Theory, Data Collection, and Data Analysis

What is your true objective when undertaking any empirical research project? What have you observed that peaked your interest and or motivated you to pursue a given course of study?

The answer to these questions lay both in logic and in a deliberate observation from a scientific perspective. "The two pillars of science are logic and observation. A scientific understanding of the world must (1) make sense and (2) correspond with what we observe. Both elements are essential to science and related to three major aspects of the overall scientific enterprise: theory, data collection, and data analysis" (Babbie, 2014, p. 7). Is your theory sound and based in empirical evidence or is your theory in reality a disguised personal opinion without any empirical support? Logic dictates clarity of thought, while the observation should be detailed and focused; not a general glance.

Purpose of Empirical Research

Why undertake an empirical research project? In most instances, the purpose of research is to fill some gap or gaps in knowledge. How do we know what we know within a social construct? The process of epistemology and methodology are the blue prints of empirical research. According to Babbie (2014) "epistemology is the science of knowing. Methodology (a subfield of epistemology) might be called the science of finding out" (p. 4). As such, the purpose empirical research is generate new knowledge and or better explain a selected aspect of a phenomenon; investigate interests, issues, and or societal problems, in response to a Request For a Proposal (RFP), or to analyze, explore, and or describe a social phenomenon.

As one engages in any level of empirical research, the type of research must be clear and deliberate in both approach and design. The four core types of research approaches are: analytical, descriptive, exploratory, or predictive. The purpose of any study will dictate the approach. In brief, an analytical approach will allow the researcher to seek answers to the why and or how questions in relation to a phenomenon. At the heart of any analytical study are the cause and affect in relation to the core variables. Descriptive research allows the researcher to focus on selected characteristics of a phenomenon. A descriptive approach is most often leveraged via a quantitative design where data can be secured and analyzed to determine whether or not a statistical signifigance exist. An exploratory research approach design is used to really fill those gaps in knowledge where few study already exists. Whereas, the predictive research design allows the researcher to make assertions about the relationship between and or among selected variables.

Socratic Methods: A Linear View

According to Tucker (2007), “The Socratic methods, or elenchus, is defined as a prolonged series of questions and answers which refutes a moral assertion by leading an opponent to draw a conclusion that contradicts his own viewpoint, during this dialogue, students are forced to critically examine other viewpoints and question their own assumptions and assertions” (p. 80).  According to the Socratic methods it is not necessary to look for truth on a specific topic, it is discovering truth for ourselves. Tucker (2007), stated “education emphasizes critical thinking, original thought, and judgment. Socrates stated that he is not a teacher in the sense that “teaching” is simply transferring knowledge from instructor to student. He does, however, engage students in a dialogue designed to enable the discovery of truth for themselves” (p. 81-82).  Socratic methods create critical thinking more or less helps students think critically, I believe the two go hand and hand.  Socratic methods have emphasis on critical thinking and professional dialogue.  Socratic methods are used in professional environments.  According to Tucker (2007):

Use of the Socratic method serves to produce a strong professional in fields that are mainly self-governing. The largely successful efforts of law and medicine to maintain high professional standards (and remarkably little legislative oversight) have their foundation in the emphasis on critical thinking and professional dialogue (p. 81).

Observations from many view points: A Triangulation Concept

Observing a phenomena from many angles and or approaches is often value added from an empirical research perspective. Consider triangulation. Triangulation is a method of conducting research that potentially increases the validity of the overall research process. Cox and Hassard (2005) asserted that triangulation is “the use of multiple methods and measures of an empirical phenomenon in order to overcome problems of bias and validity” (p. 110). Whereas, information and or data are collected and analyzed from at least three separate research methods approaches and or information sources to strengthen the validity of the entire research study, validity, and reliability of the methods and instruments used during a given research project. Furthermore, Cox and Hassard et al. (2005) put-forth that “the implicit assumption in much of the social science literature on triangulation therefore is of developing a more effective method for the capturing and fixing of social phenomena in order to realize a more accurate analysis and explanation” (p. 111).

In most instances, triangulation can be viewed as a mix methods process within either a qualitative or quantitative frame or both. Moran-Ellis, Alexander, Cronin, Dickinson, Fielding, Sleney et al. (2006) asserted that “the potential for knowing more about a phenomenon through the use of different research methods in one empirical investigation is often discussed under the rubric of  triangulation” (p. 46). Moreover, Moran-Ellis et al, put-forth that “different approaches to mixed methods reflect epistemological debates about the status of the data produced by different methods, and these have implications for the way researchers see the relationships among findings generated by methods situated within distinct theoretical perspectives” (p. 46). Subsequently, a mixed-methods approach offer researchers the ability to have more confidence in the validity and results of a given research study.

IV Happens In-Time Before DV

Variable order is critical order. Once you have selected a broad problem area (i.e. topic), it becomes important to narrow a broad topic into a specific variables and or topic. For example, Violence (i.e. topic) narrowed to family violence (i.e. specific topic). Then, what does family violence cause? Family violence leads to juvenile delinquency. Whereas, family violence is assumed to happen in-time before a juvenile become delinquent. Moreover, the assumption is that there is a relationship, association, and or correlation between family violence and juvenile delinquency. This is just an assumption in-need of validation. Having a thought or an opinion about a concept is not validation. Validation is secured through empirical research based on an observation of selected variables.

For example, you should be able to use your selected variables to model the examples below. This is important as the items below become your foundation for the overall project. So, you must be able to write your variables as such to ensure that you are on track.

Research Methodology

            Research methodology is a process of discovery in relation to a phenomenon from a social science perspective. Whereas, such discovery can take one of three paths, which are qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed methods approach of uncovering information or data about a something, a phenomena, or a theory. For example and from a criminal justice view, Hagan (2006) argued that a methodology “involves the collection of accurate facts and or data regarding the nature of crime and criminal justice policy” (p. 10) based on a theoretical assertion.  Bachman and Schutt (2001) posited that a theory is defined as “a logically interrelated set of propositions about empirical reality” (p. 39) that is clearly and deliberately observed.

          

  In most instances, selected research approaches help to guide a research process that supports replication and rigorous peer review. Bachman et

al. (2001) argued that “social science research methods can reduce the likelihood of overgeneralization by using systematic procedures for selecting individuals or groups to study that are representative of the individuals or groups which we wish to generalize” (p. 11) or to assert a theory or hypothesis. Bachman et al. (2001) pointed out that a hypothesis is “a tentative statement about empirical reality, involving a relationship between two or more variable” ( p. 45) for which a method of discovery is needed.  Hagan (2006) asserted that “a research hypothesis states an expected relationship between variables in positive terms” (p. 20) that must be empirically observed for understanding in relation to an individual, group, or organization.

Critical Thinking 101

There is a measureable difference between thinking and critical thinking, just as there is a difference between general research and scientific empirical research.

In most instances, critical thinking is a daily challenge; some view critical thinking as a learned skill that should be practiced continually through one’s life-course. Ruggerior hypothesized that “critical thinking…[is]…defined as the process by which we test claims and arguments and determine which have merit and which do not. In other words, critical thinking is a search for answers, a quest” (2005, p. 17).

Ruggerior’s perspective is supported by many scholars. Moreover, the process of probing for clarity within an argument provides the framework of critical thought. Whereas, “the uncritical accept their first thoughts and other people’s statements at face value, critical thinkers challenge all ideas in this manner” (et al., p.17). Ruggerior posited that “extensive, effective training in thinking is the exception rather than the rule” (2004, p. 15).