Scientific Method

12 Key excerpts on "Scientific Method"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Introduction to Psychology

  • Ann L. Weber, Joseph Johnson(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Collins Reference

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 2 Research Methods in Psychology T his chapter presents an overview of the basic methods of research that characterize psychology. It begins with an introduction to the Scientific Method that guides research in many disciplines. It also introduces key statistical concepts that are used to assess research findings, as well as a discussion of research ethics. As a science, psychology depends on a variety of research methods for its accumulated knowledge. To appreciate the findings of psychology, to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, it is necessary to understand these methods. THE Scientific Method The Scientific Method is not unique to psychology, but describes a process or cycle that characterizes “good science.” In fact, this method dates back to the work of Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), although these days, it has changed somewhat. By systematically adhering to the Scientific Method, research on a particular topic is guided by a process of self-correcting theory development, testing, and improvement. Theory Development The Scientific Method is concerned with theory development, testing, and refinement. A theory is a set of integrated principles and assumptions that organizes data, explains behaviors, and makes testable predictions. Unfortunately, the term “theory” in common usage has taken on a more imprecise meaning that often refers to a guess or hunch. In science, theories are not just educated guesses of what will happen, but systematic formalizations of how and/or why things happen. A conjecture about who committed a crime or what will happen when you microwave some random object, is not a theory. However, a coherent system for explaining differences and relationships between living organisms from today and millions of years ago (for example, evolution) is an established theory

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Psychology Exposed (Psychology Revivals)

  Or the Emperor's New Clothes

  • Paul Kline(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter two What the Scientific Method is and why psychologists use it

  The essence of academic life is dispute. Mediaeval scholars debated how many angels could sit upon the head of a pin, a matter that has still not been finally resolved. This great tradition lives on and thus a clear statement of a position is the life blood of the academic world. It will be seized upon with as much avidity as intellectual torpor allows (all things are relative) and fine exhibitions of hair splitting, references to authorities, footnotes to footnotes will be made. In the Germanic tradition of scholarship the longest list of references will win the day. This makes it exceedingly difficult to state with any precision or clarity what constitutes the Scientific Method.

  Nevertheless scientists do carry out experiments. They use their findings to develop theories and put them to the test with further experiment. Thus despite the problems of defining Scientific Method, there are de facto definitions in daily use in laboratories throughout the world. Philosophers of science, many of whom have never conducted an experiment in their lives, might well throw up their hands in horror at such a definition, but Scientific Method can be seen as essentially what scientists do. This is the working definition which I shall adopt in this chapter and to ensure its relevance to our aims and purposes, I will restrict myself to the methods used in psychology.

  The Scientific Method

  Nevertheless, given the problems of defining the Scientific Method and the not inconsiderable philosophical literature on its nature, I shall briefly examine some of the difficulties in this area, in order that my somewhat pragmatic, not to say behavioural, approach in defining the method, can be free of philosophic error.

  Many working scientists, I think it is fair to say, follow the scientific logic of their work advocated by Karl Popper in The Logic of Scientific Discovery

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Laboratory Psychology

  A Beginner's Guide

  • Julia Nunn(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  Many’s the time I have heard a student complain that their experiment didn’t “work”. But in a sense all experiments “work” because everything always happens how it “should”—how could it not? However, the theories, or the predictions, or the way in which the predictions are measured and tested, may not be valid. I suspect that the basis for the “it didn’t work” complaint (particularly for its typically despondent tone) may be a hangover from the perception of laboratory science as consisting of a series of demonstrations of what is known to happen for reasons that are known to be true (those pictures of Victorian gentlemen scientists again come to mind). In fact the state of the science of psychology (and, in truth, the other sciences as well) is much more exciting than that. To a very large extent we simply don’t know how things happen—that is why we are engaged in science in the first place—we are trying to find out. Trying to find out why things happen as they do is not easy—in psychology, for reasons considered in the next section, it may be much harder. The process of conducting scientific psychology entails much critical questioning and rigorous examination of theory, method, and conclusion. But that is not a reason to abandon the effort to engage in scientific psychology; in fact it is a very good reason why psychology must apply scientific standards with even greater effort.

  Some objections to experimental psychology

  It cannot be denied that there have been many thoughtful and highly influential criticisms of experimental methods in psychology—many of them coming from psychologists themselves. In this section I will briefly consider two of these objections and what can be said or done to counter or appease them.

  Scientific psychology cannot be applied to the real world

  When one goes about the process of systematically collecting observations of behaviour under controlled conditions one often reduces the complexity of human action to its much simpler constituent processes. This piecemeal approach to the study of behaviour enables psychologists to gain a measure of control. In conducting a laboratory experiment, for example, psychologists quite deliberately create an artificial situation which is an attempt to model some aspect of the real world. For example, research into the effects of alcohol on driving was not conducted using subjects driving a real car but instead used a driving simulator. Aside from the ethical problems involved in administering alcohol to car drivers, the fact that it is only a model of reality and not the real-world situation means that it is possible to obtain some systematic measurements of performance which will be uncontaminated by other variables. For example, with a simulator one could perfectly control the weather and traffic conditions, the nature of any hazards, and the way the car responded to the brakes and steering. One might also try to ensure that none of the participants in the experiment was sleep-deprived or taking any medical treatments or extremely short-sighted or very old.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Psychology in Historical Context

  Theories and Debates

  • Richard Gross(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  ● This represents a contradiction within his own thinking. On the one hand, he embraced the Enlightenment beliefs that if people are free from the strait-jackets represented by the Church, monarchy, and aristocracy, they would be able to create a better society where justice and liberty would flourish. On the other hand, people are too easily swayed and need the guidance of philosophers and scientists to find their way.

  (Based on Hewett, 2008)

  Even within the context of natural science, many (if not most) of the features listed in Table 2.1 have been challenged. In the following sections, we shall describe some of these challenges and begin to ask how the use of the methods used in natural science can be appropriately applied to the study of human psychology.

  Empiricism

  We noted in Chapter 1 that the vast majority of Psychologists would regard themselves as Methodological Behaviourists: reflecting the legacy of Watson, the use of empirical (scientific) methods, in particular controlled experiments, is a taken-for-granted modus operandi for most research Psychologists. This quantitative approach is part-and-parcel of what is commonly referred to as mainstream Psychology.

  More generally, belief in the necessity of collecting data in some form and exposing those data to some form of analysis is a principle shared probably by all Psychologists – including those who are clearly not Experimental Psychologists and who offer radically different alternatives to the experimental approach, such as discourse analysis and other qualitative methods. (These are discussed further below in relation to Social Constructionism.)

  In In Defence of Empirical Psychology (1973), Donald Broadbent, an ardent Behaviourist (and also a highly influential figure within Cognitive Psychology: see Chapters 1 and 6 ), equated empirical Psychology with Behaviourism. He also points out that ‘empirical Psychology’ has two meanings: (1) the one relating to Methodological Behaviourism as described above; and (2) a philosophical account of human nature with Associationism at its core (as proposed by the British empiricists, most importantly Locke: see above); this became central to Watson’s brand of Behaviourism (see above and Chapter 6 ). In this second sense, ‘empiricism’ denotes the view that all, or most, of our knowledge is derived from our experience of the external world; it is usually contrasted with rationalism, according to which our knowledge is prior to, and independent of, experience (e.g. innate/inborn, or derived from logical reasoning). These extreme views lie at the heart of the nature–nurture debate, which has run through much of mainstream Psychology’s history (see Box 2.6

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Why Psychology?

  • Adrian Furnham, David Oakley(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 3 Major research methods in psychology Psychologists study everything from memory in the octopus to schizophrenic breakdown in people. They study issues as diverse as learning, perception and social behaviour. As such they need a wide range of methods to investigate the issues that fascinate them. How psychologists go about their research is in itself interesting. They have to be imaginative and flexible because of the diversity of things they study and because if people are aware they are being studied their behaviour may not be typical. The research process Scientific knowledge is knowledge obtained by both reason and experience (observation). Logical validity and experimental verification are the criteria employed by scientists to evaluate claims for knowledge. These two criteria are translated into the research activities of scientists through the research process. The research process can be viewed as the overall scheme of scientific activities in which scientists engage in order to produce knowledge; it is the paradigm of scientific inquiry. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the research process consists of seven principal stages: problem, hypothesis, research design, measurement, data collection, data analysis, and generalization. Each of these stages is interrelated with theory in the sense that it is affected by it as well as affecting it. The most characteristic feature of the research process is its cyclic nature. It often starts with a problem and ends in a tentative generalization based on the experimental evidence. The generalization ending one cycle is the beginning of the next cycle. This cyclic process continues indefinitely, reflecting the progress of a scientific discipline. The research process is also self-correcting. Tentative generalizations to research problems are tested logically and empirically. If these generalizations are rejected, new ones are formulated and tested

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Introduction to Psychological Science

  Integrating Behavioral, Neuroscience and Evolutionary Perspectives

  • William J. Ray(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  The story of Clever Hans shows us that all organisms, including humans, are sensitive to their environment. This is true whether we are interacting with other people or being part of an experiment. Thus, in psychological experiments there are a number of opportunities for those who are researchers to influence those who are participants in ways that were never intended. Participants can also influence researchers. For example, participants in experiments may respond to their own ideas or internal demands rather than those of the experiment itself.

  What Are the Methods of Science?

  The methods of science closely parallel our ways of learning about the world. We interact with the world and gain new knowledge and understanding of what we experience. However, in doing psychological research, we do this in a more organized and logical manner. We may observe and describe what we see, which is referred to qualitative research. We can also measure and report the number of specific factors that can be used in a mathematical manner, which is referred to as quantitative research. The scientific approach emphasized in this chapter will describe both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In both, researchers approach a particular question or topic in a logical manner. We can think about a critical approach to science in terms of four stages.

  1. Scientists first begin with an idea or expectation. A formally stated expectation is called a hypothesis. The scientist says, “I expect this to happen under these conditions,” and thus states the hypothesis.
  2. Second, scientists look to experience to evaluate the accuracy of their ideas or expectations about the world. That is, they try to find or create the situation that will allow them to observe what they are interested in studying.
  3. Through observation and experimentation, scientists can begin to evaluate their ideas and expectations about the world. Learning about the world through observation and experimentation is an example of empiricism

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Study Skills for Psychology

  Succeeding in Your Degree

  • Richard Freeman, Antony Stone(Authors)
  • 2006(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  7 ). And, of course, you need to reflect on what you are trying to achieve and to reflect on past mistakes you have made in your practical work to ensure that you don’t make them again.

  The Scientific Method

  It is important to have a basic understanding of what is meant by the Scientific Method, although you should be aware that there are many controversial questions about how science works.

  In essence science works by testing theories. It does this by deducing predictions from a theory and then testing to see whether or not the prediction turns out to be true or false. (If the idea of deducing a prediction from a theory is not familiar to you, it is explained below.) If the test shows that the prediction is true, that’s good news for the theory as it has received some confirmation. But if the prediction turns out to be false, then that’s bad news for the theory, and it will either have to be rejected or amended. In psychology, we usually call such predictions ‘hypotheses’. This is called the ‘hypothetico-deductive method’.

  Here’s an example from psychology. In the 1950s, the American psychologist Tolman was interested in testing a theory about animal learning that said that animals learn only when they are rewarded. For instance, if hungry rats are placed in a maze they will gradually find their way out. If you reward the rats with food each time they find their way through the maze, then they get better and better at finding their way through as measured by a decreasing number of wrong turns, for example. Let’s call this condition 1 – where hungry rats are rewarded. Rats that are hungry but are never rewarded do not improve their performance. Let’s call this condition 2 – where hungry rats are never rewarded. Tolman wondered whether the unrewarded rats might nonetheless be learning about the fastest way to get through the maze, but not demonstrating their learning because they had no motive for doing so. So, he introduced a third condition – where a group of hungry rats were treated as in condition 2 for the first ten days of the experiment, but then rewarded on the eleventh day. He predicted that if they were learning, then their performance on getting through the maze should dramatically improve on the twelfth day. His prediction was confirmed. The rats’ performance did dramatically improve on the twelfth day in condition 3. This provides confirmation for his idea that rats learn even when not rewarded.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Essentials of Clinical Psychology

  An Indian Perspective

  • S. K. Mangal, Shubhra Mangal(Authors)
  • 2023(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  performing such experiments, we try to establish certain cause-and-effect relationships through objective observations of the actions performed and the subsequent changes produced under pre-arranged or rigidly controlled conditions. From these observations, certain conclusions are drawn and theories or principles are formulated.

  It is a widely used and favored method of investigation employed by clinical psychologists all over the globe for carrying out the needed research work in clinical psychology. Their choice has merit, as the experimental method may be said to comply with all the requirements needed for a method being called a Scientific Method, as follows:

  • It provides the opportunity to carry out experimental work for researchers to make the most careful systematic observations of the behavior of clients in controlled conditions otherwise unavailable through the use of other methods of investigation.
  • It provides scope for the prediction of the behavior of clients by establishing cause-and-effect relationships between two variables (the things and phenomena that stand to vary and change in the social environment) related to clinical behavior.

  Understood in this way, the experimentation method, in the shape of a formal definition, may be termed a type of research method aimed at establishing the possible cause-and-effect relationship between variables under study through systematic and well-planned observations carried out under controlled conditions.

  In this definition, we have mentioned a few terms such as variables and control of experimental conditions for the employment of the experimental method on the part of investigators. Let us know about them.

  1. Variables: A variable in an experimental study stands for any characteristic or condition (of the clients and the social environment) that is liable to be varied and thus can be attributed with different values. A researcher may encounter a number of variables that need to be manipulated, controlled, or observed as per the requirement of their research study. These variables are known and classified as independent, dependent, and extraneous or intervening variables.
     • Independent variable: In an experimental study, the term independent variable stands for the type of variable controlled by the experimenter. The researcher deliberately manipulates and varies it for observing its effects on the dependent variable.
     • Dependent variable:

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Textbook of Psychology (Psychology Revivals)

  • D.O. Hebb, D.C. Donderi(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 14

  Psychology and the Scientific Method

  This chapter provides a historical background for some aspects of modern psychology. It considers the advantages and the disadvantages of using neurological ideas to understand mind and behavior. It also considers the difficulties of psychology as an objective science. How are we to know what goes on in the minds of others, and how indeed are we to understand ourselves?

  Psychology moved toward experiment about 1860, after a long history of philosophical speculation. From the first, the new approach was quantitative. G. T. Fechner, a German physicist, is credited with being the first experimental psychologist. He set out to measure sensations. He could measure the intensity of a physical stimulus, which he wanted to relate to the mental intensity of sensation. He concluded that the intensity of a sensation was proportional to the logarithm of the intensity of the stimulus. This is the Weber-Fechner law (Weber, a physiologist, had preceded Fechner in this field). The law in this form is not completely satisfactory, but Fechner’s results convinced others that mental measurement is possible. Systematic work also was undertaken on the measurement of reaction time—the time needed to respond to a simple stimulus, such as putting on the brake when you see a light turn red—and people began to think of psychology in a new way, as an experimental science.

  It was Fechner’s work that inspired Hermann Ebbinghaus with the idea of measuring memory, and with Ebbinghaus, whose work is described in chapter 2 , we come in 1885 to the beginning of an important chapter in modern psychology. The next major step was made in 1911 by Thorndike with the cat experiments described in chapter 2 . Darwin’s influence now began to be felt, and psychology took its place among the biological sciences. Darwin (1872) saw that behavior evolves along with the evolution of bodily structures and expressed this conclusion in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. The book, however, had little effect on psychologists, who were still preoccupied with a very different set of ideas.1

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Education and Psychology in Interaction

  Working With Uncertainty in Interconnected Fields

  • Brahm Norwich(Author)
  • 2002(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Gage defends the contribution of empirical work from a technical perspective which aims to find out what interventions can improve learning outcomes under what conditions. This is in a different tradition to Harre et al.’s programme, which assumes that ‘systematic, careful, sceptical and rigorous scientific research could be used to extend and correct the domain of common sense psychology’ (Harre et al., 1985, p. 15). This is the fourth possible relationship between common sense and psychology. In this version the task of systematic study is to make explicit the psychologies of every day and then undertake empirical study in the light of this understanding to develop and extend this body of knowledge. Harre et al. summarise this position neatly by referring to common sense as the literature, as that part of the body of knowledge available to the systematic study of psychology. This conception of psychology as a systematic field of study has much to commend it because it retains a critical distance for psychology from everyday notions and assumptions while recognising their interdependence and interaction. However, it does not address issues concerned with what is implied and required by calling a systematic study ‘scientific’. Nor does it provide a perspective on how everyday or folk psychology interacts with the systematic study. These issues arise because everyday psychology is a complex mixture of notions and assumptions which have been developed over the years in response to how people lead their lives on a day-to-day level, but also in response to wider issues about our origins and place in the universe. This inevitably leads to philosophical questions which will be dealt with briefly in the next section.

  Philosophical ideas of psychology as science

  Much has already been said about the lack of theoretical unity in psychology and the aspirations for a scientific treatment of the field. Science has assumed considerable importance in Western societies and is considered to be one of the great human achievements of the last two centuries. There is no doubt about its impact on our understanding of the natural world and therefore our place in it. It has also influenced our technologies and had an immense impact on all areas of our lives. It is hardly surprising that the study of social and psychological affairs should adopt some, if not all, of the hall-marks of this successful endeavour called science. The problems arise because there are uncertainties about whether the characteristics associated with the more successful empirical sciences, such as physics or biology, are applicable to the study of human experience and actions. Central to these sciences are assumptions and methods which are considered to hold the key to explanatory success. One assumption is the autonomy and authority of facts. Facts relate to what is the case and form the basis for deriving and testing explanations of phenomena and predictions of the future. Scientific Methods, which are designed to be well defined, systematic, objective and clear, are central to this process of comparing ideas and explanations with evidence. The knowledge derived from these systematic empirical methods is open to revision, and therefore the Scientific Method is considered to have the power to self-correct and adapt to new circumstances and fields. Though the idea of science is associated with these methods, they have to be judged in terms of their adequacy for the aims of science. These are theoretical aims: to enhance understanding and explanation.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Observing Children in Their Natural Worlds

  A Methodological Primer, Third Edition

  • Anthony D. Pellegrini, Frank Symons, John Hoch(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  HAPTER 2

  Science, Psychology, and Research

  A t first blush, some readers may be taken aback by the use of the word “science” in the title of this chapter. Don't be, because I use the term “science” in a general sense whereby hypotheses are first generated and then tested, in a cycle of induction and deduction. Hypotheses, as you'll see, are educated “hunches,” derived from theory, that are held up for scrutiny: Does the evidence support or fail to support the hypothesis? Direct observations are a crucial part of this process for both basic research and for solving problems in everyday settings, such as in schools and families. In this chapter, I will discuss, generally, the nature of science and the Scientific Method, and how they are applicable to observational methods in the context of social science research. Positioning social science as “science,” rather than, say art, situates it in a context with extant rules and conventions for conducting research. Indeed, different definitions of science limit those activities which would be considered “research.” This chapter will serve to orient you to basic assumptions associated with conducting scientific research.

  What is Science?

  Science, and scientific research, helps us to understand the “nature of things,” though very few today would suggest that it enables us to approach knowing an absolute and unchanging truth. Additionally, scientific research can also have practical implications. By practical I mean, scientific research can be used to address and possibly solve problems in everyday life, whether they be in the work place, and at or in school. Sometimes these two areas of research are dichotomized as “basic” and “applied” science.

  Basic science is typically associated with generating and testing hypotheses derived from theory. Theory, as will be discussed, is an overarching explanation for some phenomenon. Basic science can be descriptive, explanatory, or predictive. Applied science, on the other hand, uses the Scientific Method to solve everyday problems, such as workplace bullying or children's noncompliance at school and home. As you will see, however, the basic vs applied dichotomy does have fuzzy boundaries. For example, you could invoke a theory (e.g. social cognitive theory), in the service of solving a practical problem (workplace bullying), to make predictions about causes (e.g. bosses tolerate and model bullying) and remediation (e.g. have positive models and do not reinforce negative models). If these predictions are framed in terms of hypotheses derived from a theory, the outcomes are certainly “basic” though possibly, as you will see below, at a lower level of abstraction than other hypotheses.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Perspectives On Psychology

  • Michael W. Eysenck(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  The most common way in which scientists (including psychologists) attempt to test their hypotheses is by means of experiments. Although this is frequently the most effective method available, the history of science demonstrates very clearly that scientific progress does not necessarily depend on carrying out laboratory experiments. Consider, for example, the science of astronomy. In spite of the fact that astronomers generally don't carry out experiments in the normal sense, they have been able through careful observation to obtain much valuable information about the nature of the universe.

  In similar fashion, many important issues in psychology cannot be examined under laboratory conditions. For example, those who have been exposed to traumatic events (events causing a powerful shock) such as a major accident or kidnapping, sometimes subsequently develop a condition known as post-traumatic stress disorder. It is very important for psychologists to try to understand the processes triggering this disorder, but it would be completely unacceptable in ethical terms to attempt to produce this disorder under experimentally controlled conditions.

  Goals of science

  What are the goals of science? As Malim et al, (1992) pointed out, three of the main goals are as follows:

  1. prediction;
  2. understanding ;
  3. control.

  The theories formed by scientists permit them to make predictions or hypotheses about what will happen in situations that they have not previously investigated. For example, psychologists such as Thorndike discovered that animals could be persuaded to behave in certain ways if their behaviour was followed by reward or reinforcement. This led them to predict that the same would be true of the human species. The success or otherwise of predictions stemming from a theory are of great importance: any theory that generates numerous incorrect predictions must be seriously flawed.

  Even if a theory generates a large number of accurate predictions, it does not necessarily follow that we will have a good understanding of what is happening. For example, a theory of memory proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972) included the prediction that memory will be better for material that has been processed in terms of its meaning than for material that has not. Although this prediction has been confirmed experimentally several times, the precise reasons why it is beneficial to process meaning still remain unclear.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book