Scientific Research: Characteristics, Types and Methods

SCIENCE AND COMMON SENSE

Many a time we make certain statements which we have not to prove chat they are true. They are based either on common sense or on prac­tical observations and experiences on social life, though sometimes they may be based on wisdom too. However, often they are based on igno­rance, prejudices and mistaken interpretation. Common sense know­ledge, based on the accumulated experiences, prejudices and beliefs of the people, is often contradictory and inconsistent. On the other hand, scientific observations arc based on verifiable evidence or systematic body of proof that can be cited. For example,, some common sense statmenets may be quoted here: man is more intelligent than women married people; remain more happy than single people; high-caste peo­ple arc more talented than low-caste people; the rural people are more hardworking than the urban people; urban people are more Congress-oriented than BJP-onented; and die like. Contrary to this, the scientific research or scientific inquiry finds that woman is as intelli­gent as man; there is no association between happiness and remaining married or unmarried by a person; caste does not determine individual's efficiency; hard work Is not related to environment alone; and urban people arc not necessarily Congress-oriented. Thus, a statement made way of saying something, generally based on ignorance, bias, prejudice or mistaken interpretation, though occasionally it may be wise, true, and a useful bit of knowledge. At one time, common sense statements might have preserved folk wisdom but today, scientific method has become a common way of seeking truths about our social world.

Conant ("Science and Common Sense", 1951, quoted by Fred. N. Kerlinger in Foundations of Behavioural Research, 1964:4) has differen­tiated science and common sense in the following five ways:

 (i) Use of conceptual schemes

Though conceptual schemes are used in both science and common sense but in common sense, the man in the street uses them in a loose fashion while the scientist systematically builds his conceptual and theoretical structures and tests them for consistency. For example, on a common sense basis, a person's birth in a Dalit caste is described as a result of his past karmas, the death of a corrupt person's son is thought to be a punishment for his sinfulness, lack of rains is due to displeasing Indra—the rain-god—and so forth. The scientist describes such con­ceptual ideas and feelings as having no relation to reality.

(ii) Empirical tests

The scientist tests his hypotheses and theories through a systematic empirical testing but the man in the street tests his so-called hypothe­ses and theories in a selective way. He often 'selects' evidence simply because it suits his hypotheses. For example, in the past, a common man's belief in India was that all untouchables are dirty, lethargic and superstitious. He 'verified' his belief by noting that all untouchables are so and described those who were not so as 'exceptions'. The so­phisticated social scientist rejects such 'selective tendency'. Instead of giving an armchair explanation of a relationship, he believes in 'test­ing' the relationship in the field/laboratory.

(Hi) Notion of control

In scientific research, 'control' means focusing on those variables that are hypothesised to be the 'causes and ruling out those that are 'possi­ble causes' of the effects on the phenomenon under study. The layman seldom bothers to control any variables or extraneous sources of influ­ence. He accepts all those factors which are in accord with his preconceptions. For example, if a layman assumes that Inter-commu­nity riots are initiated by anti-social elements, he will talk only of this factor and never bother of other factors like the role of religious fanat­ics, politicians with vested interests, support of 'foreign' elements through cash and weapons, role of 'interested' businessmen, and the like. The scientist, on the other hand, will not discard the role of all these factors but would rather 'control' the study of communal riots in terms of different variables.

(iv) Relations among phenomena

The difference between science and common sense in terms of rela­tions among phenomena is perhaps not so sharp because both talk of relations. However, while the scientist consciously and systematically pursues relations, the layman does not do this. His concern with rela­tions is loose, unsystematic and uncontrolled. He often seizes on the fortuitous occurrence of two phenomena and immediately links them as cause and effect. Take, for example, the relation between crime and punishment. A layman says that punishment controls crime while a scientist says that punishment can make a criminal a more confirmed enemy of society and that rewards also can control crime. Thus, while a scientist would 'test' both relations, a layman would ignore 'reward' factor.

(v) Explanation of observed phenomena

One main difference between common sense and scientific explana­tion of observed phenomena is that the scientist carefully rules out philosophical and metaphysical explanations in explaining relations among the observed phenomena because these cannot be tested. For example, saying that the poverty of a person is because God wishes it so is talking metaphysically, since this proposition cannot be tested.

All these differences between science and common sense indicate -that a scientist gives statements and propositions which can be empiri­cally verified but a layman does not believe in testing and validity. In short, the method of science is different from the methods of intuition (accepted by the a priorist because it is agreeable to reason if not with experience) or tenacity (fact is true because it is known to be true and the repetition enhances its validity).

EMPIRICISM (POSITIVISM) v/s PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

The study of society and social phenomena till the middle of the nine- teenth century was made mostly on the basis of speculation, logic, theological thinking and rational analysis. August Comte, a French philosopher, described these methods inadequate and insufficient in the study of social life. In 1848, he proposed positive method in the field of social research. He maintained that social phenomena should be studied not through logics or theological principles or metaphysical theories but rather in society itself and in the structure of social rela­tions. For example, he explained poverty in terms of the social forces that dominate society. He described this method of study as scientific. Comte considered scientific method, called positivism, as the most ap­propriate tool of social research. This new methodology rejected speculation and philosophical approach and focused on gathering of empirical data and becamepositi-vistic methodology, using similar meth­ods as employed by natural sciences. By the 1930s, positivism came to flourish in the USA and gradually other countries also followed the trend.

Comte's positivism (that knowledge can be derived only from sensory experience) was criticised both from within and outside the positivist domain. Within positivism, a branch called lay ad positivism was developed in early twentieth century which claimed that science is both logical and also based on observable facts and that the truth of any statement lies in its verification through sensory experience. Out­side positivism developed schools of thought like symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethno methodology, tic. These schools questioned the positivist methodology and its perception of social reality.

Frankfurt and Marxist schools also sharply criticised positivism. But empiricism came to be accepted more in the 1950s and 1960s on­wards by the academics. Today some writers refer to ihe emergence of a new stage of research, ike.post-empiricist research marked by the no­tion that the scientific method is not the only source of knowledge, truth and validity (Sarantakos, Social Research, 1998:5). Thus, today, sociological methodology is no longer based on positivist methodol­ogy as In the past but it has become a body of diverse methods and techniques, all of which are perceived as valid and legitimate in social research.

We have thus today two approaches to social science research: the scientific empirical method and the naturalistic phenomenological method (Robert B. Burns, Introduction to Research, 4th ed., 2000:3). In the former, quantitative research methods are employed in an attempt to establish general laws or principles. This approach, also termed as nomotbetic, -assumes that social reality is objective and external to the individual. The latter approach to research emphasises the importance of the subjective experience of individuals, with a focus on qualitative analysis. It regards social reality as a creation of individual conscious- ness, with evaluation of events seen as a personal and subjective con­struction. This approach {with focus on individual case rather than general law-making) is termed as ideographic approach.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH OR SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN CONDUCTING RESEARCH

The first question is» what is research? Research is a careful and ex­haustive investigation of a phenomenon with an objective of advancing knowledge. 'According to Theodorson and Theodorson (1969:347), "it is a systematic and objective attempt to study a prob­lem for the purpose of deriving general principles". Robert Burns (2000:3) describes it as a systematic investigation to find solutions to a problem. The investigation is guided by previously collected informa-don. Man's knowledge grows by studying what is already known and revising past knowledge in the light of new findings. Activity under­taken for the purpose of personal learning or enlightenment or any causal investigation is not research.

While talking of research, sometimes we talk of empirical (scien­tific) research and sometimes of library research, historical research, social research, and so on. Empirical research involves observation of facts or interaction with people. Library research is done in library situation. Historical research is the study of history (e.g., functioning of caste system in different periods of history) or biographical research (e.g., research into the life and times of Mahatma Gandhi). Social re­search is a research that focuses on the study of human groups or the processes of social interaction. Scientific research is building of knowl­edge through collection of empirically verifiable facts. The term 'verifiable' here means "which can be checked by others for accu­racy". KerHnger (op.cit., 1964:13) has def in ed~ scientific research as "a systematic, controlled, empirical and- critical investigation of hypo­etical propositions about the presumed relations among phenomena". Three points that have been emphasised here are: (i) it is systematic and controlled, i.e., the investigation is so ordered that inves­tigators can have confidence in research outcomes. In other words, the research situation Js tightly disciplined; (ii) investigation is empirical, i.e., subjective belief is checked against objective reality; and (iii) it is critical, i.e., the researcher is critical not only of the results of his own inquiry but of the research results of others too. Though it is easy to err, to exaggerate, to over- generalise when writing up one's own work, it is not easy to escape the feeling of scientific eyes of others.

Royce A. Singleton and Bruce C. Straits (Approaches to Social Re­search, 1999:1) have said that "scientific social research consists of the process of formulating and seeking answers to questions about the so­cial world". For example, why do husbands batter their wives? Why do people take drugs? What are the consequences of population explo­sion? and so on. Similarly, the issues of inquiry may be of rural poverty, urban slums, youth crime, political corruption, exploitation / of the weak, environmental pollution, and the like. To answer these /        questions, social scientists have devised basic guidelines, principles and techniques. Scientific social research thus investigates any curiosity about social phenomena, utilising scientific method. Scientific socio­logical research, broadly speaking, is concerned with discovering, organising and developing systematic reliable knowledge about soci-¹ety or social life, social action, social behaviour, social relations, social Groups (like families, castes, tribes, communities, etc.), social organisa­tions (like social, religious, political, business, etc.), and social systems and social structures.

Theodorson and Theodorson (1969:370) have maintained that sci­entific method is "building of a body of scientific knowledge through observation, experimentation, generalisation and verification". Their contention is that scientific inquiry develops knowledge experienced through the senses, i.e., which is based on empirical evidence. Accord-,ing to Manheim (1994:77),  scientific research involves  a method / characterised by objectivity, accuracy and systematisation. Objectivity eliminates biases in fact-collect ion and .interpretation: Accuracy makes sure that things are exactly as described. Systematisation aims at con­sistency and comprehension.

The assumption is that any statement pertaining to any social phe­nomenon made on the basis of scientific inquiry can be accepted as true and meaningful, if it is empirically verifiable. Thus, individual's idiosyncratic observations not shared by all scientists are not regarded as "scientific facts'. For example, a statement that "skilled workers arc more indisciplined than non-skilled workers" lacks empirical validity; / hence no one will accept it as a 'scientific fact'. But,  { a statement is /          given that "the important cause of child's delmquen   behaviour is a disorganised family", it will be taken as scientific, onsidering it a proposition which has been found valid in a number of studies. "About whom" the facts will be collected in a scient fie inquiry will depend upon the 'focus of the discipline' to which the researcher be­longs. If the researcher is a sociologist, he will collect facts about social phenomena or social world. But if he is a student of business admini­stration (MBA), he will collect facts pertaining to "different aspects of business like finance, marketing, personnel, and the process that facili­tates the managerial decision-making and problem-solving". In sociology, social inquiry will help the researcher and the people to un­derstand the social phenomenon (say, a social problem like / exploitation of the weak? poverty, political corruption, etc., or the structure of political parties, or the functioning of political elite, or so­cial institutions in a village community, and so on), or to understand why the behaviour of an individual in a group (crowd) is different from the one when he is in isolation (crowd behaviour) or how the be­haviour patterns of a number of persons change when they respond to a common stimulus (collective behaviour), or why and how ihe pat­terns of interaction within a small group or of interrelationships of sion processes (group dynamics).

In business administration, according to Zikmund (1984:56-57), the scientific inquiry will help managers to clarify their objectives and decisions. For example, a manager of an organisation wants to find out why has the morale of the subordinates decided? Is it because the overtime has been totally stopped or the employees for higher posts are directly recruited and the serving employees have no opportunities for seeking higher posts, or the employer has developed the tendency of appointing persons on contract basis, or the credit facility provided earlier by the organisation has been stopped, or the profits are not be­ing shared by the employer with the employees, or the employer has refused to provide housing facilities even to senior employees, and so forth. Thus, while the major areas of inquiry/research for a sociolo- mg, personnel, sales and marketing (advertising, buyer's behaviour), responsibility (legal, constraints) and general business (i.e., location, trend, import and export, etc).

Although scientific research method depends on the collection of empirical facts, yet facts alone do not constitute a science. For mean­ingful understanding facts must be ordered in some fashion, analysed, generalised, and related to other facts. Thus, theory construction is a vital part of the scientific inquiry.

Since facts collected and findings evolved through the scientific method are interrelated with the previous findings of other scholars or earlier theories, scientific knowledge is a cumulative process.

The scientific method could either be an inductive method or the deductive method. Inductive method involves establishing gencralisa-tio'ns, i.e., building generalisations inferred from specific facis, or drawing particular principles from general instances, while deductive method involves testing generalisations, i.e., it is the process of reason-. ing from general principles to particular instances.

Research and theory are not opposed to each other. Research leads to theory and theory to research. In fact, descriptive research leads to explanatory research which leads to theoretical research.

According to Singleton and Straits (op. cit.: 5-9), there are four re­search strategies for understanding the social world: {1} experiments (2) surveys, (3} field research, and (4) use of available data. Experimen­tal research offers the best approach for investigating the causes of phenomena. In the experiment, the researcher systematically manipu­lates some feature of the environment and then observes whether a systematic change follows in the behaviour under study. Survey re­search involves the administration of questionnaires or interviewing relatively large groups of people. Field research is engaging oneself in naturally occurring set of events in order to gain firsthand knowledge of the situation. The available data are the data that have been gener­ated for purposes other than those for which the researcher is using them, e.g., written records, newspapers, government documents, books, diaries, etc.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Horton and Hunt have given following nine characteristics (1984:4-7) of scientific method:

·        Verifiable evidence,  i.e., factual  observations which other ob­servers can see and check.

·        Accuracy, i.e., describing what really exists. It means truth or cor­rectness of a statement or describing things exactly as they are and avoiding jumping to unwarranted conclusions either by exaggera­tion or fantasising.

·        Precision, i.e., making it as exact as necessary, or giving exact num­ber or measurement, Instead of saying, "I interviewed a large number of people", one says, "I interviewed 493 persons". Instead of saying, "most of the people were against family planning", one -says, "seventy two per cent people were against family planning". Instead of saying, "every moment one is born; every moment dies a man", one says, "thirty persons are born in one minute in In-dia". Thus, in scientific precision, one avoids colourful literature and vngue meanings. How much precision is needed in social sci­ence will depend upon what the situation requires.

·        Systematisation, i.e.,¹ attempting to find all the relevant data, or collecting data in a systematic and organised way so that the con­clusions drawn are reliable. Data based on casual recollections are generally incomplete and give unreliable judgements and conclu­sions.

·        Objectivity, i.e., being free from all biases and vested interests. It means, observation is unaffected by ihe observer's values, beliefs and preferences to the extent possible and he is able to see and ac­cept facts as they are, not as he might wish them to be. The researcher remains detached from his emotions, prejudices and needs, and guards his biases. A bias is an unconscious tendency to see facts in a certain way because of one's wishes, interests and val­ues. For example, the protest demonstration of students in _a university may be perceived by some as a logical effort for the welfare of the students while others may see it as a misguided method of getting the grievances mitigated. The researcher who wants to see it objectively will present all facts and views of stu­dents, teachers, administrators, etc. He will neither attempt to overlook some facts deliberately nor emphasise some other facts, as he himself will not be emotionally involved in the situation. He will make conscious effort to be accurate in information he col­lects or what he hears and sees. As an objective researcher, he will have no vested interest in reporting and analysing facts. The re­searcher is also conscious of the fact that others with a different point of view can check and criticise his analysis. Being afraid of shoddy exposure of his research, he will not permit his biases to affect his results and conclusions.

·        Recording, i.e., jotting down complete details as quickly as possi­ble.  Since human  memory  is  fallible,  all  data collected   are recorded. Researcher wil] not depend on the recalled facts but will analyse the problem on the basis of the recorded data. Conclu­sions based on recalled unrecorded data are not trustworthy.

·        Controlling conditions, i.e., controlling all variables except one and then attempting to examine what happens when that variable is varied. This is the basic technique in all scientific experimenta­tion allowing one variable to vary while holding all other variables constant. Unless all variables except one have been con­trolled, we cannot be sure which variable has produced the results. Though a physical scientist is able to control as many vari­ables as he wishes in an experiment he conducts in the laboratory (say, heat, light, air pressure, time interval, etc.) but a social scien­tist cannot control all variables as he wishes. He functions under many constraints. For instance, a researcher wants to study the behaviour of students in a classroom. Now, students' behaviour in a classroom depends upon several factors, like efficiency of the teacher of communicating his views, subject  which  is  being taught, availability of black-board, fan, etc., in the room, quiet­ness in the verandah outside the classroom, and so forth. A researcher may be able to control some of these variables but not all. Varying conditions will be responsible for varying behaviour of the students. It is, however, possible for a researcher in social science to work with two or more variables at a time. It is called multivariate analysis. Since the social scientist is not always able to control all the variables he wants, his conclusions do not permit him to predict.

·        Training investigators, i.e., imparting necessary knowledge to in­vestigators to make them understand what to look for, how to interpret it and avoid inaccurate data collection. When some re­markable observations are reported, the scientist first tries to know what is the observer's level of education, training and so­phistication? Does he really understand facts he reports? The scientists are always impressed by authenticated reports.

All above characteristics of scientific method point out that any generalisation based on this type of investigation is true. A systemati­cally collected body of scientific evidence is rarely challenged. No wonder, Zikmund has also said that the data collected haphazardly can not be described as scientific inquiry.

Henry Johnson has stated following four characteristics of scien­tific research (see, Black and Champion, 1960: 5-6):

1. It is empirical, i.e., it is based on observation and reasoning and not on speculation.

2.   It is theoretical, i.e.^it summarises data precisely giving logical rela­tionship between propositions which explain causal relationship.

3.   It is cumulative, i.e., generalisations/theories are corrected, re­jected and newly developed theories are built upon one another.

4. It is non-ethical, i.e., scientists do not say whether particular things /events/phenomeifc/instituiions/systems/structures are good or bad. They only explain them.

Robert B. Burns (2000:5-7) has discussed four characteristics of sci­entific approach: control, operational definition, replication and hypothesis testing.

Control is necessary to eliminate the simultaneous influence of many variables to isolate the cause of an effect. Control provides un­ambiguous answers to why something happens, what causes some event or under what conditions an event does occur.

Operational definition means that the terms must be defined in terms of steps to measure them; e.g., economic class may be defined by family income, and social class by father's occupation or both parents' educational level.

Replication means that for repeated study, the data obtained must be reliable. If observations are not repeatable, our descriptions and ex­planations are unreliable and useless.

Hypothesis testing means that the researcher 'systematically creates a hypothesis and subjects it to empirical test.

AIMS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH

The alms of social research coincide with the type of research, i.e., whether it is exploratory research or explanatory research or descrip­tive research. In other words, it depends upon the general goals (understanding for its own sake), the academic goals, the theoretical goals and the pragmatic goals of research. Broadly speaking, the im­portant aims of social research are:

•     To understand the functioning of society.

•     To study individual behaviour and social action.

•     To evaluate social problems, their effects on society, and to find out possible

       solutions.

•     To explore social reality and explain social life.

•     To develop theories.

      Becker (1989) and Sarantakos (1998:16) have referred to the fol­lowing goals

       of social research:

•      General goals: Understanding for its own sake.

•      Theoretical goals: Verification, falsification, modification or dis­covery of a

       theory.

•     Pragmatic goals: Solution of social problems.

•     Political goals: Development of social policy, evaluation of pro-

      liberation.

Sometimes the aims of social research coincide with the motives of social research but not always. The motives can be intrinsic (i.e., re­lated to personal interests of the researcher) or extrinsic (i.e., related to the interests of those contracting the research). Mahr (1995:84) has outlined the following motives of social research:

•     Educational: to educate and inform the public. -

•     Personal: to promote the academic status of the researcher.

•     Institutional: to enhance the research quantum of the institutions for which the

       Researcher works.

•     Political: to provide support to political plans and programmes.

•      Tactical: to delay decision or action for as long as the investigation is under

        Way.

STEPS IN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

According to Theodorson and Theodorson (1969:370-371), scientific method involves the following steps: First, the problem is defined. Sec­ond, the problem is stated in terms of a particular theoretical framework and related to relevant findings of previous research. Third, a hypothesis (or hypotheses) relating to the problem is devised, utilising previously accepted theoretical principles. Fourth, the proce­dure to be used in gathering data to test the hypothesis is determined. Fifth, the data are gathered. Sixth, the data are analysed to determine if the hypothesis is verified or rejected. Finally, the conclusions of the study are related to the original body of theory, which is modified in accordance with the new findings.

Kenneth D. Bailey (Methods of Social Research, 2nd ed., 1982:9) has delineated five stages of social research: (l) choosing the research prob­lem and stating the hypotheses; (2) formulating the research design; (3) gathering the data; (4) analysing the data; and (5) interpreting the re­sults so as to test the hypotheses. We concede Bailey's view that each research problem has a goal but is it necessary that the goal be stated in terms of hypotheses? Many researches have no hypotheses to test but the findings provide knowledge to the researchers to throw some hypotheses to be tested and generalised, or to revise the hypotheses propounded on the basis of some i. arlier work done by some other re­searcher.

A problem cannot be formulated in a vacuum. It is either based upon past research or on relationship observed/conceived between and polarisation of two religious communities or sects (see, V.V. Singh, Communal Riots, 1992). The researcher has only to measure two variables of (a) polarisation of comrmmities, and (b) hatred as a negative social effect of polarisation. The researcher has, of course, to focus upon the nature of polarisation, causes of polarisation, conflicts ^ arisen because of mutual hatred on different occasions, the precipitat­ing factor in the riot, role of leader in instigation/suppression of hostile feelings, and so on. Of course, the researcher has to control the extraneous factors that might interfere with the finding, e.g., conflict which cannot be attributed to religious hatred, etc. The hypothesis that "hatred caused by religious polarisation causes aggression" will be supported if people show or do not show dislike for strangers from different religions. The tool for collecting data would depend upon the nature of relationship to be examined between two variables and the type of people involved in the study. Data analysis may sometimes be complicated because more variables may be involved and many confounding factors might affect the relationship between the two given variables, which may not have been properly controlled. Inter­preting the results many a time requires replicating the study either with a new sample or a larger sample to make sure that the finding was not a fluke.

Henry Manheim (1980:80) has suggested nine steps in scientific re­search which may be shown diagrammatically in the following way:

Casual observation of event/phenomenon

wonder/curiosity about how, why, what, etc.

Hypotheses (about relationship between two variables)

Preparing design of research

Data collection, processing analysis and interpretation

determining whether

Hypothesis is true   Hypothesis is false

description/ inference

 

prediction (using inductive process)

 

Practical application

Thus, this is a never-ending aspect of science, with the process constantly being repeated with increasing refinement.

Earl Babbie (The Practice of Social Research, 8th ed., 1998:112) has proposed the following six elements of a research proposal:

•   Problem or objective, i.e., stating what is to be studied, its worth and practical

     significance, and its contribution to the construction of social theories.

•  Literature review, i.e., what¹ others have said about this topic, what theories

    have been addressed to it and what are the flaws in the ex­isting research that can

    be remedied.

•  Subjects for study, i.e., from whom is the data to be collected, how to reach

   persons who are available for study, whether selecting sample will be

    appropriate, and if yes, how to select this sample and how to insure that research

     that is being conducted will not harm the respondents.

• Measurement, i.e., determining key variables for the study, how will these

   variables be defined and measured, how will these defi­nitions and measurements   

    differ from previous researches on the topic.

• Data, collection methods, i.e., determining methods to be used for collecting

   data-survey or experiment, etc _?. statistics to be used or not.

•  Analysis, i.e., spell out the logic of analysis whether variations in some quality

    are to be accounted or not, and the possible explana­tory variables to be analysed.

Horton and Hunt (1984:10) have pointed out eight steps in scien­tific research or scientific method of investigation:

1. Define the problem, which is worth studying through the methods of science.

2. Review literature, so that errors of other research scholars may not be repeated.

3.    FormHlate the hypotheses, i.e., propositions which can be tested,

4.    Plan the research design, i.e., outlining the process as to how, what and where

       the data is to be collected, processed and analysed.

5. Collect the data, i.e., actual collection of facts and information in accordance

    With the research design. Sometimes it may become necessary to change the

     design to meet some unforeseen difficulty.

6. Analyse the data, i.e., classify, tabulate and compare the data, mak­ing whatever

    tests are necessary to get the results.

7. Draw conclusions, i.e., whether the original hypothesis is found true or false

   and is confirmed or rejected, or are the results incon­clusive? What has the

   research added to our knowledge? What implications has it for sociological

    theory? What new questions have been posed for further research?

8. Replicate the study. Though the above-mentioned seven steps com­plete a single research study but research findings are confirmed by replication. Only after several researches can the research con­clusions be accepted as generally true.

These steps help us in summarising the so-called scientific ap­proach to inquiry. First, there is doubt whether an indeterminate situation can be made determinate. The scientist experiences vague doubts and is emotionally disturbed. He struggles to formulate the problem, even if inadequately. He studies the literature and scans his own experience and the experiences of others. With the problem for­mulated, with the basic questions properly asked, he constructs the hypotheses mainly on experimented lines. By collecting the required data, he tests the hypotheses which he may ultimately accept, change, abandon, broaden or narrow down. In this process, sometimes one phase may be expanded, other may be skimped and there may be fewer or more steps involved. These things are not important. What is important is a controlled rational process of reflective inquiry.

Example of a research problem indicating steps

We may take one example to understand the steps in social research as suggested by various scholars. As a first step, we need a research prob­lem. Suppose our problem is "Role Adjustment of Working Women", i.e., how do working women face conflict between the role of a house­holder and that of a wage-earner and how do they adjust themselves in family and office? In fact, this problem covers too many aspects. We need a limited and a specific aspect for research. For this we take the as­pect of assessing: "Do working women suffer professionally by not devoting much time to their work? The review of the literature—the second step—may not provide us much information; yet it is necessary to check whether this theme has been studied by other scholars and what are their findings? One can check from books and journals, in- eluding Sociological Abstracts. This search of literature is extremely im­portant. The third step is to formulate one or more hypotheses. One might be: "Married working women get less promotions than single (unmarried, divorcee) working women." Other might be: "The repu­tation of childless married women of being dedicated and committed workers is much higher than women with two or more children." Planning research design is the fourth step. Ali categories must be de­signed and the variables to be controlled must be decided. We must be sure that the two groups we compare are similar in all important re­spects except marital status or number of children. We must select sources of data, kinds of data sought, and procedures for collecting and processing them. One possibility is that the research is confined to female lecturers in a university, the other possibility is to study female clerks in some office (say secretariat) and so forth. The fifth step is ac­tual collection of data and classifying and processing it. In this age of research, the data are generally made "computer sensible" (prepared for computer processing by assigning codes to various response cate-^ gories, etc.). The computer gives the desired computations and comparisons including data for statistical tests. The sixth step is to ana­lyse data for finding out contrast between the two groups. In this process, sometimes unexpectedly, even some additional hypotheses may be developed. The seventh step is drawing conclusions. Are our hypotheses true or false? What further study is suggested by our re­search? Finally, other researchers will undertake replication studies.

The basic procedure is the same for all scientific inquiries and re­searches. Only techniques may vary according to the problem under study. However, one thing that needs to be remembered is that hy­potheses are not involved in all researches. Some researches may only collect the data and develop hypotheses from the analysis of data. Thus, "anything involving careful objective collecting of verifiable evidence in search for knowledge is scientific research" (Horton and Hunt, op.cit.:12).