Right at the start of a research process are two interesting commitments, or perhaps even virtues. One is a particular dedication to finding out the truth, or to search – again and again – until the conclusions about a question are justified (proved or supported) by good, strong evidence. The other is a certain commitment to honesty, i.e. to abide by the rules that govern the process, and to accept its outcome. This does not only mean that research findings might surprise one, but also that a dearly held pre-understanding might be wrong; and that an answer one would very much have liked came out one way has no support in evidence.

I find these commitments interesting and worth mentioning, because they place researchers amongst others who abide by specific rules or norms regarding how to behave, and what is right or good to do. I do not think people, who are unaccustomed to the formal constraints on research, often think of this - and scientific thinking in general - in ethical terms.

It is also worth mentioning that these rules etc. are not like the secret codes of clandestine communities, and neither are the guides for scientific thinking. These too are available to anyone who cares to know and to know well. (Visit http://www.csir.co.za/plsql/ptl0002/PTL0002_PGE001_HOME and http://www.nrf.ac.za , in particular, the entries on the menu ‘Investing in People’: Thuthuka and YENZA!.)

The research process

We start the process by reading as much as possible on the issue we want to investigate; this prevents us from turning our own ignorance into (quasi) research questions and, at best, puts each researcher on the forefront of the best of current knowledge on an issue.

Once we have a question firmly in mind, as well as the various ways in which other experts or researchers have addressed this in their research, we are in a position to consider the best method to use for the question.

Visit:

Genuine research thus starts with a question, not a ready-made or popular answer; and a serious researcher is committed to following a public, path (or specifiable method) to a justified conclusion (visit to this).

Firstly, this means clarifying and defining the exact terms in which a question is asked or issue pursued. For example, one might merely say: “I am investigating emotional intelligence”. If one does not specify precisely what one means with this popular but nebulous notion in terms that would allow others who do not understand this phenomenon to observe and measure it's output, and also allow it to be related to other important and well-researched notions, then we are really doing no better than story-tellers or writers who deal in vague common sense and perhaps even in nonsense.

Second, specifying the method (or path) followed through the research process allows others to check the findings, repeat the process and add to the knowledge generated through research. Specifying the method typically includes specific issues such as:

Note too, that it is important that the method selected should fit the question asked. For example, self-reports on one’s feelings demand a different method from monitoring the financial gains of a company after specific interventions. Remember, we want valid (i.e. ‘on target’) and true research results (i.e. not mere opinion but statements supported by evidence), which means we must abide by research techniques such as sampling, data collection, and data analysis for reliable constructs and measures (i.e., ones which find/hit the same target, repeatedly, over time). (Visit http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/ ; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/ ; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic .)

How the research was done, or the method followed, has important consequences for the quality of the research and thus the findings. Making all these details clear allow readers and users of the research findings to asses the worth of the claims, to be critical and discerning customers of knowledge.

The crucial thing to emphasise about the account so far, is that research does not indicate a willy-nilly reliance on those who say things we like or agree with, nor does it signal the mere acceptance of some-or-other familiar or politically acceptable conclusion from a book, or public figure.
Rather, research compels participants to accept certain values and abide by specific rules; as such, it draws researchers into a community of searchers after not only the truth – not Absolute Truth – but certainly after claims justified by evidence.

It is interesting to note, too, that there are thinkers concerned with the question about how to improve on our certainty, (that what we take for ‘knowledge’ is, in fact, true) who believe that it is better to attempt to find disconfirming instances for our central claims, rather than merely searching for further, supporting evidence. We leave this as it stands for now.

Each of the guides for research briefly introduced above provides you the reader with a principle for evaluating reported findings.

Generally, those who say, “Research/science has shown …” without indicating the process they followed (from question to method to conclusion), and without specifying the evidence they gathered for/against the reported conclusion, are trying to take the consumer for a ride. Moreover, they do this by abusing a concept of value, i.e., ‘research’ and ‘science’.

In addition, merely quoting a famous person’s support for a particular conclusion, or supposed adherence to this or that procedure, cure, programme, or some such, is playing smoke and mirror games: only the gullible are taken in. Being a celebrity does not constitute evidence for a claim, but more importantly, an argument from authority, or using the famous name of someone to endorse a claim, went out with ignorance.

Advents such as literacy, printed books, internet access, and search engines have opened up available knowledge to anyone who wants to know, and who has the cognitive wherewithal to do so. Visit http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/132/ for interesting stories about science and celebrities; generally speaking, http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ is a good site to visit for accessible reports on research findings and for promoting ‘good science and evidence for the public’. You could even contact them with particular queries: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Knowing something about the process of research puts the consumer of knowledge in a position to choose wisely and well. Consumers who have a grasp of the relationship between: (i) the best of current knowledge on an issue, (ii) the specific research question asked, and (iii) the method chosen for investigation, are the only ones in a position to assess reported claims or answers. It is this grasp that enables consumers to place the spotlight where it belongs: on the evidence for or against claims about some or other product, programme, or answer.

---

Share this article