Scientific Research | Methods, Principles & Practices

Introduction

You hear it a lot these days: "I did my own research" and "trust the science." These kinds of statements are powerful in social media because they employ words that carry a credible ring of truth that makes people more likely to put stock in the assertions made when someone claims knowledge that is scientific. Such claims purport to be less opinion or speculation and more fact or rigorous theory.

Everyone has a notion of what science and research are, but what do these words really mean? Science is more than popular perceptions of technology and chemical reactions, and rigorous research is a far cry from the simplistic task of amassing large amounts of information. Often, scientific insight can't be reduced to a meme or a viral video that just reports information. On the contrary, research is meant to be an intentional process of gaining knowledge through carefully collecting information and sorting that information through a rigorous lens to expand understanding in a deliberate manner. This pursuit of scientific knowledge applies to every field of academic interest and involves the intentional synthesis of knowledge to further develop an ordered, systematic, and shared view of the world.

What's the relationship between scientific knowledge and research? What makes for scientific research in the first place? In this article, we'll look at the concept of scientific research in detail, starting with the scientific method, then branch out to other types of research that contributes to scientific knowledge. Exploring this concept more thoroughly will allow researchers to situate their own research inquiries in the broader context of science.

What is scientific research?

Science is the ongoing process of organizing knowledge into a meaningful and ordered fashion to allow us to understand the world and the phenomena within it. Where popular perceptions of science evoke images of engineering marvels and technological applications, science applied broadly expands to all areas that benefit from the development of scientific knowledge. This expansion includes the social sciences and humanities, where research can advance our understanding of interactions between people and the development of cultures and communities. In other words, science isn't merely lasers and medicines; science can also explain aspects of the human experience that a narrow view may not consider scientific.

There was a time, of course, when the word "science" was meant primarily, if not solely, for what is thought of as the "hard" sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, and other such fields. The contemporary view of science that incorporates the social sciences and humanities is a long way from the Scientific Revolution, the start of the modern era that we consider a break from the age of mysticism and faith as the main drivers of human knowledge. Even as the first modern scientists sought to pursue an ordered knowledge, they rejected fields such as metaphysics and philosophy as scientific, situating questions of the mind and spirit as answerable by logical argumentation rather than empirical inquiry.

This narrative persisted through the 20th century and remained prevalent in fields such as anthropology and psychology, whose insights cannot be fully understood through strictly experimental paradigms. In all research disciplines, science is based on evidence, or at least some grounded observation of the world or the different elements within it that allows researchers to predict or explain concepts or phenomena. When a researcher or scientist makes a claim, they do so after rigorously collecting and analyzing data in such a way that the resulting analysis yields insights that contribute to a greater understanding of the topic they are researching.

As a result, the break between the hard sciences and the social sciences has much to do with debates over what constituted rigorously collected data that could be analyzed in a systematic manner. Addressing this divide, more contemporary discussions of transferability and thick description, challenging the notion of universal theories and axioms more often sought for phenomena in physics or chemistry, allowed for the term science to touch on topics of cultures and interpersonal dynamics. As research methods expanded to include more naturalistic approaches such as interviews and observations, the potential for knowledge to be considered scientific spread to inquiries in the social sciences and humanities. This expanded view of science holds significant applications for understanding human interactions and social dynamics, justifying the utility of the pursuit of knowledge in these fields through research.

Assertions or claims without evidence are beliefs, which are perfectly valid in and more indicative of everyday discourse. Think of how often people make claims based on gut feeling, intuition, or even dogmatic faith, whether in contradiction to the prevailing science or in the absence of any empirical research, without sufficient challenge. For better or worse, this is a natural circumstance outside the scientific world. Scientific discourse, on the other hand, makes a clearer distinction in requiring that the construction of knowledge be accompanied by a rigorous reference to empirical data.

That is not to say that unsupported assertions don't belong in scientific discussion. Depending on the field and the paradigms employed, researchers may incorporate hypotheses and predicted outcomes in their research process. In conjunction with careful examination of existing scientific research and research questions, they form the justification for the research that researchers want to conduct. The key role of these claims, however, is to begin the process of scientific inquiry, not to propose an objectively definitive statement about the world, as might be seen in everyday discourse. Such claims can only be considered credible if they are supported by empirically collected data. Without evidence found in this data, a researcher is required to reconsider the claims they make at the outset of a study.

Research is the act of collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing data for the purpose of examining evidence that may shed light on the focal research question. A researcher collects data in a systematic and intentional manner and analyzes the data to determine if it supports the predictions made or comprehensively addresses the research questions posed. As a result, research should certainly not be mistaken for collecting copious amounts of information. After all, data by itself has no meaning without sufficient interpretation through research, and the data collected should reflect the research inquiry pursued. For example, research on cultural practices is seldom conducted in a closed laboratory setting, while research on chemical reactions are best conducted after controlling for other confounding influences that can interfere with the analysis of the results.

Researchers are expected to conduct a thorough literature review to demonstrate their expertise about their object of inquiry. However, how a researcher synthesizes the information they collect to come up with reasonable assertions about relationships between concepts and phenomena is far more important than the quantity of information they have. Instead, what makes science is the intentional organization and synthesis of knowledge following an established methodology. Within the social sciences, these important guiding principles allow us to make sense of otherwise unfamiliar or unpredictable phenomena.

What makes a scientific theory?

In mainstream terms, a theory is a prediction or explanation about a particular phenomenon. When someone has a "theory," they are explaining what will happen or why something has happened. If it is freezing cold outside and the skies are cloudy, someone will likely have the casual theory that there is a chance for snow or sleet in the weather. There is a relationship between different circumstances - the combination of the chill in the air and the clouds in the sky are, at least in our minds, connected to the chance for wintry weather, since we have a lot of previous experience with weather conditions in our area.

This casual understanding of a theory is largely the same in scientific discussions. Scientific theories are formed with the aim of understanding and making predictions about the natural world, the physical world, or the social world. A theory that is considered scientific is supported by empirical evidence and is interconnected with or has some relevance to the larger body of scientific knowledge. This evidence elevates a theory beyond a wild guess or unfounded speculation to an assertion based on existing knowledge. For example, evolution and natural selection are explained by theories that are backed by supporting biological and geological evidence.

Scientific evidence is sought through research that is performed in a rigorous and transparent manner. By requiring evidence, scientific inquiry is less about making a blind guess about what is unknown and more about extrapolating current knowledge built on empirical observations and through methods that are accepted as valid and credible.

Scientific theories should also have relevance to other aspects of knowledge. In other words, knowledge has little value if it has no utility for other knowledge. By necessity, theory construction from a particular study is perpetuated by a synthesis of knowledge that considers and contributes to previous research to create a more unified or broader understanding of the world.

In contrast, theories are seldom, if ever, created in isolation from other theories. For instance, our understanding that the boiling point of water depends on the altitude relative to sea level has connections to the laws of gravity which explain atmospheric pressure. This knowledge further informs theories in chemistry, engineering, and other fields. Even the social sciences can benefit from this knowledge. For example, differences in the boiling point of water can affect the culinary practices of and administration of public services in cultures situated in high-altitude areas. Certainly, the distance between these research areas is vast and seldom traversed in one research inquiry, but this illustrates the potential relevance and utility of disparate theories to each other due to the interconnectedness of systematically developed knowledge.

The last requirement for a theory to be considered scientific is broad acceptance within the scientific community. For the most part, the laws of physics are considered absolute. There are currently no perceived exceptions to the notion that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. However, this is based on a mutual agreement about the definition of those laws. Consensus ensures that everyone in a scientific discussion is on the same page about knowledge of our world; without this consensus, it's challenging, if not impossible, to further develop that knowledge.

Processes such as peer review in academic publishing are developed with the aim of providing the necessary safeguards that ensure new research meets these scientific guidelines and contributes meaningfully to current understanding. A typical peer reviewer may look at a research paper and reject it for publication if they determine that the researchers demonstrate a lack of understanding of the prevailing theories governing their study. At scale, this review process ensures a degree of consensus that advances the collective knowledge of the scientific community.

The scientific method

Traditional research is often associated with the scientific method. Without this scientific method, a person is merely spouting information that may or may not be sound, permitting others to be more skeptical about the value of that information. While different epistemologies might yield different ways of rigorously establishing knowledge, most scholarly research in formal scientific contexts around the world follows a commonly accepted process that generates and codifies scientific insights. By necessity or by convenience, the scientific method is reflected in the structure of research papers and presentations to allow the research audience to peer into the researchers' application of scientific thinking to determine the extent to which the knowledge generated from research is credible, trustworthy, and consequential to the understanding of the world.

The scientific method dates as far back to the time of Aristotle and Euclid. Scholarly emphasis on empirical observations and systematic reasoning paved the way for a disciplined approach to observing and making assertions about the world, elevating the pursuit of knowledge from mysticism and common sense thinking to an understanding of concepts and phenomena built on rigor and consensus. Rather than relying solely on logical inference or thought exercises, the scientific method relies on evidence as guideposts when making decisions or predictions about how things work.

The Scientific Revolution would later lay out the general principles that index scientific progress to the scientific method. Inductive and deductive reasoning play important roles in the scientific method. Other concepts such as generalizability and falsifiability have become closely associated with the scientific method, while rhizome analysis and postmodernist thought would later be incorporated into research, particularly in the social sciences. However, all discussions about the philosophy of thought when it comes to scientific thinking can be reduced to the necessity of a rigorous approach to making sense of the information collected for research studies.

The scientific method generally consists of a number of steps:

• Research question - In simple terms, the researcher wants to know about something and asks a question to begin the process of investigation. This question could be something rooted in personal curiosity or anecdotal observation. However, in formal academic research, the research question is also and more often based on a thorough literature review representing the state of the current research in which potential novel research inquiries are identified. Research papers refer to this potential as the "research gap" which should be filled by posing a question that justifies the study to be conducted.
• Research hypothesis - Formulating hypotheses is an important motivating aspect of many scientific studies, especially those conducted within the positivist paradigm. A hypothesis or predicted outcome, if it reflects an awareness of the existing research, provides a benchmark with which the researcher assess their results. A hypothesis is different from a wild guess in that it is based on the knowledge generated by the scientific community and used as a metric to create new knowledge if new data challenges that metric.
• Data collection - The researcher collects information relevant to the question guiding their study. The gathering of this information is intentional and follows an approach that aligns with the research question and methodology. For example, a research question that calls for understanding the perspectives of a specific community will often call for the use of interviews or surveys rather than an experimental study. Likewise, a study on the influences of a particular diet will rely on experimental methods calling on research participants to adopt that diet and measuring the corresponding changes in health data.
• Data analysis - Data requires interpretation by the researcher who structures and categorizes the data to identify meaningful patterns and occurrences that can lead to useful conclusions. Quantitative research will often look at numerical values and make comparisons between values (e.g., the speed of a falling object, the income level of research participants, etc.), while qualitative research will often require some organization of data through coding or rhizomes in order to facilitate an analysis of structured information.
• Conclusions - Based on the interpretations of the data through analysis, the researcher then makes inferences, evaluations, and recommendations about the object of inquiry. These conclusions then form the basis for the need for further studies by other researchers to facilitate future iterations of scientific inquiry.

Types of scientific research

Science can be developed from any number of research studies if it contributes to the body of knowledge understood and accepted by the scientific community. Among other considerations, the type of study that you conduct will also play a role in determining the kind of methods you employ to collect and analyze data.

It would be inaccurate to say that the scientific method, if interpreted broadly, is synonymous with and exclusive to experimental research. Research, especially within the social sciences, has long transcended the traditional focus on experimental design. Inquiry into observed phenomena in the social world often resists simple experimental design. Consider how people talk differently when they speak to their friends and when they speak to researchers they may not know. That small difference alone illustrates the limitations of clinical experiments in controlled environments where social theories are concerned.

As a result, the notion of scientific methodology has expanded to include descriptive research and naturalistic inquiry. While non-experimental methods have encountered significant resistance from the traditional scientific community throughout the 20th century, any research is considered scientific if it involves collecting and analyzing data in a rigorous manner.

Experimental research

While other forms of research are more likely to be employed in qualitative, social science research, it's important to briefly describe experimental research to serve as a guiding context. Scientific studies that employ the experimental method typically involve observation of differences between a control group and an experimental group. The idea is to observe the change in conditions by comparing a "status quo" to a new set of data to determine if the changes or manipulations introduced by the researchers led to changes in the outcome of interest. Thus, experimental data could affirm current thinking or justify the development of knowledge and, thus, creation of a new hypothesis for further study.

Experiments are typically, if not always, conducted in closed environments to "control" for as many interfering influences as possible. If the effectiveness of a particular fertilizer is being measured by differences in the rates of plant growth, for example, the study might be conducted in a room that is free from insect life and kept at a constant temperature and level of humidity under the assumption that such influences might affect the final results in the data analysis. Statistical analysis and mathematical description are often employed in the dissemination of experimental research in order to present robust but also accessible findings.

Naturalistic research

Much of the prevailing understanding of research is guided by experimental paradigms, because the act of filtering out confounding influences is perceived as contributing to the research rigor found more commonly in the physical, material, and natural sciences. However, certain research inquiries simply cannot be addressed by an experimental design, especially when the objective is to represent a phenomenon in an authentic manner. Data on cultural practices and social interactions is oftentimes most credible when captured in the field and not contained or controlled in a sterile environment. Interviews, ethnographies, and life histories are employed to collect this sort of data. These methods may not align with an overly narrow interpretation of the scientific method, but the data gathered from these methods provides for a robust and rich analysis of social and interpersonal phenomena that ultimately facilitates the generation of findings that contributes to formally understood knowledge.

Naturalistic observations are a mainstay of social science research. Undoubtedly, they are fraught with challenges concerning access to research participants while in the field, garnering the informed consent and rapport of those participants, and collecting rich enough data that leads to useful insights. For all the unknown variables and ever-changing dynamics that may be encountered while in the field, researchers should anticipate the likelihood that a field study may not produce the sort of conclusive results that an experimental research project can be designed to produce. That said, field research remains the far more authentic option for inquiries about the social world, relative to more controlled experiments or analyses of secondary data.

When conducted rigorously, naturalistic research has its own credibility that is achieved differently from experimental research. An inquiry into cultures or communities often calls for systematic observation, which involves more than simply reporting what is captured. Field notes and transcripts of video or audio recordings that capture events as they happen contribute to a thick description that enables the research audience to understand and even immerse themselves in the field of inquiry. These forms of raw data are then converted into or reduced to a data structure that facilitates data analysis for the purpose of theoretical development.

In sum, the scientific method refers to rigorously collecting and analyzing data for the purpose of developing an answer to a novel and interesting research question. Theories are then constructed, verified, and revised continuously as new empirical analyses are conducted. Today, a great variety of methodologies exist to accommodate the diversity and complexity of our world. As researchers bring their knowledge together, the scientific method helps us collectively build understanding of our world.