Srs 1.1

681 views
625 views

Published on

1.1 why research
1.2 a brief history of SC
1.2 So what is SC ? Why the fuck I care
1.2 Induction
1.2 Popper and the need for falsifiability
1.2 but what separates SC non-SC (NSC) for Popper ?
1.2 The failing of falsification and Bayesianism
1.2 The hypothetico-deductive method .
1.3 Quantitative VS Qualitative
1.5 Planning research

Published in: Education
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
681
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
10
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Srs 1.1

  1. 1. SRS chapter 1 <br />Prepared by <br />Ahmed Shaheen :P <br />
  2. 2. 1.1 why research ?! WTF<br />Asch studied (visual perception ) . <br />Your seated in the lab and all the people in the room are asked to call out which line matches the standard line on the board . <br />The answer is obvious by observation . <br />The answer was called randomly in 1st test every body announced the right answer<br />2nd test the experimenter draw a new standard line and 3 comparison lines Once again the participants calls out the right answer . <br />
  3. 3. 1.1 why research ?! WTF<br />3rd round of the test the first participants calls out the wrong answer and so does the next and the next until your turn you think u would give the correct answer well it’s not that simple .<br />What Asch found ? 1 in 3 people went along with a group the (line was also obvious ) the group pressure and desire made them mistake this was a human nature <br />
  4. 4. 1.2 a brief history of SC<br />The begging of SC . <br />16 century thinkers speculations were sophisticated and insightful but rarely based on evidence collected in systematic manner .<br />Francis bacon (1561-1626) & Newton (1642 -1727) working in physical SC , clearly demonstrated the value of empirical work in making claims about the world . <br />That is work based on experience-constantly through observations of experimentations <br />Rather than theory . <br />
  5. 5. 1.2 <br />Freud ( 1856 – 1939 ) . His work was widely believed that the same method were applicable to both physical SC & social SC <br />He used psychoanalytic by using a clinical case studies based on therapeutic interviews with his patients to generate data & then theories by observation <br />Criticism : - <br />Subjectivity – bias on data collection – the perceived lack of concrete testable statements about the theory . <br />
  6. 6. 1.2<br />Theory is not scientific : <br />1- there’s possibility of testing imprecise statements that stem from a theory <br />2- when evidence provide a challenge it’s not rejected but merely modified to fit the evidence . <br />-behaviorists believed that only through study of directly observable event could psychology be a truly scientific discipline <br />-Cognitive psychologists believe that it was possible to study the working of the mind <br />
  7. 7. 1.2 So what is SC ? Why the fuck I care <br /><ul><li>Some traditional definitions:
  8. 8. Science is the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts.
  9. 9. Science is the organized body of knowledge that is derived from such observations and that can be tested by further investigation
  10. 10. Science is an intellectual activity that has goals and methodology</li></li></ul><li>Differences between SC & knowledge . <br />SC Acquire info through experience <br />( should be based on empirical evidence) have to be derived from a good quality research .<br />Sc is objective <br />What is in your mind is knowledge<br />Knowledge is justified true belief<br />Sources of knowledge :- <br />Personal Experience – Authority - Science<br />
  11. 11. 1.2 Induction <br />Definition : induction is the process by which scientists decide on the basis of multiple observation or experiments that some theory is true or not . <br />Induction: Example:<br /><ul><li>Premise 1: Some female students like volleyball
  12. 12. Premise 2: Fatima is a female student
  13. 13. Conclusion: Fatima like volleyball.</li></ul>Inductive reasoning contrasts strongly with deductive reasoning. Even in the best, or strongest, cases of inductive reasoning, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Instead, the conclusion of an inductive argument follows with some degree of probability.<br />Problem : Adding more information to the premises will change the probability of the conclusion. <br />
  14. 14. 1.2 Popper and the need for falsifiability(give incorrect data)<br />Popper (1902-1994) responded to the problem of induction and argued that SC doesn’t rely on induction at the first place <br /> we learn from our mistakes <br />For Popper it’s the falsifiability of conjectures that matters when making scientific inferences and not reapted positive test of a conjecture . SC in popper is view is simply a series of conjecture & refutations <br />
  15. 15. 1.2 but what separates SC non-SC (NSC) for Popper ? <br />Popper believed that what separates SC from NSC is that scientific conjectures are at least falsifiable . That is they are always framed as clear explicit statements that can be tested and refuted if the evidence from empirical research fails to support them .<br />In contrast disciplines that are NSC such as astrology don’t provide clear and explicit conjectures that can be refuted there conjectures are so imprecise that no evidence can ever serve to disprove the theory <br />
  16. 16. 1.2 The failing of falsification and Bayesianism<br />What Popper has given us is a way of understanding the – scientific knowledge which not important what’s important is + scientific knowledge . With no mechanism for judging whether a theory is wrong or right . <br />How to solve the problem of induction ? <br /><ul><li>One solution was proposed by Thomas Bayes(1701-1761) that our beliefs come in degree these degrees of belief are the extent to which events are subjectively probable .
  17. 17. The essence of Bayesianism that it doesn’t matter what degree of probability you assign to some events in the first place as long as you revise your probability prediction in a rational way when faced with evidence in support of or against your conjecture . So the Idea that we can’t generalize the theory but we can say that it will act in a way that we know and we would be surprised if it didn’t
  18. 18. Criticism : the subjective nature of judgments </li></li></ul><li>1.2 The hypothetico-deductive method . <br />Deduction is most commonly understood as principle scientific method within the social SC<br />One classic example of deductive reasoning is like the following:<br />Premise 1: All humans are mortal. <br />Premise 2: Khalid is a human. <br />Conclusion: Khalid is mortal.<br />The reasoning in this argument is valid, because there is no way in which the premises, 1 and 2, could be true and the conclusion, 3, be false.<br /> The validity of the premises guarantee that the conclusion to be valid<br />Adding more information to the premises will not change the arguments conclusion.<br />
  19. 19. 1.2 The hypothetico-deductive method . <br />Inductive<br />Observations<br />Intuition<br />Theory<br />Deductive<br />Hypotheses<br />Empirical tests<br />Results<br />
  20. 20. 1.3 Quantitative VS Qualitative <br />Quantitative: is a research that concerns the quantity or measurement of some phenomenon .<br /> research involves the collection and analysis of numerical data such as correlation and experiment research. <br />Qualitative:is a research that concerns the quality or qualities of some phenomenon .<br />research involves the collection and analysis of extensive data on many variables over an extended period of time in a naturalistic setting to gain insights into the problem or the situation of interest. <br />
  21. 21. 1.3 Quantitative VS Qualitative <br />
  22. 22. 1.3 Quantitative VS Qualitative<br />Quantitative: <br />
  23. 23. 1.3 Quantitative VS Qualitative<br />Qualitative:<br />
  24. 24. 1.5 Planning research <br />Theory :<br />The starting point in general a theory may be characterized or specific .abstract theories are general theories that may be applied to a number of particular topics or settings specific theories are specific to particular setting or topic<br />
  25. 25. 1.5 Planning research <br />Variables : identified events that change in value so it’s things that are vary so we can make comparisons <br />Hypotheses : specific statement concerning a limited element of a theory needs to be highly specified and unambiguous so that it can be appropriately tested and either supported or refuted . <br />We say that we operationalize concepts when we develop specific ways of measuring something <br />
  26. 26. 1.5 Planning research <br />Sampling : the group of people we are studying and we can’t take every one cause It will waste money and time but the danger is we may have a sample that is not representative of the population <br />Design : how we going to do every thing <br />Analysis : type of statics we going to use <br />Findings : after the analysis you’ll produce findings based on your interpretation of your data and results and it will feed back to your theory what is important is that the finding has to be replicated so can be confidant with your findings<br />

×