Appearance
Chapter 1: Scientific Research Introduction
Contributor:
Erica Madebeykin
PGDip Researcher
PGDip Researcher
Creation Date: March 12, 2024
❤️ Reference Acknowledgments: University of Amsterdam (world rank #53)
This review reflects the author's learning and thoughts based on the materials covered in the FREE online course provided by the University of Amsterdam, delivered on the coursera platform.
A heartfelt gratitude to Professor Annemarie Zand Scholten for delivering such an amazing course!
Academic Reference: Scholten, A.Z. (2015). Week 1: Origins Of The Scientific Method [Video]. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from University of Amsterdam Coursera website: [URL]
Table of Contents
1.1 The Scientific vs Non-scientific methods
In the pursuit of knowledge, researchers often navigate the two distinct avenues: scientific and non-scientific methods. While both offer insights into understanding the world, they diverge significantly in different approaches and outcomes.
Fun fact on "Earth is flat": Just because a belief is widespread doesn't mean that it's true 🐣.
For hundreds of years, folks thought that the Earth was flat. But science later revealed that it's round. Imagine living during that time, convinced that the Earth was flat, only to have your belief overturned in the following centuries! 🐣
*Consensus - simply means that because a majority of people believe something to be true doesn't necessarily make it true (Scholten,2015).
Let's examine the key characteristics of scientific methodology and non-scientific subjectivity, highlighting the differences between these two approaches:
Week 1 The Origin of Scientific Methods: Comprehensive Summary Table #1
| Aspect | Scientific Method | Non-Scientific Methods |
|---|---|---|
| Types of Claim | Hypotheses, Laws, Theories, Systematic observations, Scientific Explanations | Intuition, Beliefs, Consensus, Authority opinions, Casual observations, Superstitions |
| Objective | Scientific method prioritizes objectivity, aiming to minimize personal bias and avoid the subjective interpretation, by relying on empirical evidence. | Non-scientific methods are often subjective, influenced by personal interests, perceptions, and beliefs/superstitions. |
| Observation Method | Relies on systematic methods of observation and data collection to formulate hypotheses and test their validity in a controlled manner. | Informal observation without systematic data collection or rigorous analysis. |
| Empirical Testing | Formulates hypotheses that can be empirically tested through experimentation or observation, allowing for verification or falsification based on observable evidence. | Lack of empirical testing, hypotheses may not be formulated in a way that allows for empirical validation. |
| Replicability | Expects findings to be replicable, meaning that other researchers should be able to reproduce the results under similar conditions, ensuring the reliability of the findings. | Findings are often not replicable, leading to unreliable or inconsistent conclusions. |
| Transparency | Promotes transparency by openly sharing methodologies, data, and findings, allowing for scrutiny and verification by the broader scientific community. | Lack of transparency in methodologies, data, and findings, hindering scrutiny and verification. |
| Logical Consistency | Derives conclusions through logical reasoning consistent with empirical evidence, ensuring coherence and validity. | Everyday reasoning may contain logical inconsistencies or fallacies. |
| Reliability and Validity | Prioritizes reliability and validity through systematic procedures and rigorous standards of evidence, leading to more reliable conclusions. | Often lacks reliability and validity due to subjective interpretation and informal reasoning. |
| Predictive Power | Yields predictions with greater accuracy and reliability through systematic observation and hypothesis testing, enabling more accurate predictions about the natural and social world. | Limited predictive power, often relies on anecdotal evidence or intuition. |
| Impact on Knowledge Acquisition | Revolutionizes understanding of the world by generating reliable, evidence-based knowledge across various disciplines, fostering scientific progress and innovation. | Limited applicability and prone to error and misinterpretation, hindering the advancement of knowledge. |
Academic Reference: Scholten, A.Z. (2015). Week 1: Origins Of The Scientific Method [Video]. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from University of Amsterdam Coursera website: [URL]
1.1.1 Key Takeaways
As per Dr. Scholten's presentation in the online course, she emphasizes the fundamental disparities between these approaches to investigation, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations (Scholten, 2015).
Scientific Method: Dr. Scholten (2015) highlights the scientific method's dedication to objectivity and empirical evidence. By systematically examining phenomena and formulating hypotheses that can be empirically tested, researchers ensure the reliability and validity of their conclusions. This rigorous approach, as advocated by Dr. Scholten, serves as the foundation of scientific investigation, supporting the generation of dependable knowledge across various disciplines.
Non-Scientific Methods: In contrast, Professor Scholten (2015) emphasizes the drawbacks of non-scientific methods, which often rely on subjective beliefs, intuitions, and anecdotal evidence. Without systematic observation or empirical testing, hypotheses formulated through non-scientific methods may be prone to biases and misinterpretations, hindering the acquisition of accurate knowledge.
Six Fundamental Principles of Scientific Research
According to Dr. Scholten(2015), the following principles define the scientific method:
Empirical Testability: Hypotheses must be formulated in a way that allows for empirical testing through observation or data collection. This ensures that the conclusions are based on tangible evidence.
Replicability: Scientific studies should be replicable, meaning that their findings can be consistently reproduced by the independent researchers. Replication enhances the reliability and robustness of the hypotheses.
Objectivity: Objectivity is crucial in the scientific inquiry, enabling the researchers to conduct studies without personal bias or influence. Objective research allows for impartial evaluation and verification of the hypotheses.
Transparency: Transparency involves openly sharing research methodologies, assumptions, and procedures to facilitate the accurate replication by the other researchers. Transparent reporting promotes accountability and trustworthiness in the scientific studies.
Falsifiability: Hypotheses should be formulated in a manner that allows for the possibility of being contradicted or falsified by the empirical evidence. Falsifiability ensures that the hypotheses undergo rigorous testing and scrutiny, contributing to the advancement of knowledge.
Logical Consistency: Scientific hypotheses and conclusions drawn from the empirical observations should exhibit internal coherence and logical consistency. Logical consistency ensures that the hypotheses are internally sound and free of contradictions.
By adhering to the scientific principles, researchers can overcome the biases and limitations present in the non-scientific methods, thus giving way for the scientific progress and innovation (Scholten, 2015).
1.2 Introduction to Epistemology
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge, where we explore the fundamental questions concerning how we acquire knowledge, what are the reasons behind our beliefs, and what distinguishes the truth from falsehood. In short words, epistemology is all about understanding how we know what we know.
In this section, we analyze the various theories and concepts within epistemology, aiming to explore the nature and acquisition of knowledge according to the philosophers.
Epistemology: The Study of Knowledge (Summary)
Idealism: Idealism, found in both ancient and recent times, suggests that knowledge is derived from non-physical entities such as ideas or the mind. Thinkers like Plato and George Berkeley said that the true basis of what we know comes from things that are beyond the physical world, like our ideas or our minds.
Empiricism: Empiricism, rooted in the classical era, suggests that knowledge arises from the sensory experiences and observations of the external world. Philosophers such as John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume promoted empiricism, emphasizing the role of sensory perception in forming beliefs about the world. Locke proposed the concept of “tabula rasa”, suggesting that the mind is initially an empty slate upon which knowledge is imprinted through observation and experience.
Rationalism: In contrast with empiricism, rationalism asserts that the knowledge is derived from reason and innate ideas rather than sensory experience alone. Rationalists such as René Descartes and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz argued that certain truths are self-evident and can be apprehended through a rational reflection. Descartes famously proclaimed "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), emphasizing the primacy of the thinking self.
Skepticism: During the Enlightenment era, skepticism gained prominence by challenging the possibility of attaining certain knowledge. Philosophers like David Hume highlighted the limitations of human understanding, suggesting that skepticism encourages critical inquiry and intellectual humility by questioning purported sources of knowledge. Hume's critique of causality and induction raised significant doubts about the reliability of empirical knowledge.
Transcendental Idealism: Immanuel Kant's transcendental idealism emerged during the Enlightenment, proposing that knowledge is shaped by the cognitive structure of the mind. Kant distinguished between the unobserved domain of things-in-themselves and the phenomenal world of sensory experience. He argued that the certain concepts, such as space and time, are necessary conditions for human perception and understanding.
Analytic Philosophy: Analytic philosophy, prominent in the modern era, emphasizes clarity, logical rigor, and the analysis of language as essential tools for philosophical inquiry. Figures such as Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein advocated for the use of formal logic and precise language to address philosophical issues.
Falsificationism: Proposed by Karl Popper in the modern era, falsificationism asserts that scientific theories should be falsifiable and subject to empirical testing. Popper argued against verificationism and induction, emphasizing the importance of empirical evidence in scientific inquiry.
Positivism: Positivism, influential in the modern era, emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and scientific methods in the acquisition of knowledge. Figures such as Auguste Comte and Ernst Mach advocated for the application of the scientific principles to all areas of human inquiry.
Poststructuralism: Poststructuralism, prominent in the modern era, critiques traditional epistemology and proposes that knowledge is constructed through power relations. Figures such as Michel Foucault analyzed how knowledge is produced and distributed within social institutions.
Paradigm Shifts: Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm shifts, introduced in the modern era, suggests that scientific progress occurs through revolutionary changes in dominant scientific paradigms. Kuhn highlighted the role of social and cognitive factors in shaping scientific knowledge.
Constructivism: In the modern era, constructivism proposes that knowledge is actively constructed by individuals through their interactions with the world and social environment. Influenced by thinkers like Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, constructivist theories emphasize the role of cognitive development, cultural context, and personal interpretation in shaping knowledge. They highlight the subjective and dynamic nature of human understanding.
Pragmatism: Pragmatism, articulated by the philosophers such as William James and John Dewey, emphasizes the practical consequences and usefulness of beliefs as criteria for assessing their truth or validity. Pragmatists argue that the efficacy of beliefs in guiding action and solving problems is essential for determining their epistemic value. James emphasized the importance of experimentation and adaptation in determining the validity of beliefs.
Neopragmatism Advocated by Richard Rorty in the modern era, rejects traditional epistemological concerns and anti-foundationalist views. Rorty argued that truth is contingent on social and historical context, emphasizing the role of language and social practices in shaping knowledge.
Throughout the history, epistemology has undergone its significant evolutions, with various theories and concepts emerging in different eras.
From the classical emphasis on sensory experience and innate ideas to the Enlightenment's skepticism and transcendental idealism, and finally to the modern era's focus on analytic philosophy, constructivism, and pragmatism, each era has contributed unique perspectives to our understanding of knowledge acquisition and justification.
1.2.1 Epistemology: A Comprehensive Historical Timeline
From the ancient debates on knowledge sources to the modern inquiries into truth's nature, the epistemological studies offer essential insights into human understanding's foundations. Here is the timeline of philosophers, the ideologies they supported, and the opposing viewpoints. Note: swipe to the right to see the full table
Epistemology: Comprehensive Timeline of Philosophers and their Ideologies Throughout The History
| Era | Approx Date | Philosopher | Supported Ideology | Description of Ideology | Opposing Ideologies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classical | 427-347 BC | Plato | Rationalism | Knowledge is gained through reason; not through sensory experience. | Empiricism (Aristotle) |
| Classical | 384-322 BC | Aristotle | Empiricism | Foundational truths come from sensory experience; mind is a blank slate. | Rationalism (Plato) |
| Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | René Descartes (of Cartesian Plane) | Rationalism | Doubt everything; only accept what can be proven through reason. | Empiricism (Locke), Skepticism (Hume) |
| Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | John Locke | Empiricism | Knowledge is derived from sensory experience; tabula rasa. | Rationalism (Descartes), Skepticism (Hume) |
| Enlightenment | 1711-1776 | David Hume | Empiricism | Strict empiricism; sensory data as the only source of knowledge. | Rationalism (Descartes), Idealism (Plato) |
| Enlightenment | 1724-1804 | Immanuel Kant | Transcendental Idealism | Knowledge shaped by cognitive structure; noumenal vs. phenomenal. | Empiricism (Locke), Rationalism (Descartes) |
| Enlightenment | 1770-1831 | Friedrich Hegel | Dialectical Idealism | Knowledge through dialectical process; reality is dynamic and evolving. | Empiricism (Locke), Rationalism (Descartes) |
| Enlightenment | 1806-1873 | John Stuart Mill | Empiricism | Knowledge derived from empirical observation; emphasizes utility. | Rationalism (Descartes), Idealism (Hegel) |
| Modern | 1842-1910 | William James | Pragmatism | Truth is what works; knowledge serves practical needs. | Rationalism (Descartes), Idealism (Hegel) |
| Modern | 1872-1970 | Bertrand Russell | Analytic Philosophy | Emphasis on logic, language analysis, and rigorous argumentation. | Pragmatism (James), Idealism (Hegel) |
| Modern | 1889-1951 | Ludwig Wittgenstein | Linguistic Analysis | Language as the basis of philosophical problems and their solutions. | Analytic Philosophy (Russell), Pragmatism (James) |
| Modern | 1902-1994 | Karl Popper | Falsificationism | Scientific theories should be falsifiable; emphasis on empirical testing. | Logical Positivism (Carnap), Idealism (Hegel) |
| Modern | 1922-1996 | Thomas Kuhn | Paradigm Shifts | Science progresses through paradigm shifts; normal vs. revolutionary science. | Falsificationism (Popper), Logical Positivism (Carnap) |
| Modern | 1931-2007 | Richard Rorty | Neopragmatism | Truth is contingent on social and historical context; anti-foundationalist. | Analytic Philosophy (Russell), Realism (Plato) |
| Modern | 1926-1984 | Michel Foucault | Poststructuralism | Knowledge is constructed through power relations; critique of traditional epistemology. | Analytic Philosophy (Russell), Rationalism (Descartes) |
1.3 Introduction to Ontology
Ontology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence and reality, discusses the fundamental questions about what truly exists and how we perceive the world around us. In this section, we will explore the various ontological theories throughout history and the diverse perspectives on the nature of reality.
Ontology: Understanding the Essence of Reality
Plato's Idealism and Realism: Plato, a renowned figure in ancient philosophy, introduced the concept of Idealism, suggesting that the physical world we perceive is like a dim reflection of perfect or "ideal forms" that exist beyond our sensory experience. These forms, according to Plato, represent the true essence of reality. Additionally, Plato embraced Realism, asserting that what we conceive in our minds holds greater truth than mere physical manifestations. For him, the realm of ideas transcends the limitations of the material world.
Democritus' Materialism: In contrast to Plato's Idealism, Democritus advocated Materialism, a doctrine asserting that all phenomena, including consciousness, are grounded in physical matter. Democritus proposed that the universe consists of indivisible particles called atoms, which interact to form the diverse array of objects and experiences we encounter.
Aristotle's Realism: Aristotle, a prominent thinker in classical philosophy, supported Realism, emphasizing the significance of empirical observation and the physical world. Unlike Plato, Aristotle did not emphasize the existence of ideal forms but focused on categorizing and understanding the natural world through careful observation and logical analysis.
Thomas Hobbes' Materialism: During the Enlightenment, Thomas Hobbes introduced Materialism, asserting that all that exists is physical matter and that all phenomena can be explained through the laws of physics. According to Hobbes, the universe operates in a deterministic manner, with all phenomena possible to break down into material interactions.
René Descartes' Dualism: René Descartes introduced Dualism, proposing that reality consists of two distinct substances: the material (body) and the immaterial (mind or soul). Descartes believed in the existence of a non-physical mind or soul that interacts with the material body, thereby giving rise to human consciousness and experience.
Baruch Spinoza's Monism: Baruch Spinoza proposed Monism, asserting that all of reality originates from a single substance, which he referred to as God or Nature. Spinoza's monistic philosophy suggests that this singular substance encompasses infinite attributes, manifesting in the diverse phenomena observed in the universe.
John Locke's Empiricism: John Locke, an influential Enlightenment thinker, advocated for Empiricism, which holds that our understanding of reality is derived from sensory experiences. Locke distinguished between primary qualities inherent in objects themselves and secondary qualities that exist subjectively in the mind of the observer.
George Berkeley's Idealism: George Berkeley advanced Idealism, contending that reality consists solely of minds and their ideas, with nothing existing independently of perception. Berkeley's philosophical stance rejected the notion of a material world existing apart from our perceptions, emphasizing the subjective nature of reality.
Immanuel Kant's Transcendental Idealism: Immanuel Kant proposed Transcendental Idealism, asserting that reality is shaped by the cognitive structures of the mind. While acknowledging the existence of a dimension beyond human perception, Kant emphasized the role of the mind in structuring our understanding of reality through a priori categories and concepts.
Friedrich Nietzsche's Perspectivism: Friedrich Nietzsche introduced Perspectivism, suggesting that reality is subjective and contingent upon individual perspectives and interpretations. Nietzsche argued that there are no universal truths, with reality being interpreted through diverse subjective lenses.
Martin Heidegger's Existentialism: Martin Heidegger's Existentialism claimed that reality is fundamentally shaped by human existence and the subjective experience of being. Heidegger emphasized the individual's engagement with the world, highlighting the significance of existence over abstract theoretical frameworks.
Ludwig Wittgenstein's Linguistic Analysis: Ludwig Wittgenstein advocated for Linguistic Analysis, proposing that reality is constructed through language and our understanding of language. Wittgenstein's philosophy highlights the crucial role of language in shaping our perceptions and interpretations of reality.
Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism: Jean-Paul Sartre embraced Existentialism, asserting that reality is subjective and contingent upon individual choices and actions. Sartre emphasized human freedom and responsibility in defining one's existence and reality through conscious decision-making.
Maurice Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology: Merleau-Ponty explores the subjective experiences and perceptions that support our understanding of reality. Merleau-Ponty emphasized the physical nature of perception, emphasizing the inseparable link between our subjective experiences and the world around us.
By untangling the complexities of existence, we attain greater insights into the fundamental nature of reality and the different ways it is perceived and comprehended.
1.3.1 Ontology: A Comprehensive Historical Timeline
From ancient debates concerning ideal forms to modern investigations into personal interpretations, studies in ontology enhance our comprehension of the universe and our position within it. Below is the timeline of philosophers, the ideologies they supported, and the opposing viewpoints.
Note: swipe to the right to see the full table
Ontology: Comprehensive Timeline of Philosophers and their Ideologies Throughout The History
| * | Era | Approx Date | Philosopher | Supported Ideology | Description of Ideology | Opposing Ideologies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology | Classical | More than 2,300 years ago | Plato | Idealism and Realism | Idealism: Plato thought that everything we see in the world is like a blurry copy of perfect or "ideal forms". It's like seeing a blurry picture of something ideal. Realism: Plato thought that what we think in our minds is what's real. So, even if something doesn't seem real in the physical world, if we believe it in our minds, then it's real to us. | Materialism (Democritus), Realism (Aristotle) |
| Ontology | Classical | More than 2,300 years ago | Democritus | Materialism | Everything in the physical world consists of matter, including consciousness. | Idealism (Plato), Realism (Aristotle) |
| Ontology | Classical | More than 2,300 years ago | Aristotle | Realism | Aristotle's realism, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of the physical world and empirical observation. He believed that reality exists independently of our minds but didn't emphasize the existence of perfect Forms as Plato did. Instead, Aristotle focused on categorizing and understanding the natural world through sensory observation and categorization. | Idealism (Plato), Materialism (Democritus) |
| Ontology | Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | Thomas Hobbes | Materialism | All that exists is physical matter and all phenomena are explainable through the laws of physics. | Idealism (Plato), Realism (Aristotle) |
| Ontology | Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | René Descartes | Dualism | Reality consists of two distinct substances: the material (body) and the immaterial (mind or soul). | Materialism (Hobbes), Monism (Spinoza) |
| Ontology | Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | Baruch Spinoza | Monism | All of reality is one substance, God or Nature, which has infinite attributes. | Dualism (Descartes), Materialism (Hobbes) |
| Ontology | Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | John Locke | Empiricism | Reality is composed of primary qualities that exist in objects themselves and secondary qualities that exist in the mind of the observer. | Rationalism (Descartes), Idealism (Plato) |
| Ontology | Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | George Berkeley | Idealism | Reality consists only of minds and their ideas, nothing exists independently of perception. | Materialism (Hobbes), Realism (Aristotle) |
| Ontology | Enlightenment | 17th-18th century | Immanuel Kant | Transcendental Idealism | Reality is shaped by the mind's cognitive structure, but there is a noumenal realm beyond human perception. | Empiricism (Locke), Realism (Aristotle) |
| Ontology | Modern | 19th-20th century | Friedrich Nietzsche | Perspectivism | Reality is subjective and shaped by individual perspectives and interpretations. | Realism (Aristotle), Idealism (Plato) |
| Ontology | Modern | 19th-20th century | Martin Heidegger | Existentialism | Reality is fundamentally shaped by human existence and the subjective experience of being. | Idealism (Plato), Materialism (Democritus) |
| Ontology | Modern | 20th century | Ludwig Wittgenstein | Linguistic Analysis | Reality is constructed through language and our understanding of language. | Idealism (Plato), Realism (Aristotle) |
| Ontology | Modern | 20th century | Jean-Paul Sartre | Existentialism | Reality is subjective and created through individual choices and actions. | Idealism (Plato), Materialism (Democritus) |
| Ontology | Modern | 20th century | Maurice Merleau-Ponty | Phenomenology | Reality is understood through subjective experiences and perceptions. | Realism (Aristotle), Idealism (Plato) |
1.4 Methodological Approaches
The expansion of the scientific inquiry into the social sciences during the latter 19th century marked a significant shift towards understanding human behavior and societal dynamics. In this section, we will further explore the differences between objectivism and constructivism, focusing on interpretivist perspectives and other methodological approaches commonly used in the research field.
Objectivism vs. Constructivism:
Objectivism suggests that the social phenomena exist independently of individual views, while constructivism argues that they are shaped by cultural and social contexts. These philosophical ideas influence how the researchers approach and interpret social science research.
- Challenges of Constructivism: Constructivism presents some challenges such as the complexity of interpreting multiple perspectives and the difficulty of comparing outcomes across diverse cultural contexts. Additionally, differences in the researcher's frame of reference may hinder accurate interpretation of social phenomena.
Interpretivism:
Interpretivism helps us understand subjective realities in social phenomena, highlighting the importance of context, perspective, and human involvement. The unique insights into understanding human experiences and behaviors can be further explained by the 3 common interpretive perspectives: hermeneutics, phenomenology, and verstehen.
Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics examines social behavior within cultural and social contexts, recognizing the interplay between text, context, and meaning. Researchers aim to understand the motives and actions of individuals within society by considering historical, cultural, and linguistic factors.
Phenomenology: Phenomenology explores individuals' experiences and the meanings they attach to various phenomena, emphasizing the subjective nature of human perception. Researchers aim to capture the essence of these experiences and understand the world from individuals' perspectives.
Verstehen: Verstehen emphasizes empathic understanding of social phenomena, recognizing the role of empathy in interpreting human behavior. Researchers immerse themselves in the cultural context of subjects to comprehend their worldview and motivations, fostering deeper understanding.
Methodological Approaches:
- Quantitative methods - involve collecting measurable data for statistical analysis to uncover general patterns or relationships.
- Qualitative methods- prioritize understanding subjective experiences through techniques like interviews and observations.
- Mixed-Methods Approach: - A mixed-methods approach combines quantitative and qualitative techniques to offer a holistic perspective on social phenomena. By integrating both approaches, researchers can enrich their understanding and contribute to advancements in the field.
1.5 Scientific Research Goals
Science pursues knowledge with various specific goals depending on the type and purpose of the desired understanding. This report aims to provide a detailed summary of the different research goals within the context of universalistic and particularistic research, as well as the distinction between fundamental and applied research.
Research Goals:
- Universalistic Research:
- Seeks to provide explanations that apply generally to all people or groups.
- Aims to describe or explain phenomena that are consistent across different contexts.
- Example: Studying the relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior without focusing on specific games or demographics.
- Particularistic Research:
- Focuses on describing or explaining phenomena in specific settings or groups.
- Aims to understand the size of effects for specific groups or locations during specific times.
- Example: Investigating the change in alcohol poisoning hospitalizations among Dutch teenagers after the legal drinking age was raised.
Distinction between Fundamental and Applied Research:
- Applied Research:
- Aims to solve practical problems directly.
- Uses knowledge to improve the human condition.
- Example: Creating a program to alleviate depression by addressing loneliness.
- Fundamental Research:
- Seeks knowledge for the sake of understanding the world, without immediate practical application.
- Aims to expand our understanding of phenomena.
- Example: Studying the relationship between loneliness and depression in a survey without focusing on treatment strategies.
Relationship between Applied and Fundamental Research:
- Applied research is often particularistic, focusing on solving specific problems for specific groups, but it can also have universalistic elements.
- Fundamental research is typically universalistic but can occasionally be particularistic.
- Both types of research can complement each other, with applied research sometimes leading to fundamental insights.
Understanding the various research goals within the framework of universalistic and particularistic research, as well as the differentiation between fundamental and applied research, provides a comprehensive overview of the aims and objectives of scientific inquiry.
By recognizing the distinct purposes of research, scientists can better address the societal needs and contribute to the advancement of knowledge.