Scientific Method and Research Design Methods of Knowing
There are four methods of knowing or arriving at beliefs. The first is the method of tenacity. Habit or inertia may induce us to believe a proposition to be true because we have always believed it to be so. As a result, we may close our minds to any evidence against that proposition. In other words, people generally insulate themselves against opinions and beliefs, which are contrary to those held by them. This method however fails to secure the stability of one’s belief at times. When individuals come across views different to their own they react in various ways. Some may not hold to their own views in the wake of conflicting ones. In such cases, another more stable method is required.
The second method of knowing or fixing belief is sometimes found in the appeal to authority. Instead of holding on to one’s beliefs, an appeal is made to some authority. If our holy scriptures say so, it is true. If a noted authority on the subject says it is true, then it must be true. Many religious propositions claim support from scriptures. In other spheres, too, such as the social, economic, or political, this method of authority is used to fix beliefs. Though superior to the method of tenacity, this method fails to lead to unanimity and stability of belief if there is more than one authority with differing views.
The third method of knowing or fixing belief is the priori method which has been called the method of intuition by Cohen and Nagel. This method holds that people believe propositions if they are obvious or self-evident. Such propositions ‘agree with reason’ and not necessarily with experience. It may be noted that propositions which have not been questioned so far are not necessarily true. They may turn out to be false at a later date when somebody questions them and proves that they are false. Many propositions in the past have met such a fate.
The fourth method is the method of science or reflective inquiry. It is independent of one’s desires and wills and is radically different from the earlier methods.
The scientific method encourages doubts and criticism so that what emerges is the real evidence which has stood the test of reasoning. It makes science progressive as it is never too sure about its results. A unique characteristic possessed by this method is self-correction. A scientist does not believe any proposition without testing it. He has a number of built-in checks all along the way to enable him to adhere to the right path and arrive at the ‘truth’. Such checks are free from personal beliefs, attitudes and values.
Karl Pearson, in his famous book The Grammar of Science observes that there are three distinct characteristics of the scientific method
- Careful and accurate classification of facts and observation of their correlation and sequence
- The discovery of scientific laws with the aid of the creative imagination and
- Self-criticism and the final touchstone of equal validity for all normally constituted minds.
The first characteristic shows that the scientific method should enable us to classify facts accurately and carefully from the idiosyncrasies of the individual mind. In other words, there must be objectivity in this task. The second characteristic relates to the discovery of scientific laws with the help of imagination. A mere collection of facts will not be sufficient to bring about scientific discoveries which will be the result of disciplined imagination and painstaking effort of the scientists. Finally, the third characteristic is that of self-criticism, i.e. the scientist should critically examine his own research in a detached manner.
Wolfe expresses these characteristics in a different language. According to him, the common characteristics of the science are – (i) critical discrimination, (ii) generality and system, and (iii) empirical verification. Critical discrimination implies that one must not be influenced by mere appearance or prevalent notions but must try to get at the naked facts. Second, science is not interested in individuals but is concerned with generality or the system, i.e. groups or classes of objects. Finally, science aims at the testing and verification of facts empirically so that they can be confirmed or rejected.
Comparison of the Scientific Method and Non-scientific Method
Having looked into the different methods of knowing, we may now turn to a comparison of scientific and non-scientific methods. While there are several distinguishing features of the scientific method, the more important ones are briefly described below.
- The scientific method is more objective as compared to the non-scientific method. This is one of the strongest points in favour of the former. For example, hypotheses can be verified with the help of statistical principles, ensuring complete objectivity. Though there may sometimes be an element of subjectivity in the scientific method that is more on account of the investigator than on account of the deficiencies of the method itself.
- The scientific method is more precise than the non-scientific method. One great advantage of the former is that measurement and numerical analysis can be done, though measurement is not always attempted in every scientific investigation. Qualitative concepts are also defined precisely, which enables easier and more effective communication among researchers.
- Finally, the scientific method takes cognizance of the existing knowledge in a particular field, carries out further investigations in it and compares the results with those obtained earlier. This leads to the expansion of knowledge. The scientific method contributes to the accumulation of systematic knowledge while the non-scientific method may not be able to do so.
Let us see whether marketing research satisfies these criteria. First, the marketing researcher is expected to be objective in his investigation. However, it is extremely difficult to remain completely objective during the entire research process, as one may be anxious at times to collect information to support and justify one’s own position in regard to a certain issue.
Second, the marketing researcher is not so happily placed as the natural scientist in respect of the instructions of measurement. The latter can measure the minutest changes in his laboratory and is sure of the accuracy of his measurement. But the marketing researcher has to deal with such aspects as the attitudes of consumers, changes in their preferences and their impact on the consumption of a given product. The instrument of measurement that is often used in such problems is the questionnaire, which is relatively crude and cannot give a very high degree of precision. Added to this is the fact that it is used by several interviewers with varying backgrounds, training, experience and ability. As such, the information collected by them will have different degrees of accuracy.
Finally, the third criterion of the scientific method is that it is a continuous and unending process leading to the accumulation of systematic knowledge. Marketing research should ideally satisfy this criterion. However, as it is problem solving and problem-oriented research, the focus of investigation is narrow. Because of the urgent nature of problems handled by marketing researchers, they seldom undertake exhaustive studies as is done by the natural scientists.
