ADVERTISEMENTS:
Here is a term paper on ‘Research’ for class 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short term papers on ‘Research’ especially written for school and college students.
Term Paper # 1. Meaning of Research:
The Webster’s International Dictionary proposes a very inclusive definition of research as “a careful, critical inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principle; diligent investigation in order to ascertain something.”
The above definition while helpful in indicating in a very general way what people mean when they talk about research is not specific and precise enough to afford us a thorough and clear idea of what research involves.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The activities that go by the name of research involve mainly are-search’, i.e., activities undertaken to repeat a search. Thus, perhaps improving upon the definition presented above, it may be said that research refers to “a critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation having as its aim the revision of accepted conclusions in the light of newly discovered facts.”
The researcher is constantly concerned with researching the accepted conclusions of his field, i.e., the theories with differing levels of generality and degrees of confirmation (trust worthiness) existing at a given point of time.
He does his researching by probing for facts of the empirical world that confirm one or several predictions generated by accepted conclusions, his acceptance, a consequence of his assumption about the correctness of the existing theories.
Thus, researching may in effect turn to the construction of new theories to take the place of those no longer able to fit the data of the empirical world.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Research, stated otherwise, is a systematic attempt to push back the bounds of comprehension and seek beyond the horizons of our knowledge some “truth” or come reality, shrouded in a subtle way and consequently, to keep extending as also consolidating these horizons without end.
D. Slesinger and M. Stephenson in the Encyclopedia of Social Science propose a very comprehensive definition of research as “the manipulation of things, concepts or symbols for the purpose of generalizing to extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether that knowledge aids in construction of theory or in the practice of an art.”
Term Paper # 2. Purpose of Conducting Research:
(a) Manipulation of Things, Concepts or Symbols:
Sciences deal with things. In a laboratory, the physicist deals with things, e.g., balls, the psychologist deals with say, white mice.
In order to know how things respond to or change under specific conditions, what common denominators are discernible in their responses under various conditions are and what law they abide by etc. the scientist subjects them to purposeful control, e.g., starving the rats for a specific period or letting the balls roll on different degrees of incline, etc.
Such purposeful handling we call manipulation, which is an aspect of experimentation.
We cannot here afford to miss out on an important point that scientist dealing with things is not dealing with things only but also with concepts or symbols, corresponding to things or phenomena. For the things that a particular science deals with, it has and must have some terms. The terms defining the things about which a science tries to make sense are its concepts.
If the scientist were dealing with things only, he would be working and be constrained to remain at the level of the concrete and his results would at best be limited to the particular things in a specific situation investigated by him and none else, i.e., this ball, this rat (which again does not make much sense, considering the fact that verily, our thought process depends on concepts).
Thus, the scientist dealing with things is also at the same time dealing with concepts which symbolize them and their various properties. The physicist, in our example is thus dealing with the abstract notions of spheres, circles, velocity, acceleration, angles, pluses and minuses.
The psychologist dealing with rats is dealing with abstract notions organism, hunger, deprivation and problem-solving potential, etc. All these abstract notions relate to things that are being dealt with but in themselves, are not things; these are simply the mental shorthand’s for things.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The scientist can carry them in his head, or on a piece of paper; not so the things. Since concepts or symbols are abstract forms denuded of content, it is as though the scientist working with them was working with certain classes of things at a higher level of abstraction. Concepts have thus the relevance of things but not their bothersome content and load.
The astronomer cannot get the planets and stars into his laboratory nor can he get at them and yet he can deal with them, i.e., conduct controlled inquiries into their movements. Because he knows the value of the variables relevant to the concepts.
It should now be clear how the concepts or symbols are subjected to manipulation just as things can be, only with greater facility and effect. Research involves thus, manipulation of things and/or concepts or symbols.
(b) For the Purpose of Generalizing:
The manipulation or purposeful control of things, concepts or symbols illustrated above is undertaken with definite purpose, the purpose being to arrive at statements of generality. That is, the net result of a controlled inquiry should be a proposition or a conclusion which tells us about conditions influencing them.
Of course, generality is a matter of degree, i.e., the conclusions arrived at on the basis of observations under exercise of manipulation will vary in their degrees of generality.
The level of generality may be high or low; the significance or worth of a research may perhaps be judged in such terms, but absence of generality cannot characterize science. “This thing worked with Mr. X today” is no wise a conclusion of research since the concern with generalization is definition-ally central to research.
Slesinger and Stephenson would consider an automobile mechanic and a physician as espousing the role of a researcher to the extent each attempts to generalize about all automobiles and patients of a given class respectively.
(c) To Extend, Correct or Verify Knowledge:
Generalizations thus drawn have, obviously, certain effects for the established corpus of knowledge. A general proposition having been established as an outcome of research may extend the bounds of knowledge existing at a point in time.
It may, if it does not fit a certain body of existing knowledge in the sense of not auguring well with the expectations that can be legitimately drawn from it, exert pressure on the scientist to bring about certain amendments or modifications in this body of knowledge in view of the discordant note struck by this new general proposition.
Contrarily, if the generalization fits the established corpus knowledge, it lends added credibility to it.
It will be in order to elaborate at some length the points made above. The role of general propositions in enlarging or extending systematic knowledge may take various forms. The generalization can be instructively used to understand a certain region of phenomena or aspects of them that were not examined in these terms before.
That is, a new observation inhered by the generalization may afford a basis for a better and deeper understanding of a phenomenon. Reviewed in terms of the new observation, the phenomena under inquiry may reveal itself as one governed by a law applicable to a class of phenomena which, in turn, may be a constituent unit of a still larger class of phenomenon.
In this manner, a new general conception helps us to appreciate the deeper linkages obtaining amongst several concrete phenomena or classes of phenomena. It is thus that a new set of facts is brought within the grasp of the established corpus of knowledge in a meaningful way.
In consequence, the bounds of knowledge get enlarged not just quantitatively (i.e., more units covered under a conceptual scheme) but also qualitatively).
For example, general conception of “relative deprivation” may serve as a useful means for examining the relation between rise in wages and productive efficiency of a worker. The problematic and paradoxical observation that wage-rise does not always accompany productive efficiency (it may at times even hamper it) can be more aptly understood by means of this abstraction.
This behaviour of workers, i.e., low productivity despite wage-rise, then appears to be a corollary of reference group behaviour. What we have gained is a deeper understanding of a specific phenomenon. This, of course, is only one possibility.
Another way in which a general conception may enlarge systematic knowledge is by bringing to light the seeming inconsistencies in the existing corpus of knowledge and attempting to reconcile these. For example, the findings of studies on the effects of “authoritarianism” and democratic classroom atmospheres on learning are not seen to be consistent.
A new general conception in the nature of a research finding, helps us to reconcile these findings by pointing that whatever the classroom atmosphere, the important thing is the extent to which the teacher behaves according to the expectations of the students.
Yet another way in which a new general conception extends knowledge is by pointing out or identifying certain gaps in the existing corpus of knowledge and attempting to bridge these up. These gaps have a reference to the failure or inability of a conceptual scheme or theory to explain and account for certain aspects of a phenomenon to which it should expectedly or principally apply.
The theory that “uniformities of social behaviour represent conformity to norms” betrays such a gap since it cannot explain existence of certain social regularities which are not culturally mandated. This inadequacy of the theory represents a gap in knowledge. The role of a new general conception may be to bridge this gap and to the extent this is successfully done, knowledge gets extended.
The general conception or finding emanating from research may have another impact on the established body of knowledge, i.e., correcting the errors in it.
If the new general proposition derived through manipulation of things, concepts or symbols is discordant with what one would expect logically on the basis of the existing body of knowledge or theory, the only alternative, since the empirical observations and corpus of knowledge cannot for long stay divorced from and immune to each other in mutual indifference is to effect corrections or modifications in the original theory in the light of the new evidence.
In case the existing scheme of propositions has no place whatsoever for the new observations, i.e., the situation is such that either the observations are incorrect or the theory, then scientific obligation demands that the prevailing system of propositions, should be revisited and revised.
Proving that something considered to be true thus far is in fact wrong, is also an important contribution to knowledge. That the new statements of generality emanating from research serve as scales for verification of the existing system of knowledge is only repeating the obvious.
Research involves testing to find out whether the empirical observations presented as general statements are in accord with the predictions that may be made on the basis of the existing body of knowledge.
If the observations are in accord with these predictions, the corpus of knowledge which afforded these, gains greater strength and confirmation. If such is not the case, the system needs to be revised or even rejected. An important aspect of scientific activity is verification of conclusions which have found a place in the established system of knowledge.
This involves frequentative scrutiny. To use an analogy, the inspector is duty-bound to examine before each performance, the ropes on which the trapeze artistes in a circus perform their perilous tricks. The ropes should have indubitable reliability.
Everything depends on it. So too, in science, the established facts must be really established, for they are the rallying points and the bases for the abstract super-structure. Should verification prove them to be unreliable or false, like the ropes in our circus example, they should be cut down.
(d) Knowledge may be Used for Construction of a Theory or Practice of an Art:
The extended, corrected and verified knowledge may be put to two possible uses:
(a) Theoretical,
(b) Practical.
Knowledge thus acquired may be used for constructing theoretic models. In other words, knowledge maybe organized into propositions and these propositions may then be meaningfully articulated to form a more abstract conceptual system affording estimations about a class of things or phenomena governed by a specified set of conditions.
Such use of knowledge is often labeled as theory-oriented, and the activities of a scientist who seeks knowledge for the sake of building theories of ‘non-utilitarian’ import are often known as ‘pure’, ‘basic’ or ‘theoretical’ research. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge, i.e., only for the satisfaction of’ knowing’ is the attitude that underlies scientific activity of this order.
Knowledge, on the other hand, may be used as a means to some practical or utilitarian goal and not construed just as an end in itself. For example, the knowledge. about people in respect of certain things they need, like and aspire for, may be used to work towards their welfare, ameliorating their practical problems or even exploiting them for certain personal or ‘ideological’ ends.
Science is a double headed weapon. It can do immense good but it can be made to serve sinister ends too. It has powerful muscles but no personality. It cannot lead, it can only serve. It has a sharp eye for methods and tools but is blind to ends and values.
The researches which seek knowledge mainly for the sake of serving some practical ends are often called ‘applied’, ‘action-oriented’, or ‘practice-oriented.’ Suffice it, here, to say that one should not consider these two orientations as comprising a perfect dichotomy.
There is nothing practical as a good theory and that endeavors to solve practical problems have many a time given birth to theories. That is, practice is quite often a “blessing for the development of theory.” Thus far, we had concerned ourselves with research in general terms. The frame utilized was so broad as to encompass researches both in the fields of natural as well as social sciences.
Term Paper # 3. Formulation of Problem for Research:
Research really begins when the researcher experiences some difficulty, i.e., a problem demanding a solution within the subject-area of his discipline. This general area of interest, however, defines only the range of subject-matter within which the researcher would see and pose a specific problem for research.
In other words, the subject-area only indicates where to look for a problem without specifying what the problem is like. In its diffuse form, the subject- area simply represents broad zone of issues within which the researcher expects to find his specific problem.
The general area or topic of a study may be either suggested or known. The researcher may also be interested in the phenomena that have already been studied to a certain extent, in which case, the researcher may be interested in identifying more exactly the conditions that affect the given phenomena in a particular way.
If the researcher is working in a field in which there has developed a well articulated theoretical system, he may want to test specific predictions or expectations based on that theory.
A wide variety of practical concerns may also suggest a topic for research. Need for a factual evaluation of a programme, information pertinent to policy-making or social planning or need for finding out a practical solution to a certain problem facing a community etc., may suggest certain topics as well worth selecting for research.
Personal values play an important role in the selection of a topic for research. Social scientists with different values tend to choose different topics for investigation. Of course, personal values are not the only determinants in selecting a topic for inquiry; social conditions do often shape the preference of investigators in a subtle and imperceptible way.
There are also number of powerful inducements to selection of one topic rather than another. Societies differ in respect of the premium they place on the work in different fields. These differential premia affect the choice of research topics. In a given society, it may bring, greater prestige to do research on a deadly disease rather than, say, the patterns of child socialization.
More research funds are available for research in a particular area, e.g., on the less controversial topics rather than on controversial ones relating to politics and religion. Better paid positions may be available to researchers working in certain areas than in certain others.
Needless to say, few social scientists would not be indifferent to such considerations as income, personal prestige, research funds and public or state cooperation.
It should be noted that selection of a topic for research is only half a step forward. This general topic does not help researcher to see what data are relevant to his purpose, what methods he would employ in securing them and how he would organize these. Before he can on sider these aspects he needs to formulate a specific problem.
The problem defines the goal of the researcher in clear terms. It is obvious that in absence of a problem the inquiry would only become a meaningless exercise. A research like any other human activity is goal-directed.
If the goal itself is unknown or ill-defined, the whole rigmarole of research operation will lead us nowhere. Thus, without a problem research cannot proceed because there is nothing to proceed from and proceed toward. There is nothing but wisdom in the saying – “If you start from nowhere you will generally reach there.”
This is not to deny that sometimes a researcher’s problem or difficulty consists in not perceiving a problem at all; he faces the problem of problem-lessness. In social sciences especially, quite a number of researcher may be faced with this problem, i.e., the problem of not being able to see a problem.
But being a particular kind of problem in itself, it guides the researcher in exploration — a process that involves a progressive narrowing of the scope and sharpening the focus of questions till the specific challenging questions are finally posed (resembling a pyramid with the general topic as the base and the specific challenging questions as the pinpoint or apex of top.)
The formulation of the topic into a research problems is, really speaking the first step in a scientific enquiry. A problem in simple words is some difficulty experienced by the researcher in a theoretic or practical situation. Solving this difficulty is the task of research.
Let us now appreciate what is meant by experiencing a difficulty in a theoretical situation. Observations not fitting the theoretical expectation, e.g., a theory may predict that particular type of societies wilt have a low rate of suicide but observations do not substantiate this prediction.
This gives rise to a problem faced in theoretic situation. A difficulty in a practical situation may be felt, for instance, when there is a decline in production in spite of improvement in wages of workers.
R. L. Ackoff’s analysis affords considerable guidance in identifying a problem for research. Aackoff visualizes five components of a problem.
(1) Research-Consumer:
There must be an individual or a group which experiences some difficulty. The individual may be the researcher himself and the group could be a group of researchers or scientists. For most problems, there are also other participants. The researcher, if he is different from the research-consumer, is participant in the problem. So are all individuals or groups who may be affected by a decision taken by the research-consumer.
(2) Research-Consumer’s Objectives:
The research-consumer must have something he wants to get at or some ends he seeks to achieve. Obviously a person who wants nothing cannot have a problem.
(3) Alternative Means to Meet the Objectives:
The research-consumer must have available, alternative means for achieving the objectives he desires. Means are courses of action open to the research-consumer. A course of action may involve use of various objects. Objects used thus are the instruments.
A scale may be an instrument, but the use of a scale may be conceived of as a means. An instrument refers to any object, concept or idea which can be effectively incorporated in the pursuit of the objective.
It needs to be remembered that there must be at least two means available to the research-consumer. If he has no choice of means, he can have no problem. His problem, however, may consist of how to make the alternative means available for himself.
(4) Doubt in Regard to Selection of Alternatives:
The existence of alternative courses of action is not enough; in order to experience a problem, the research consumer must have some doubt as to which alternative to select. Without such a doubt there can be no problem. The research-consumer must have a question concerning the relative efficiency of the alternative means and he must want to answer it.
All problems understandably get reduced ultimately to the evaluation of efficiency of the alternative means for a given set of objectives. It may be a bit difficult to appreciate this, particularly in reference to a pure research directed toward knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
Since information is an instrument and its use a means, the inquiry directed toward obtaining correct information is directed toward identifying and securing efficient instruments. Since instruments cannot be separated from their use, such inquiry also reduces to determination of relative efficiency of alterative means.
(5) There must be one or More Environments to which the Difficulty or problem pertains:
A change in environment may produce or remove a problem. A research- consumer may have doubts as to which will be the most efficient means in one environment but would have no such doubt in another. For example, a person may have a problem involving a decision as to what kind of coat to wear on a clear day. But should it rain, he would have no doubt about the propriety of wearing his raincoat.
The range of environments over which a problem may be said to exist varies from one to many. Some problems are specific to only one environment while others are quite general. The formulation of the problem consists in making various components of the problem explicit.
Says John Dewey:
“It is a familiar and significant saying that a problem well put is half solved. To find out what the problem or problems are which a problematic situation presents, is to be well along in inquiry. To mistake the problem involved is to cause subsequent inquiry to be irrelevant. Without a problem there is blind groping in the dark.”
If we go merely by appearances, it would seem fairly easy to pose a problem for research. But this is not so in reality. Even so great as scientist as Darwin has testified to the difficulty in posing a problem.
In his Origin of Species, he wrote, “Looking back, I think it was more difficult to see what the problems were than to solve them….”
This is so, explains Merton, because “in science, the questions that matter are of a particular kind. They are questions so formulated that the answers to them will confirm, amplify, or variously revise some part of what is currently taken as knowledge in the field. In short, although every problem in science involves a question or a series of questions, not every question qualifies as a scientific problem.”
Merton presents a powerful case for investigating the process of problem-finding. Although the process of problem solving has been subjected to intensive investigation, inquiries into the process of problem-finding, Merton points out, have suffered a relative neglect.