Universalism. Ideally, the scientific community recognizes no advantages or distinctions among scientists other than the merit of their research. Research is judged by its scientific quality, not by who did the research or where it was done. Whether the investigator was a male or female, from one country versus another, or what their previous research record is should not matter: Only the quality of research being reported is considered. Science strives to be a true international effort.

Reliance on observation. Science relies on evidence derived from observations. In doing research, scientists record what they observe through their senses - seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, or tasting. Relying on human senses to establish knowledge is known as empiricism. Scientific knowledge rests on empirical discovery and logical analysis of what is observed. Scientists accept no other basis for establishing knowledge. All conclusions or generalizations must be based on empirical evidence.

Box 1.2. Norms of scientific inquiry Science is universal. It is based on the same rules, norms, and criteria for judging quality of research for scientists anywhere in the world. Science relies on empirical observation, derived from use of the human senses. Every research report is open to critical review by other scientists. Scientists   accept unexpected or contrary results equally with expected findings. Scientists seek to be as objective as possible in all their work. Scientists expect absolute honesty by researchers in conducting and reporting scientific research. The scientific community is committed to communicating research results for scientific and public use. Scientists are expected to be open-minded and be ready to accept new knowledge that emerges from the worldwide scientific community.

Skeptical review of all research. Every scientific report is subject to criticism. Nothing is accepted as self evident. Criticism focuses on how important the topic is, how the study was designed, descriptions of protections that were taken to ensure collection of valid data, how the data were analyzed, and the validity of the conclusions or generalizations that are offered. Scientific criticism serves to weed out results that do not meet the stringent criteria of scientific research and to recognize results that have scientific merit. Scientists expect and accept this criticism as part of the way the scientific community works. They also recognize that criticism, no matter how much they may dislike it, is not personal. When your research advisor criticizes your research proposal, design, analysis, or conclusions, remember this is simply the way the scientific community seeks truth.

Maintaining a disinterested attitude. Scientists are trained to accept what their data tell them. Ideally, scientists are open to unexpected findings or even look for data that are contrary to tentative conclusions. The great British biologist, Charles Darwin, for example, kept notebooks in which he recorded every report or observation contrary to the theory of evolution that he was developing. He used contrary reports to test the strength of his own observations and interpretations of his data.

Being objective. Closely related to remaining disinterested in the results of a study is the norm of being objective. Being objective or showing objectivity means we examine a problem or set of data with no preconceived ideas or personal bias. Ideally, a scientist's objectivity will allow the person to see something like it really is, as it exists in its natural form, without any distortion or error. As we said earlier, complete objectivity is not possible, but social scientists try to be as objective as possible. The opposite of objectivity is subjectivity. Being subjective about something means that we show an obvious bias or unfounded personal preference for one idea or conclusion over others. Using methods of scientific inquiry helps protect against subjectivity and increases our capacity to be more objective in research.

PREV       NEXT

---