Scientific methods

Página 1

scientific methods

What is science?

Use of empirical methods?

Replicability?

Objectivity?

Theory construction?

Hypothesis testing

Peer reviews

science:

is a scientific process where we gain information from observable and measurable evidence.

one process of science is developing hypothesis, and testing them by using Empirical methods

hypothesis: set of predictions made by psychologists.

what are empirical methods?

it involves observation via the senses and not based on beliefs, thoughts or opinions.

empirical methods involveSelf report studies

Experiments

Observations

they are objective which means the observation shouldn't be made with bias therefore it shouldn't be influenced by our personal viewpoint and expectations.

how to lessen the chances of bias ?

Standardised instructions

Operationalised variables

Replicability this involves repeating the research again under identical conditions. the more the study can be replicated the more we can trust its findings.

hypothesis testing and falsifiability Replicability takes an important part if the scientific process is called falsifiability. And its needed for hypothesis testing

in this process the hypothesis of a research can be tested and found to be false.

how does this happen?

by replicating the study under identical conditions.

what is a scientific fact?

a scientific fact is that it has been tested empirically, objectively and can be replicated!

theory construction those scientific facts can be used to construct more complex theories e.g.

memory

attachment

attraction

validating new knowledge and the role of peer review what is peer review?

is a part of a scientific process used to decide whether a research is scientifically acceptable or not. It acts as a filter system, the experts have to decide whether the report/ research can be published.

What are the steps of peer review process?

researcher writes a report of their research ( introduction, methods, results and conclusions)

the report is sent to several anonymous expert reviewers

the experts will review objectively the report checking for replicability, objectivity and validity.

they report back to researcher highlighting weaknesses and areas for improvements.

they recommend the following:

Accept the report unconditionally

Accept after it has been improved in certain ways

Reject but suggest improvements/ resubmit

reject it outright

criticisms of the peer review process:

There can be organisations that have invested interests in certain research therefor this ensures that only the type of research they want/ benefits them will be published. e.g. drug companies want studies to show their products are effective. this puts pressure on those in peer review to remain unbiased and independent.

the peer review can be biased, often the experts will be familiar with the work that they are reading and knowing the researcher, this makes it difficult to be unbiased, especially if you dislike the researcher/ jealousy.

some experts have been accused for not validation the research for publication so that their own research will get published first.

the peer review is a very slow process, it can take up to several years to achieve.