuk inferensi dari sampel ke
populasi
• Selanjutnya lihat Statistika Terapan
Pembahasan Hasil Pengujian
• Pembahasan tentang makna dari hasil
pengujian hipotesis
• Pengukapan kelemahan yang ada.
Metoda Ilmiah
Publikasi
Jenis Publikasi
• Laporan hasil penelitian
• Seminar ilmiah
• Artikel jurnal ilmiah
Format Publikasi
• Ditentukan oleh lembaga melalui guide lines
• Perlu mempelajari guide lines itu
• Biasanya adalah bagian awal, abstrak, inti isi,
daftar pustaka, lampiran
Bahasa Publikasi
• Bahasa yang benar dan baik
• Bahasa yang konsisten
• Berbentuk esei
Metoda Ilmiah
Publikasi
Tata Tulis
Mengikuti tata tulis yang ditentukan oleh
lembaga
Tata tulis di Amerika Serikat
• Chicago style
• Professional style bergantung kepada jurnal
organisasi profesi seperti APA, MLA, LSA,
CBE, AMA, AIP, IEEE, …
Lembaga di Indonesia banyak menggunakan
tata tulis dari Amerika Serikat ini
Selanjutnya lihat Tata Tulis Ilmiah atau
Pedoman Penulisan Ilmiah
Metoda Ilmiah
Etika
Etika Penelitian
Dampak Penelitian
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dapat melanggar hak privacy
Dapat mencelakakan manusia
Dapat mengganggu tradisi, susila, budaya
Dapat mengganggu masyakarat
Dapat mengganggu lingkungan hidup
Dapat mengganggu lingkungan alam
Dewan Etika
• Di perguruan tinggi ada Dewan Etika
• Penelitian hanya boleh dilakukan setelah
memperoleh persetujuan Dewan Etika
Metoda Ilmiah
Etika
Etika Penulisan (Publikasi)
Mencakup sejumlah larangan
•
•
•
•
Larangan plagiat
Larangan publikasi ganda
Larangan melanggar privacy orang
Larangan mengubah nama dan urutan nama
peneliti