Processes of Research by Jonathan Guy

Processes of research by Jonathan Guy

In this essay I will outline the primary methods of conducting research, their advantages and disadvantages and will outline where they are best utilised. In addition to this, I will select certain methods of research that I believe will be applicable to my own dissertation and state why I will use those particular methods to conduct my own research.

The first question we should ask is what is research? John C. Merriam considers research as "a reaching out to bring together, organise and interpret what ever may be added to our store of knowledge...most truly exemplified when it involves the wider relationship of specific facts to the whole structure of knowledge". (C. Merriam, 1941, pg890) In other words, something should be considered research when it adds to what we already know, especially if it does so through adding facts to out structure of knowledge. Obviously, this is but one definition of research, there being much contention over what research actually is, or what should constitute research, however, as a simple definition, this should suffice. This being the cases, what is the purpose of research and what do we gain from it?

Wilson Gee writes in "The Research Spirit" that he believes the purpose of research is to advance the human cause, "it is not strange that the world appraises so highly the research spirit which has led it through the darkness of a past into the light of a present and will still guide it on beyond a golden dawn of a future" (Wilson Gee, 1915, pg 95-98). He believed the primary purpose of research itself was to search for the truth bringing to light new facts as well as reinterpreting old ones. Its purpose with regards to what we have gained from it is visible all around us. If the enlightened few has not proposed and conducted empirical research (people such as D. Hume, I. Kant, C. Darwin, I. Newton etc) of centuries past, if they had not begun "systematic studies of natural phenomena" from which man gained "not only insight into, but a great measure of control over, the physical universe, quite beyond the wildest dreams of the earliest pioneers in these fields" (Wilson Gee, 1950, Pg 179), it is arguable we would still be a religious driven, superstitious backwards people in a feudalist society, never advancing our search for knowledge, happy in our ignorance. To further state its importance, John C. Merriam writes "whatever it may have been considered in the past, research is no longer a plaything or a luxury. It is the fundamental requirement in the advance of civilisation" (Merriam, 1929, 56-57).

Whilst there seems little argument over whether we should conduct research or not, its importance being more than apparent, the question now becomes in what manner should we conduct research and what advantages do certain methods have over others. There are numerous ways of conducting research but the most prominent are the science and scientific methods, the logical methods, the case methods, the statistical methods, and the experimental methods each of which shall now be considered.

First we shall consider the scientific method. There is much debate as to whether social studies can be considered a science on the basis of how it conducts its research but any claims that it is a science are based more or less entirely on the scientific method and rational choice, characterised predominantly by its use of facts and empirical evidence to support its claims with in political "science". Karl Pearson states the scientific method as "The scientific method is marked by the following features: (a) careful and accurate classification of facts and observation of their correlation and sequence; (b) the discovery of scientific laws by aid of the creative imagination (c) self-criticism and the final touch-stone of the equal validity for all normally constituted minds" (Pearson, 1911, 6-78). In other words, the scientific method is one which tries to discover objective facts which are then used to construct a theory whose conclusions hold regardless of the person considering the theory; the theory is external and objective to human interpretation. This approach to research has obvious advantages, namely its objectivity. It cannot be considered bias or subverted due to the theorisers own predispositions or opinions and it should therefore be true of itself; it is not subject to change as it merely categorises a factual state and it provides definitive answers from its research as opposed to just more questions or debatable theories. It does however have a number of disadvantages. It is arguable that the scientific method has no place in political theory as much of it is based in abstract theorising which cannot be objectively proved one way or the other and as such would be dismissed as irrelevant by the scientific methods (which is clearly wrong). Further, unlike in the natural sciences, the scientific method tends to be only descriptive of political science and does not in fact advance it in any way, rather it merely attempts to describe the state it is presently in (for example, it would not predict who will win the next election, but it would say who won the last one). Therefore, the scientific method is best used if we wish the results of our research to return as objective facts, empirically provable and repeatable. Whilst this does not necessarily have a major place in political sociology, it is useful in interpreting quantifiable results that are not statistical in nature.

In addition to the scientific method, we have the similar Logical method. The logical method is based in reasoning and is "the process of inference by which knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, is attained" )Wolf, 1930, pg 15 - 16. The logical method of the research process is effectively the process of formulating and proving a hypothesis based on reasoning and evidence. T. H. Huxley writes "those that refuse to go beyond fact rarely get as far as fact...Almost every great step [ in the development of scientific thought] has been made by the anticipation of nature, that is, by the invention of hypothesis which, though verifiable, often had very little foundation to start with". Effectively, the logical method of research differs from the scientific methods in one very important way, it is inductive rather than deductive. The logical method seeks to hypothesise and theorise about how it believes things are and then seeks evidence to support its theories, the scientific method seeks evidence in order to make its hypothesis. Obviously, there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to this kind of approach to research as well. The logical method allows us to make theoretical