Planning, organization and implementation of scientific research...

Planning, organization and implementation of scientific research

Any scientific study assumes a certain logic of its construction. The norms of modern scientific thinking assume that all scientific research begins with the formulation of the problem of research, the definition of its general goals and specific tasks. Typically, scientific research involves the formulation of one or more hypotheses that will be tested as it is implemented. And the decision of such questions, in turn, assumes a choice of concrete methods of data collection and their processing. The newly collected data should be interpreted correctly so that the researcher can draw appropriate conclusions and a general conclusion about the problem being developed in the study.

A methodically literate and prepared researcher plans the entire research system in advance. A gambler who likes to take risks or simply does not have sufficient competence, is convinced that the research is built intuitively, and the listed components of the structure of scientific research are formulated after the results are obtained. In the best case, such research ends with the fact that the ends do not converge in its description. In the worst case, the results of the study can be thrown into the basket, because the data obtained can not be processed and any conclusions can be drawn from them.

Ultimately, the researcher has the right to choose - to plan research or to hope for a chance. But in both cases, a report on the scientific research conducted (it may be a training report on psychological practice, course or diploma work, a master's or master's thesis, an article in a scientific journal) is written in accordance with the structure whose components are listed at the beginning of this section. We will discuss them in more detail.

Statement of the problem - the starting point of scientific work

The problem of research is the question to which the researcher seeks an answer in a scientific study. It can reflect a certain gap in knowledge about the subject of research. For example, we still do not know exactly how personal qualities such as intellect and creativity (creativity) are related to each other, or what are the causes of regularly recurring mistakes in some kind of activity. All this means that in this field of psychological knowledge there is a gap that can be the subject of scientific research aimed at replenishing it and thus providing answers to the questions posed.

Another variant of the formulation of the research problem is a contradiction in the ideas about the subject of research. As a rule, behind these representations lie certain theories.

For example, there is a theory called the two-factor theory of emotions. She explains the emergence of a smile by the fact that a person is experiencing something pleasant, and this pleasant feeling is manifested in the form of a smile. On the contrary, A. Fridlund's ethological theory explains the emergence of a smile by its social function to maintain, renew and establish positive social relations. In the work of R. Kraut and R. Johnston (a study in bowling), already mentioned by us, these two authors decided to compare two explanations for the appearance of a smile. The problem of their investigation, therefore, is formulated as a contradiction between two explanations for the emergence of a smile: whether it arises from the experience of pleasure or because of the maintenance of social contacts. They recorded expressions of the faces of the players in the bowling alley and showed that the smile arose regardless of whether the players knocked the pins or not; regardless of the feeling of pleasure. It was found that the presence of a smile depended on whether the player was alone or surrounded by his team.

Contradictions in the structure of scientific knowledge can be determined not only by different theoretical points of view on the same subject, but also by the inconsistency of the results obtained in various empirical studies, or by the discrepancy between the theory and the experimental facts collected in order to verify the predictive capabilities of this theory.

The formulation of the problem of work is important from two points of view.

First, it is the starting point for describing and interpreting the research results. If the author is unaware of what he did and why he did it, then, having obtained concrete results, he will not be able to divide them into important and random ones, since the results that answer the question reflecting the problem of research are important.

Secondly, the wording of the research problem is important in order for anyone who will read the research report to understand what the research was devoted to. Below is an example of what happens when a research problem is not formulated.

An example of a study that does not contain a problem

Work l. Sherman from the University of Miami "Environmental research on the state of ecstasy in small groups of preschool children," published in the journal Child Development in 1975, was awarded the Shnobel Prize in Psychology (given for the most dubious achievements in scientific research that make one laugh first, and then reflect) in 2011

Sometimes you have to think about really important things. For example, in 2004, the Shnobelev Prize was awarded to a study that became a modern classics in the field of attention psychology (more precisely, blindness inattention) by D. Simons and C. Shabri. This work laid the foundation for a series of similar studies that demonstrate how blind people are to occasionally bright events if their attention is absorbed by a task. In the case of Sherman, one has only to think about what this work was done for. The answer to what question the author was looking for? Or, in scientific terms, what is the problem of research?

Sherman made video recordings of children of three and four years in groups of kindergarten for three years. Analyzing the records, he formulated the idea and introduced the notion of group enthusiasm. According to his definition, group enthusiasm is a very intense, joyful-affective state, manifested by the greater part of the group. Sherman singled out fourteen provoking factors. Here are some of them:

- the question of the teacher, for example: "Who wants to go out into the street?"

- incongruities or funny words ("ay-ah", "doo", "t-tu"),

- violation of prohibitions by using forbidden words ( stink etc);

- awkward jumps, falls;

- the absence of factors (a large number of cases of enthusiasm occur for no apparent reason).

The state of rapture occurs in about four out of ten cases, when the children gather together, and lasts 4-9 seconds. The most common expression of delight is a joyous cry without laughter. The least widespread expression of delight is a joyous cry, accompanied by laughter. The most common way to call delight is a simple question. When boys and girls get together, they are more enthusiastic than when they are separated from each other.

So, what did the researcher find out? That the children, when they get together, demonstrate a joyous revival, which he named group enthusiasm. But in order to notice this, it was not worth making video recordings for three years, it was enough just to go to kindergarten for a couple of weeks. In the work it was not described that children, being together, rejoice differently than singly, i.e. group delight is something different from other forms of childlike joy. What factors lead to group enthusiasm? The study showed that such special factors do not exist, since a large number of cases of enthusiasm occur for no apparent reason. In that case, what was this work done for? What question did the researcher answer, and most importantly, how did he answer?

The research problem is formulated specifically. For example, the researcher may be interested in this question: at what ratio of lengths of segments does the Mueller-Layer illusion disappear? In this case, the researcher knows exactly what the Mueller-Layer illusion is, the canon is obtained, and wants to find out the range of the lengths of the segments on which it appears (Figure 2.1).

Fig. 2.1. Mueller-Layer illusion: the upper horizontal segment appears shorter than the bottom, although in fact they are equal

An example of an unspecified problem is the following question: "How to achieve happiness and universal harmony?" As soon as the author of such a question articulates to himself what happiness is and what is the universal harmony - just as the first researcher formulates what is the illusion of Mueller-Layer - he may answer his main question without constructing any scientific research .

The requirement of concreteness is the first and most important requirement for the formulation of a scientific problem. Another requirement is that the problem be formulated as a universally valid question. In other words, the solution of the problem should be of some value to science or some practical field. Student question Will I be able to write this report? Is a problem for an individual student, but not a problem of scientific research, since it is significant only for a given student, but not for a group of people in relation to which this problem could be universally significant.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)