To determine whether there is any hope of doing perfect research, one must first be able to accurately define research. According to an article on USSA.edu, in its broadest sense, research can be defined as investigation and writing based upon the idea of scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry is explained as the assumption that everything is based on cause and reaction, and research attempts to examine and explain this relationship (“The Research Process”). While it might be next to impossible to ever do perfect research, this paper will argue that there is always hope that someday it might be achieved.
First, we must look at why research is done in the first place. Scientists, scholars, and students alike do research with the hopes of explaining phenomena in order to either control the outcome of a particular topic, or to make polices or procedures that will positively affect the research subjects. Next, one must look at the word ‘perfect’. Taken at face value, the word perfect is subjective. What is considered perfect to one researcher might not be considered perfect to another. Finally, one must understand the motivations of the researchers. Most often, the goal is to improve whatever subject it is being studied.
If the researchers are not striving for perfection, this paper argues, then why bother doing it at all? For example, let us examine the issue of the death penalty. There have been numerous debates throughout the years as to whether or not the death penalty deters individuals committing crimes. Many people strongly support the death penalty for a variety of reasons, including the need for retribution or based on moral beliefs. Likewise, many oppose capital punishment for these very same reasons: they are morally opposed to executing people, and do not believe in revenge. Scholars have examined the issue at length over the years, and, like the general public, have differing opinions on whether or not capital punishment deters crime and reduces the crime rate. In one studied published in 2009, the authors examined death penalty eligibility factors for those convicted of child murder. They analyzed data from states that changes their requirements for who would be eligible to receive the ultimate penalty between the years 1985 and 2001.
Based on their analysis, the authors concluded that had the states not changed their eligibility requirements, that is, making it more difficult to imposed the penalty on a convicted offender, the rate of child homicide would have been as much as 20% lower than it was. Another study, published in 2010, came to a different conclusion. Analyzing state-level data from 1995 -2006, the researcher measured homicide rates per 100,000 population. The basic premise behind this study is that states with high execution rates would have lower homicide rates and vice versa. However, the professional researchers and essay writers were unable to find such a connection. The state with the highest execution rate for example, Texas, did not have a statistically meaningful lower homicide rate than states without the death penalty. Furthermore, the study was unable to find any significant deterrent effect of capital punishment on homicide in other states. So, what is the point of all this academic research, some might ask. If there are two relatively recent studies regarding the same subject, namely the death penalty, and each study comes to a different conclusion, this shows there is no hope in doing perfect research, many would argue. This paper disagrees.
Research is an essential element in explaining phenomena. Although those conducting the research might never be able to do ‘perfect’ research, the hope is always there. Much research is based upon previous studies conducted years ago. It is up to each researcher to strive to come as close to perfect as possible. Perhaps the question should be “There is no hope of obtaining a perfect outcome”? As researchers, we can always perfect our methods and use sound scientific principles. That is the key in doing ‘perfect’ research. The outcome might not be what one expects, and therefore not ‘perfect’, but it is up to the researchers to come as close as possible in achieving that goal.
First, we must look at why research is done in the first place. Scientists, scholars, and students alike do research with the hopes of explaining phenomena in order to either control the outcome of a particular topic, or to make polices or procedures that will positively affect the research subjects. Next, one must look at the word ‘perfect’. Taken at face value, the word perfect is subjective. What is considered perfect to one researcher might not be considered perfect to another. Finally, one must understand the motivations of the researchers. Most often, the goal is to improve whatever subject it is being studied.
If the researchers are not striving for perfection, this paper argues, then why bother doing it at all? For example, let us examine the issue of the death penalty. There have been numerous debates throughout the years as to whether or not the death penalty deters individuals committing crimes. Many people strongly support the death penalty for a variety of reasons, including the need for retribution or based on moral beliefs. Likewise, many oppose capital punishment for these very same reasons: they are morally opposed to executing people, and do not believe in revenge. Scholars have examined the issue at length over the years, and, like the general public, have differing opinions on whether or not capital punishment deters crime and reduces the crime rate. In one studied published in 2009, the authors examined death penalty eligibility factors for those convicted of child murder. They analyzed data from states that changes their requirements for who would be eligible to receive the ultimate penalty between the years 1985 and 2001.
Based on their analysis, the authors concluded that had the states not changed their eligibility requirements, that is, making it more difficult to imposed the penalty on a convicted offender, the rate of child homicide would have been as much as 20% lower than it was. Another study, published in 2010, came to a different conclusion. Analyzing state-level data from 1995 -2006, the researcher measured homicide rates per 100,000 population. The basic premise behind this study is that states with high execution rates would have lower homicide rates and vice versa. However, the professional researchers and essay writers were unable to find such a connection. The state with the highest execution rate for example, Texas, did not have a statistically meaningful lower homicide rate than states without the death penalty. Furthermore, the study was unable to find any significant deterrent effect of capital punishment on homicide in other states. So, what is the point of all this academic research, some might ask. If there are two relatively recent studies regarding the same subject, namely the death penalty, and each study comes to a different conclusion, this shows there is no hope in doing perfect research, many would argue. This paper disagrees.
Research is an essential element in explaining phenomena. Although those conducting the research might never be able to do ‘perfect’ research, the hope is always there. Much research is based upon previous studies conducted years ago. It is up to each researcher to strive to come as close to perfect as possible. Perhaps the question should be “There is no hope of obtaining a perfect outcome”? As researchers, we can always perfect our methods and use sound scientific principles. That is the key in doing ‘perfect’ research. The outcome might not be what one expects, and therefore not ‘perfect’, but it is up to the researchers to come as close as possible in achieving that goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please tell your Facebook friends about the $40 Strategic Edit at DoctorMyDocument.com