NATURE AND ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE

Science is a set of methods used to collect information about phenomena in a particular area of
interest and build a reliable base of knowledge about them.

- This knowledge is acquired via research, which involves identifying a phenomenon to study,
developing hypotheses, conducting a study to collect data, analysing the data, and
disseminating the results
- Science also involves developing theories to help better describe, explain, and organize
scientific information that is collected.
- Nothing is science is the absolute truth. All scientific observations, conclusions, and theories
are always open to modification and perhaps even abandonment as new evidence arises

ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE

behind the scientific approach lie certain assumptions about the world

Uniformity or Regularity in Nature

- Science searches for regularities in nature

- If there were no uniformity or regularity, science would only amount to a historical
description of unrelated facts
- If there were no uniformity in nature, there could be no understanding, explanation, or
knowledge about nature.
- Without regularity, we could not develop theories or laws or generalizations
- Implicit in the assumption of uniformity is the notion of a rather strong form of determinism
—The belief that mental processes and behaviours are fully caused by prior natural factors
- Through research, we are able to identify variables that are linked together and find
probabilistic causes (causes that usually produce outcomes) for behaviours
- Once you have determined the events or conditions that usually produce a given outcome,
you have uncovered probabilistic causes.

Reality in Nature

- The assumptions that what you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste things that are real, and
these experiences are real
- We assume that other people, objects, or social events like marriage or divorce are not just
creations of our imagination, and we assume that many different types of “objects” can be
studied scientifically
- In science, researchers check reality in many ways to obtain objective evidence that what is
claimed is true through data collection and analysis

Discoverability

- Scientists believe not only that there is regularity and reality in nature but also that there is
discoverability—that is, it is possible to discover the regularities and reality.
- The research process is similar to putting a puzzle together: Scientific research includes the
difficult task of first discovering the pieces of the puzzle. Each study conducted on a given
problem has the potential of uncovering a piece of the puzzle. Only when each of these
pieces has been discovered is it possible for someone to put them together to enable us to
see the total picture.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

In order to produce reliable and justified knowledge, the scientific process relies on several
important characteristics. Three of the most important characteristics of scientific research are
control, operationalism, and replication

Control

- experiments are the preferred research method when you need to address the issue of cause
and effect.
- In order to make a clear statement regarding cause and effect, control refers to keeping a
variable constant or removing the influence of extraneous variables
- Allows for an unambiguous claim about cause and effect
- For example, when testing the effectiveness of a new drug on depressive symptomology,
researchers must control for participants’ expectations that the drug will help their
symptoms. That’s because in some cases, participants will experience improvement in
symptoms as a result of thinking that they have received a useful treatment, even when the
treatment condition has no value
- This type of improvement is referred to as the placebo effect - Improvement due to
participants’ expectations for improvement rather than the actual treatment
- Therefore, well-designed experiments testing the effectiveness of new drugs include a
control condition where participants receive a treatment in which the “drug” looks like the
actual drug, when in fact it does not have the active ingredient of the new drug. If
participants receiving the real drug report more improvement than participants receiving the
placebo, the researcher can be more confident that the new drug is the actual cause of the
improvement. Without the control condition, the researcher would not know whether the
cause of the improvement was the drug or the placebo effect.

Operationalism

- Was introduced by Bridgman (1927) - argued that science must be specific and precise and
that each concept must be defined by the steps or operations used to measure them
- This type of definition came to be known as an operational definition

Replication

- Scientific knowledge is greatly advanced by replication

- Replication refers to the reproduction of the results obtained from one study in additional
studies
- To make a general claim, you must know whether the same results will be found if the study
is repeated.
- If the observations are not repeatable, the observations were either due to chance or they
operate differently in different contexts.
- If the variables of interest operate differently in different contexts, then contextual factors
must be systematically examined in additional research
- Meta-analysis is a quantitative technique that is used to combine, integrate, and describe the
relationships between variables across multiple research studies.

GOALS OF SCIENCE

Description

- The first and most basic goal of science is to describe

 - You must identify the characteristics of the phenomenon and then determine the degree to
which they exist
- This goal is achieved by which can be something directly observable (such as running speed,
eye gaze, or loudness of laughter) or something less observable (such as self-reports of
perceptions of attractiveness).
- For example, Piaget’s theory of child development arose from detailed observations and
descriptions of his own children
- Any new area of study usually begins with the descriptive process, because it identifies the
variables that exist
- Only after we have some knowledge of which variables exist can we begin to explain why
they exist.

Explanation

- The second objective is the explanation of the phenomenon, and this requires knowledge of
why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.
- Therefore, we must be able to identify the antecedent conditions that result in the
occurrence of the phenomenon.
- Therefore, we must be able to identify the antecedent conditions that result in the
occurrence of the phenomenon.
- As the research process proceeds, we acquire more and more knowledge concerning the
causes of phenomena.
- With this increasing knowledge comes the ability to predict and possibly control what
happens.

Prediction

- Prediction refers to the ability to anticipate an event prior to its actual occurrence
- We can, for example, predict very accurately when an eclipse will occur.
- Making this kind of accurate prediction requires knowledge of the antecedent conditions
that produce such a phenomenon.
- It requires knowledge of the movement of the moon and the earth and of the fact that the
earth, the moon, and the sun must be in a particular relationship for an eclipse to occur.
- The ability to predict often helps us make better decisions

Control or influence

- Control refers to the manipulation of the conditions that determine a phenomenon.

- When the antecedent conditions are known, they can be manipulated to produce the
desired phenomenon.

ROLE OF THEORY IN RESEARCH

- To gather reliable facts, the research procedure must be used to make objective
observations.
- Once the facts have been accumulated through the research process, they must somehow
be integrated and summarized to provide more adequate explanations of psychological
phenomena
- This is one of the roles that theory plays in the science
- A theory is an explanation to how and why a phenomenon operates as it does
 - A good theory must also suggest new hypotheses that are capable of being tested
empirically and must have the capacity to guide research as well as to summarize the results
of previous research
- This means that there is a constant interaction between theory and empirical observation
- theory is originally based on observations and empirical research; this is called the logic or
context of discovery. it’s the inductive part of science
- Once the theory has been generated, it must direct future research; this is called the logic or
context of justification; it’s the deductive part of science where predictions are derived and
then empirically tested
- The outcome of the future research then feeds back into and determines the usefulness of
the theory, and this process continues again and again
- If the predictions of the theory are confirmed by subsequent research, evidence exists that
the theory is useful in accounting for a given phenomenon
- If the predictions are refuted by subsequent research, the theory has been demonstrated to
be inaccurate and must either be revised so as to account for the data or be thrown out.

The different types of theories include:

a. Quantitative: The relationships between its variables and constants in a set of mathematical
formulas. Given specific numerical inputs, the quantitative theory generates specific
numerical outputs.
b. Qualitative: These tend to be stated in verbal rather than mathematical terms. These
theories state which variables are important and, loosely, how those variables interact.
c. Descriptive: A theory that merely describes a relationship without providing an explanation
for that relationship. Descriptive theories provide only the weakest form of explanation.

Characteristics of a good theory

a. A theory must account for most of the existing data within its domain. It should account for
“most” of the data rather than “all” of it as at least some of the data may in fact be
unreliable.
b. The explanation for a phenomenon provided by a theory must offer good grounds for
believing that the phenomenon would occur under the specified conditions.
 c. A theory is testable if it is capable of failing some empirical test. That is, the theory specifies
outcomes under particular conditions, and if these outcomes do not occur, then the theory is
rejected. When a theory can provide a seemingly reasonable explanation no matter what the
outcome of an observation, you are probably dealing with an untestable theory
d. A good theory should predict new phenomena. Within its domain, a good theory should
predict phenomena beyond those for which the theory was originally designed. Strictly
speaking, such predicted phenomena do not have to be new in the sense of not yet
observed. Rather, they must be new in the sense that they were not taken into account in
the formulation of the theory.
e. A theory should account for phenomena within its domain in the simplest terms possible and
with the fewest assumptions. If there are two competing theories concerning a behaviour,
the one that explains the behaviour in the simplest terms is preferred under the law of
parsimony

ETHICAL ISSUES REALTED TO RESEARCH

What is ethical and unethical in research is ultimately a matter of what a community of people agree
is right and wrong. but some guidelines should be common for all.

I. Voluntary participation
a. A major tenet of medical research ethics is that experimental participation must be
voluntary. The same norm applies to social research. No one should be forced to
participate. This norm is far easier to accept in theory than to apply in practice
b. This norm of voluntary participation, though, goes directly against several scientific
concerns. In the most general terms, the scientific goal of generalizability is
threatened if experimental subjects or survey respondents are all the kind of people
who willingly participate in such things.
c. Because this orientation probably reflects more-general personality traits, the results
of the research might not be generalizable to all people.
d. Though the norm of voluntary participation is important, it is often impossible to
follow. In cases where researchers feel ultimately justified in violating it, their
observing the other ethical norms of scientific research, such as bringing no harm to
the people under study, becomes all the more important
II. No harm to participants
a. The need for norms against harming research subjects has stemmed in part from
horrible actions by medical researchers.
b. At the top of the list stand the medical experiments on prisoners of war by Nazi
researchers in World War II
c. Because subjects can be harmed psychologically in the course of a social research
study, the researcher must look for the subtlest dangers and guard against them
d. Social research projects may also force participants to face aspects of themselves
that they don’t normally consider. This can happen even when the information is not
revealed directly to the researcher.
e. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed the consequences of the being part of the
experiment as many of the participants were suffering psychological damage as a
consequence of their mock incarceration, and some of the student-guards were soon
exhibiting degrees of sadism that would later challenge their own self-images.
 f. As soon as the signs were noticeable, the experiment was stopped and participants
were counselled to avoid any lasting damage from the experiment
g. just about any research you might conduct runs the risk of injuring other people in
some way. It isn’t possible to ensure against all possible injuries.
h. he ethical norms of voluntary participation and no harm to participants have become
formalized in the concept of informed consent. This norm means that subjects must
base their voluntary participation in research projects on a full understanding of the
possible risks involved
III. Anonymity and confidentiality
a. Anonymity is achieved in a research project when neither the researchers nor the
readers of the findings can identify a given response with a given respondent.
b. A research project guarantees confidentiality when the researcher can identify a
given person’s responses but promises not to do so publicly
IV. Deception
a. Because deceiving people is unethical, deception within social research needs to be
justified by compelling scientific or administrative concerns.
b. One appropriate solution researchers have found is to debrief subjects following an
experiment.
c. Debriefing entails interviewing subjects to learn about their experience of
participation in the project. This is especially important if there’s a possibility that
they have been damaged by that participation
d. By discovering any problems generated by the research experience, those problems
can be corrected.
V. Analysis and reporting
a. In addition to their ethical obligations to subjects, researchers have ethical
obligations to their colleagues in the scientific community.
b. These obligations concern the analysis of data and the way the results are reported
c. the researcher should be more familiar than anyone else with the study’s technical
limitations and failures. Researchers have an obligation to make such shortcomings
known to their readers—even if admitting qualifications and mistakes makes them
feel foolish.
d. Negative findings, for example, should be reported if they are at all related to the
analysis. There is an unfortunate myth in scientific reporting that only positive
discoveries are worth reporting (journal editors are sometimes guilty of believing
this as well). In science, however, it’s often as important to know that two variables
are not related as to know that they are.
VI. Plagiarism
a. Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if
the other work or data source is cited occasionally
VII. Reviewers
a. Psychologists who review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or
research proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in
such information of those who submitted it.