RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE
There are many different kinds of knowledge, of which scientific knowledge is one. Social research is intended to create scientific knowledge. It differs from other kinds of knowledge. It tells us about the empirical world, the world accessible to our immediate senses—what we can see, hear, and touch. It does not tell us about aspects of the world other than what empirically is. Religion, philosophy, and ethics tell us about what we can believe regarding spiritual and moral things. These are different kind of knowledge. Scientific research tells us about knowledge based of facts. The others tell us about knowledge based on faith, intuition, logic, or revelation. This section will tell us how we recognize research knowledge, what its limitations are, and what strengths it has compared to other types of knowledge.
Research knowledge differs from other kinds of knowledge in that it is empirical, objective, systematic, and falsifiable. It also has a commitment to accepting the simplest explanation of facts where there is more than one explanation.
Research knowledge is based on empirical evidence. Something is a research fact only if there is empirical evidence supporting it. Such evidence is directly accessible to our senses. It must be seen, touched, heard, or tasted. Different kinds of knowledge may rest on different kinds of evidence; but scientific knowledge requires the evidence must be empirical.
The existence of empirical evidence supporting scientific knowledge does not mean that the knowledge is “proven.” It means that the best available information is consistent with it; but there is always the possibility that new evidence might falsify it.
Researchers are supposed to be objective. This means that they allow the findings to determine what conclusions they reach. They do not select just those findings consistent with their own beliefs and reject findings that disagree with their beliefs. If the findings disagree with their beliefs, objectivity requires reporting the contrary findings and rejecting one’s belief.
Objectivity does not mean that researchers have no values and make no value judgments. Values inform the assessment of how important findings are thought to be. They also may direct a researcher to proceed in one line of research, rather than in another. The objectivity comes in when a researcher chooses a method or decides on the factual conclusions of a research study. A researcher may not choose a method that is biased in favor of the conclusion he or she believes to be true, nor may one select only those findings consistent with their beliefs and ignore opposing findings.
Research follows standard procedures that are applied to all subjects. The same procedure must be applied to all subjects. Where different interventions are applied to different groups, the same intervention must be applied to all members of a group. Interviews must follow a standard interview schedule. Questionnaires must ask the same questions. Observations must look for the same behaviors on different occasions of observing.
A systematic procedure implies that the procedure can be reproduced by others. It shouldn’t matter who uses the procedure. Everyone who uses it in the same way should get the same results. If the results differ, then one of three things is the case: 1) the procedure is defective, 2) the procedure was not used in the same way, or 3) there are other factors interacting with the variables under study to produce different results in different groups.
Research knowledge is potentially falsifiable. It must be possible, in principle, to demonstrate that a statement of finding was not true using empirical evidence. The research must not be designed in such a way that the findings will always support a given hypothesis or give the same answer to the research question. If you cannot design research that would falsify an hypothesis or give a different answer to a research question when the hypothesis is false or the answer is different, then there is no falsifiability.
If research is designed so that the results can always be interpreted as supporting an hypothesis, then it fails the test of falsifiability. If research will only lead to one answer to a research question, no matter what the results are, that fails to be falsifiable. The research is not valid scientific research.
SIMPLICITY
When a researcher is faced with competing explanations for an event, he or she is supposed to accept the simpler of the explanations. This is sometimes referred to as “Ockham’s Razor.” You reduce explanations to the smallest, simplest explanation that will be consistent with the data. You don’t accept a more complicated explanation when a simpler one will suffice.
This doesn’t mean that a more complex explanation is always wrong. Sometimes the more complicated explanation is correct. However, a more complicated explanation can only be accepted as scientific knowledge if it explains substantially more that what a simpler explanation would. If a simple explanation will do, it must be accepted until a preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that more is going on and that a more complex explanation is required.
© 2005 William M. Holmes