If we are to deal with such an interesting question in writing, we need to revisit our knowledge on what research is first and understand the real context of the question. There is always a danger of misconceptions that would eventually result to not answering the question appropriately.
Based on a dictionary definition, research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or any systematic investigation to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories. It is a process of investigation or an examination of a subject from different points of view. Research is the way you educate yourself (Online Library Center, 2012).
According to Griffiths (1998, p97), there is no hope of doing perfect research. I do not concur with Griffith within that context up to a certain point. You see, research itself is scientific and thus truthful in a specific period of time, specific people involved, and to a specific situation. We call it scientific because before we can come up with a complete research, we have to pass through a lot of things and we have to exert a lot of effort, concentration and nights and nights of burning the midnight candle. This is in accordance with the fact that we have to consult other experts and statisticians to validate our research before any body can claim that they have done a research or more so, publish it. In this context, I can say that a research is perfect in a specific area of knowledge, audience and time frame.
On the other hand, I agree with his contention regarding the impossibility of doing a perfect research in a different context that contrasts my first contention. I would like to put a perimeter to this context and emphasize the first contention that I stated in the first paragraph. Although research is perfect for a specific area, time and audience, all types of researches would need to be revisited. Meaning, for example, though you have researched in this specific problem last year, you can always revisit it and do another research, which could be of almost the same topic but with different variables and respondents. Since change is the only permanent agent in the world, this would always remind us that situations change or vary, thus we need to conduct researchers continually.
If we stop searching for knowledge by not continually conducting researches, the world then, would not develop. Simply put, if we deem a specific research as perfect, then we will not look for more innovations and will not hunger for development. If researches were perfect, people will not conduct other researches to follow it through. As a result, knowledge will have several limitations, and we will have extremely limited opportunities for improvement. In summary, if researches were perfect, there would be no opportunity for improvement, knowledge will be limited, and life would be much more difficult for individuals.
Let’s take a look at very familiar and concrete examples why a certain research is not perfect in a sense that it is not applicable to all time and all situations. It is a very common knowledge that the first telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876 at the age of 29. Alexander Graham Bell might easily have been content with the success of his telephone invention. His many laboratory notebooks demonstrate, however, that he was driven by a genuine and rare intellectual curiosity that kept him regularly searching, striving, and wanting always to learn and to create. He would continue to test out new ideas through a long and productive life. He would explore the realm of communications as well as engage in a great variety of scientific activities involving kites, airplanes, tetrahedral structures, sheep-breeding, artificial respiration, desalinization and water distillation, and hydrofoils (About.com.Investors, 2012).
If the researches conducted by Sir Alexander Graham Bell were perfect, we would not find other ways and means to come up with new development through conducting other researches in relation to the previous ones. Now let’s consider the case of the invention of the cellular phones. Doctor Martin Cooper, who is currently the CEO of an antenna corporation, invented the modern cell phone when he was the Director of Research and Development at Motorola. Before the invention of hexagonal cells, however, the military and some wealthy individuals and businesses relied on radiophones. These phones required a large backpack device to transmit the phone’s signal to a nearby station. With the invention of hexagonal cells in the late 1940s, radiophones were rendered almost completely useless. After 1973, cell phones took off slowly due to their large size, high cost, and relative uselessness for most individuals. The mid 1980s brought about fully automated cellular networks that mildly decreased the price and increased the amount of people using cell phones in their cars. It was not until the early to mid 1990s that cell phones were made small enough and cheap enough to appeal to the average consumer (Tech-Faq.com). These series of continual improvisations of inventions prove that a particular research is never perfect in such a way that we always find new answers to emerging questions through the conduct of research.
Another example to illustrate this would be the research that I conducted myself entitled “Leadership Styles of Managers and Performance Effectiveness of Employees of DMMA College of Southern Philippines,” last semester in my Master’s Degree which I submitted to the University of Southeastern Philippines in order to finish the course Master in Public Administration just last semester 0f SY 2011-2012. The purpose of my research was to either prove or disprove the “path-goal theory” which is also known as the theory of leader effectiveness or the path-goal model. This theory was developed by Robert House in 1971. The theory states that the leader’s behavior is contingent to the satisfaction, motivation and performance of his subordinates, thereby affecting their performance effectiveness in the organization. This specific theory was proven true in my research.
However, this doesn’t mean that I will not conduct any more researches in my organization with regards to the performance effectiveness of the employees. This just means that in that particular period of time and respondents and during that particular situation that my research could attest its truthfulness. I or anybody else can conduct a research to follow up, strengthen or to even disprove my research. Hence, the notion of “no research is a perfect research.”
To conclude, like Griffiths, I also believe that there is absolutely no hope of doing a perfect research. But I would like to emphasize that researches are valid in its specific perimeter which considers time, people and the situation. However, since research is a continuous process with the intention of improving or changing previously proven theory, we shouldn’t stop in there. In most cases, new researches can modify previous researches by improving them, thereby making life easier for mankind. In a nutshell, research is an ongoing process—a process that will continue for ages due to humans’ quest for knowledge and hunger for new developments and innovations.
References
About.com.Investors. Alexander Graham Bell – Biography. Retrieved March 5, 2012.
About.com.Investors. Alexander Graham Bell – Biography. Retrieved March 5, 2012.
Cervales, Ma. Anita P. (2011) “Leadership Styles and Performance Effectiveness of the Employees of DMMA College of Southern Philippines.” University Research. University of Southeastern Philippines, Davao City.
Online Library Center. Retrieved: March 4, 2012 6:15A.M.
Tech-Faq.com. Mobile Telephony. Retrieved March 5, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment