Research and the Sciences Essay

There has long been an ongoing argument Is societal science scientific? Which hail is break off in acquiting lifelike sciences and favorable sciences? It is believed that hypothetico-deductive memory access whitethorn be applicable to the natural sciences piece of music it does non relate whole more or less to the hearty sciences. By analyzing inquiry from distinct levels, this essay presents a judgment that social sciences ar sciences. First of every(prenominal), the concept of seek and science ar given. Secondly, by accepting that social sciences are divergent from natural sciences, the features that position social sciences from natural sciences are summarized. There are many choices of liftes to conduct seek. In the level of philosophy, enquiry approaches could go to inducive approach and deductive approach. Qualitative seek and three-figure look for distinguish each former(a) methodologically. In this essay, the opposite approaches are compared and c ontrasted after a concise interlingual rendition of these concepts. And finally, the question better approach to research in natural sciences and social sciences is conceiveed. query is defined by Join and Keith as seeking done methodical process to add ones knowlight-emitting diodege and, hopefully to others by the stripping of nontrivial and insight (Join and Keith, 1996). Williams defined science as the corps de ballet of knowledge and practices that best reflect and operationalize a critical attitude to the disco very(prenominal) of the world at that moment in time (Williams, 2000 p.26). Basically, sciences can be divided into social sciences and natural sciences. Social sciences study piece world and their behavior, while natural sciences study animal(prenominal) world.The presupposition that natural science is the benchmark of research, in some degree, accounts for why most people associate the backchat research with activities that are substantially removed from dai ly life and which unremarkably take place in a laboratory. And accordingly arises the doubt whether social science is science.A good deal of overlap and unavoidable extra allow be encountered if any attempt is made to review social sciences and natural sciencessystematically (McErlean, 2000). Yet there are still some typical features in which social sciences are different from nature sciences. historically and perhaps intuitively, the natural and the social sciences have been identified by diaphanous subject matters Natural science is a branch of science which deals with the physical world (Pearsall, 1999 P.950), while social science is the scientific study of human society and social kins (Pearsall, 1999 p.1362). Invari might of ceremonys is different in two kinds of sciences. The deflexion lies probably in the number of relevant factors that mustiness be taken into account for explaining or predicting events in the real world(McErlean, 2000).It is agreed that verification is not easy to come by in the social sciences, while it is the brain business in the natural sciences. Measurability of phenomena, whereas physics is clearly onward of all other disciplines. Natural sciences have got constancy of numerical relationship which social sciences has not got. The social sciences deal so close to a mans own everyday experience that they do not accord the respect as natural sciences. The field of natural sciences inescapably higher standards of admission and requirements than the social sciences. On this score, the natural sciences are better than the social sciences (McErlean, 2000). Since social sciences differ from natural sciences in many personal manners, should different approaches be chosen when conducing social science research and natural sciences? This is some other baffling question. Now we will turn to the discussion of deduction and instalment.philosophically the approaches are focexercisingd on the consideration of induction and deducti on, as surface as the relationship between approaches and sciences. Deduction entails the development of a conceptual and theoretical structure prior to its testing through empirical research methods. (Carson et al, 2001 p.11). certainty is the action or process of inducing something (Pearsall, 1999). It is learning by reflecting upon particular erstwhile(prenominal) experiences and through the formulation of abstract concepts, theories and generalizations that explain past and predict future experience (Gill and Johnson, 2002). conclusion and deduction approaches are different in many aspects. They are best utilize in different stages of Learning Cycle. When learning takes place, the difference between deductive and inductive approach is that one startswith theory which tested through observation while the other starts with observation and tries to create theory (Gill and Johnson, 2002). Localization of Induction differs from that of deduction (Carson et al, 2001 P12). Inductio n dexterity prevent the researcher benefiting from existing theory, while deduction might prevent the development of new and useful theory. In contrast to the deductive tradition, theory is the outcome of induction (Carson et al, 2001 P12). The time needed for induction is lots prolonged than deduction B Deductive research is normally realistic to predict accurately the time schedules, it is quicker to complete, though the time must be devoted to set up the study prior to info collection and analysis. Deduction and induction carry unequal risk. The deductive approach can be a lower-risk strategy, albeit there are risks like the non-return of questionnaires.With induction it is quite possible that no useful data patterns and theory will not emerge. The effect of deduction or induction is relevant to the ability of researcher. The way one thinks active the development of knowledge affects, unwittingly, the way he goes about doing research (Saunders et al, 2000). So it is more app ropriate to adopt the inductive approach if the researcher is particularly interested in understanding why something is happening rather than describe what is happening, Inductive designs begin with specific observations and manakin toward general patterns. This is different to the hypothetical-deductive approach of experimental designs that require the specification of of import variables and the statement of specific research hypotheses before data collection begins (Pattern, 1987).Saunders et al (2000) has shown the main differences between deductive and inductive approaches as can be seen in diagram 1.The blending of Induction and Deduction are preferable in conducting a research. In deductive argument, conclusion follows logically from the premises, while inductive argument, in which the premises support the conclusion exactly do not guarantee it (Rosenberg, 2000). It seems that deductive is more impressive than inductive. not whole because it is more highly structured and more appropriate for people who are inexperienced in research matters but also because it is the basis of frequently knowledge thatthey do have of the subject (Walley, 2002), But the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. They are better at doing different things. So the balance of twain approaches in the same research project is preferable. Not only is it perfectly possible to combine approaches with the same piece of research, but also in human beings experience it is very much advantageous to do so (Saunders et al, 2000).For example Sadie decided to conduct a research project on violence at work and its do on the stress levels of staff. She considered the different ways she would approach the work were she to adopt, the deductive approach and the inductive approach. If she decided to adopt a deductive approach, She should order the stress responses of the staff. On the other hand, if she decided to adopt an inductive approach she may have decided to interview some staff s who had been subjected to violence at work. She may have been interested in their feelings about the events that they had experienced, how they coped with the lines they experienced and their views about the possible causes of the violence (Saunders et al, 2000). In order to gain more spatiotemporal results, it is better to combine both approaches.Diagram 1 Emphasizes of Deduction and InductionDeduction emphasizesInduction emphasizesScientific principlesGaining an understanding of the meanings humans attach to eventsFrom theory to dataFrom observation to theoryThe collection of quantitative dataThe collection of soft dataThe screening of controls to ensure validity of dataResearcher is part of the research processEnsure uncloudedness of definitionLess need generalizeHighly structured approachMore flexible structure to permission changes ofresearch furiousnessResearcher independence of what is being researchedDependent researcher allot samples of sufficient sizeSaunders et a l (2000 p.91)Researcher may use a variety of methodology to conduct research. It is said that the concept of induction oft is applied to qualitative research (Strauss and Corbin, 1998 p.136) while deduction is applied to quantitative research. Qualitative research is so called because its accent mark lies in producing data which is mysterious in insight, understanding, explanation and depth of information, but which cannot be justified statistically (Crouch, 1985). Qualitative research usually produces descriptions, explanations and reasons (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). It seeks to answer how and why type questions (Walley, 1995). The strengths of qualitative research derive from its inductive approach, its focus on specific situations or people, and its emphasis on words rather than numbers (Maxwell, 1996).It may embroil statistics but it is not based on statistical significance. It is characterized by the use of group discussions, personal interviews, projective techniques and n on-probability sampling (Walley, 1995) .The usefulness of qualitative research depends very much on the skills of the researcher (Gill and Johnson, 2002). Qualitative methods are particularly orient toward exploration, discovery, and inductive logic. Walley (2002) cited Proctor (1997) as Quantitative research that primarily research concerned with eliciting information which has statistical significance. Its focus is on quantification of phenomena sampling and broad scales postal questionnaires. The quantitative data identify areas of focus whist the qualitative data give substance to those areas of focus.Whereas qualitative data can tack flesh on the bones of quantitative results, brining the results to life through in-depth model elaborations (Patton, 1987). The patterns displayed in quantitative research can be enriched with the addition of qualitative information (Gill and Johnson, 2002). Thequalitative should direct the quantitative feedback into the qualitative in a circul ar (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).Thus, recent developments in the evaluation profession have led to multiple methods including combinations of qualitative and quantitative data. Some evaluation questions are resolved deductively while others are left sufficiently open to permit inductive analyses based on direct observations. Indeed, there is often a emanate from inductive approaches to find out what the important questions and variables are, to deductive hypotheses-testing aimed at confident(p) exploratory findings, then back again to inductive analysis to way for rival hypotheses and unanticipated or unmeasured factors (Patton, 1987).Sayre believed that qualitative methods are chosed because of its emphasis on progresses and meanings while quantitative methods are utilized because they substantiate. actually both methodologies are combined to provide a comprehensive approach to problem solving (Sayre, 2001).The relation between qualitative research and quantitative research are clearly showed below in the diagram 2.Diagram 2 qualitative research and quantitative researchQualitative researchQuantitative research fibre of questions ProbingNon-probingSample sizeSmallLargeInformation per respondentMuchVariesAdministrationRequires interviewer with special skillsFewer special skills requiredType of analysisSubjective, interpretativeStatistical ironware requiredTape recorders, projection devices, discussion guidesreplicationDifficultEasyResearcher training necessaryPsychology, sociology, social psychology, consumer behaviour, marketing, marketing research Statistics, decision models. decision-support systems, computer programming, marketing, marketing researchType of researchexploratoryDescriptive or causativeProctor (2000)In conclusion, the differences between social sciences and natural sciences have been discussed, and the approaches and methods used in conducting both sciences have been compared and contrasted.Social sciences and natural sciences are essent ially different in many ways, yet social sciences are, beyond all doubt, scientific too. From the view of philosophy, there are inductive research and deductive research. The deductive approach is probably more impressive. Methodologically quantitative research differs from qualitative research. Each approach has its unique advantages and disadvantages.It would be easy to twilight into the trap of thinking that one research approach is better than another. Actually they are better in different situations, depending on where the research emphasis lies. It is encouraged to think in a more flexible way about the research approaches and methods adopted. Yet the best policy in conducting research is to blend approaches.So, it is clear that social sciences are sciences likewise as natural sciences. Adopted appropriately, the methodological approach of natural science can be used to study the social world (Williams, 2000). One approach cannot thusly be considered to be better than another in conductingresearch in both natural sciences and social sciences. So it is high time to lug arguing about whether social sciences are science or not. Alternatively, to consider which approach is preferable or how to blend them together is what deserves thinking when a research is conducted.ReferenceBancroft, G and Osullivan, G.(1993)Quantitative Methods For Accounting and channel Studies .3rded.BerkshireMcGRAW-HILL reserve Company Europe.Carson, D. Gilmore, A. Perry, C. Gronhang, K(2001)Qualitative marketing Research. London sharp publications.Gill, J. and Johnson, P.(2002)Research methods for managers .3rd.ed.LondonSage Publications LtdGreenfield, T.(2002).Research Methods For Postgraduates. 2nded. London Arnold.Sharp, J. A. and Howard, K (1996). The Management of a Student Research Project 2nd.ed AldershotGower Publishing Limited.Maxwell, J.A. (1996)Qualitative Research Design-an interactive approach. London Sage PublicationsMcerlean, J.(2000).Philosophy of acquaintance-F rom Foundations to Contemporary Issues. London Routledge.Papineau, D.eds.(1996).The Philosophy of Science Oxford Oxford University Press.Patton, M .Q (1987). How To Use Qualitative Methods In Evaluation. London Sage PublicationsPearsall, J. eds.(1999).Oxford dictionary. Oxford Oxford university press.Proctor, T. (2000)Essentials of Marketing Research.2nd.ed.LondonFinancial Times prentice HallRobson, S. and Foster, A. (1989) Qualitative Research in Action London Great Britain.Rosenberg, A.(2000).Philosophy of ScienceAcontemporary Introduction.LondonRoutledge.Saunders, M Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000). Research Methods for Business Students. 2nd.ed Harlow Financial Times Prentice Hall.Sayre, S. (2001) Qualitative methods for Marketplace Research. London Sage publications.Strauss, A and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research. London Sage Publications, Inc.Walley, K. (1995) Qualitative Research-Discussion Paper. Newport harper Adams Agricultural College.Walley, K. (2002) R esearch Methods For The Agrifood Industry. Newport Harper Adams University College.Williams, M. (2000).Science and social science-An introduction. London Routledge.