Part 2

QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

THE QUALITIES OF A GOOD RESEARCHER

THINKING LIKE A RESEARCHER

Conducting good research requires first retraining your brain to think like a researcher.

This requires visualizing the abstract from actual observations, mentally “connecting the dots” to identify hidden concepts and patterns, and synthesizing those patterns into generalizable laws and theories that apply to other contexts beyond the domain of the initial observations.

Some of the mental abstractions needed to think as a researcher includes:

1. Unit of analysis

2. Concepts, Constructs, and Variables

3. Hypotheses

4. Operationalization

5. Theories

6. Models

7. Induction

8. deduction

THE UNIT OF ANALYSIS

THE CONCEPTS, CONSTRUCT & VARIABLES

THE PROPOSITIONS AND HYPOTHESIS

Propositions are specified in the theoretical plane, while hypotheses are specified in the empirical plane. Hence, hypotheses are empirically testable using observed data and may be rejected if not supported by empirical observations. Of course, the goal of hypothesis testing is to infer whether the corresponding proposition is valid.

The terms “proposition” and “hypothesis“ both refer to the formulation of a possible answer to a specific scientific question.

The main difference between the two is that a hypothesis must be testable and measurable, while a proposition deals with pure concepts for which no laboratory test is currently available.

THE OPERATIONALIZATION

THE THEORY

A THEORY is a set of systematically interrelated constructs and propositions intended to explain and predict a phenomenon or behavior of interest, within certain boundary conditions and assumptions. Essentially, a theory is a systemic collection of related theoretical propositions.

While propositions generally connect two or three constructs, theories represent a system of multiple constructs and propositions. Hence, theories can be substantially more complex and abstract and of a larger scope than propositions or hypotheses.

However, practice or fact are not opposites of theory, but in a scientific sense, are essential components needed to test the validity of a theory. A good scientific theory should be well supported using observed facts and should also have practical value, while a poorly defined theory tends to be lacking in these dimensions.

“Theory without practice is sterile; practice without theory is blind.” Hence, both theory and facts (or practice) are essential for scientific research.

Theories provide explanations of social or natural phenomena. These explanations may be good or poor. Hence, there may be good or poor theories.

There are some criteria that can be used to evaluate how good a theory really is. Nevertheless, it is important for researchers to understand that theory is not “truth,” there is nothing sacrosanct about any theory, and theories should not be accepted just because they were proposed by someone.

In the course of scientific progress, poorer theories are eventually replaced by better theories with higher explanatory power.

The essential challenge for researchers is to build better and more comprehensive theories that can explain a target phenomenon better than prior theories.

THE MODELS, INDUCTION & DEDUCTION

A term often used in conjunction with theory is a model. A model is a representation of all or part of a system that is constructed to study that system (e.g., how the system works or what triggers the system).

While a theory tries to EXPLAIN a phenomenon, a model tries to REPRESENT a phenomenon. Models are often used by decision-makers to make important decisions based on a given set of inputs.

The process of theory or model development may involve INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING.

The deduction is the process of drawing conclusions about a phenomenon or behavior based on theoretical or logical reasons and an initial set of premises. In deduction, the conclusions must be true if the initial premises and reasons are correct.

In contrast, induction is the process of drawing conclusions based on facts or observed evidence. Inductive conclusions are therefore only a hypothesis and may be disproven.

DEDUCTIVE CONCLUSIONS GENERALLY TEND TO BE STRONGER THAN INDUCTIVE CONCLUSIONS, but a deductive conclusion based on an incorrect premise is also incorrect.

Inductive and deductive reasoning go hand in hand in theory and model building. Induction occurs when we observe a fact and ask, “Why is this happening?”

A MODEL is a physical, verbal, mathematical, or graphical representation f a concept or an idea. Models are developed based on a theory. It can be in any shape, size, and style. Models are created to simplify theoretical concepts. They are created in the formulation of theories. It is a scientific process of the structure followed by scientists’ theories and test influence. They are prepared after conducting extreme research or experiments.

A model is created to understand a phenomenon, eliminate unnecessary details, and simplify understanding. The model contains just the necessary or required points hence, a complex concept or theory can be simplified using a model.

Below is a model of conceptual framework:

While this can be an example of theoretical framework models:

The process of theory or model development may involve INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE REASONING.

A deduction is a process of drawing conclusions about a phenomenon or behavior based on theoretical or LOGICAL reasons and an initial set of premises. In deduction, the conclusions must be true if the initial premises and reasons are correct.

In contrast, induction is the process of drawing conclusions based on facts or observed evidence.Inductive conclusions are therefore only a hypothesis and may be disproven.

DEDUCTIVE CONCLUSIONS GENERALLY TEND TO BE STRONGER THAN INDUCTIVE CONCLUSIONS, but a deductive conclusion based on an incorrect premise is also incorrect.

THE DIFFICULTIES OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH

The Role of Criminological Theory

We have already pointed out that criminological theory can be a rich source of research questions. What deserves more attention at this point is the larger role of theory in research. Criminological theories do many things:

[A] They help us explain or understand things like why some people commit crimes or more crimes than others, why some people quit and others continue, and what the expected effect of good families, harsh punishment, or other factors might be on crime.

[B] They help us make predictions about the criminological world: “What would be the expected effect on the homicide rate if we employed capital punishment rather than life imprisonment?” “What would be the effect on the rate of property crimes if unemployment were to substantially increase?”

[C] They help us organize and make sense of empirical findings in a discipline.

[D] They help guide research.

[E] They help guides public policy.

Criminologist As Social Scientists:

Social scientists, such as criminologists, who connect their work to theories in their discipline can generate better ideas about what to look for in a study and develop conclusions with more implications for other research. Building and evaluating theory are therefore among the most important objectives of social science like criminology.

For centuries, scholars have been interested in developing theories about crime and criminals. Sometimes these theories involve very fanciful ideas that are not well developed or organized, whereas at other times they strike us as being very compelling and well organized.

Theories usually contain what are called theoretical constructs. In criminology, these theoretical constructs describe what is important to look at to understand, explain, predict, and “do something about” crime. Some criminological theories reflect a substantial body of research and the thinking of many social scientists; others are formulated in the course of one investigation.

A few have been widely accepted, at least for a time; others are the subject of vigorous controversy, with frequent changes and refinements in response to criticism and new research. Remember, however, that social theories do not provide the answers to the questions we confront as we formulate topics for research. Instead, social theories suggest the areas on which we should focus and the propositions that we should consider for a test.

That is, theories suggest testable hypotheses about things and research verifies whether those hypotheses are true. In fact, one of the most important requirements of theory is that it be testable, or what philosophers of science call FALSIFIABLE; theoretical statements must be capable of being proven wrong. If a body of thought cannot be empirically tested, it is more likely philosophy than theory.

RESEARCH ETHICS

GUIDELINES FOR CRIMINOLOGIST: (On Criminological Research)

The guidelines followed by social researchers fall into two categories:

1. Those that help keep research scientific:

SCIENTIFIC GUIDELINES:

The following nine guidelines are applicable to any type of scientific research, but they are particularly useful to criminologists and to those who read about criminology and criminal justice.

Adherence to these guidelines will reduce the temptation “to project on what is observed whatever [they] want the world to be for [their] own private purposes”.

[1] Test ideas against empirical reality without becoming too personally invested in a particular outcome;

[2] Plan and carry out investigations systematically;

[3] Document all procedures, and disclose them publicly;

[4] Clarify assumptions;

[5] Specify the meaning of all terms;

[6] Maintain a skeptical stance toward current knowledge;

[7] Replicate research and accumulate knowledge.

[8] Maintain an interest in theory.;

[9] Search for regularities or patterns.

These general guidelines are only ideals for social research. No particular investigation will follow every guideline exactly. Real investigations by criminologists do not always include much attention to theory, specific definitions of all terms, and so forth. Any study that strays far from these guidelines cannot be considered scientific.

2. Those that help keep research ethical:

ETHICAL GUIDELINES:

Every scientific investigation has an ETHICAL DIMENSION. First and foremost, the scientific concern with validity requires that scientists be honest and reveal their methods. Scientists also have to consider the uses to which their findings will be put. In addition, because criminological research deals with people such as criminals, criminal suspects, and incarcerated inmates, and controversial topics criminologists have some unique ETHICAL CONCERNS.

HONESTY AND OPENNESS

Research distorted by political or personal pressures to find particular outcomes or to achieve the most marketable results is unlikely to be carried out in an honest and open fashion or to achieve valid results.

THE USES OF SCIENCE

Scientists must also consider the extent to which they should publicize their research and the uses to which it is put. Although many scientists believe that personal values should be left outside the laboratory, some argue that it is proper, even desirable, for scientists in their role as citizens to attempt to influence public policy.

RESEARCH ON PEOPLE

In physics or chemistry, research subjects (objects and substances) may be treated to extreme conditions and then discarded when they are no longer useful. However, social (and medical) scientists must concern themselves with the way their human subjects are treated in the course of research.

The Following are Guidelines On Using People for Research

(a) Research should cause no harm to subjects;

(b) Participation in research should be voluntary, and therefore subjects must give their informed consent to participate in the research.

(c) Researchers should fully disclose their identity.

(d) Anonymity or confidentiality must be maintained for individual research participants unless it is voluntarily and explicitly waived.

(e) The benefits of a research project should outweigh any foreseeable risks.

END OF PART 2