26 /6/ 2020
University Ziane Achour Djelfa – Algeria
Dr. Boukhechba Hicham
Science : Lecture 3
The frequent repetition of the notions of scientific knowledge and scientific research raises the
question of what science is and what promotes knowledge or research to be scientific. According
to Bhattacherjee (2012, p.1), science stands for a systematic and organized body of knowledge in
any area of inquiry that is acquired using “the scientific method”. There is an alignment in the
literature that science refers to systematic knowledge. In fact, etymologically, the word “science”
is derived from the Latin word Scientia meaning knowledge. The notion of science can be looked
at from three perspectives: science as a social institution, science as a process, and science as a
result.
1. Science as a Social Institution
As far as the first point is concerned, often, the first idea that comes into one’s mind when the
word science is used has to do with scientific institutions such as universities, laboratories, and
research centers. In this respect, science is looked at as a system or a community which provides
a totality of scientific establishments and structures of scientific services. The system also
incorporates scientific ethos, social certification, social values, organizational, political, and
financial aspects of science.
2. Science as a Process
Secondly, how knowledge is uncovered and interpreted is also crucial in setting scientific
knowledge apart from the ordinary one. In other words, the label science can be also employed to
designate the process and the practices involved in obtaining knowledge. The whole aspects
involved in finding out what we do not know systematically are discussed under the term “research
methodology”. The latter is defined as “ a systematic and refined technique of thinking, employing
specialized tools, instruments, and procedures to obtain a more adequate solution of a problem
than would be possible under ordinary means. The whole procedure starts with a problem, data
collection, critical analysis, finally reaching decisions based on the actual evidence. It evolves from
a genuine desire to know rather than a desire to prove something.
The gist behind adhering to meticulous and in-depth research methodology is to ensure the
fulfillment of four criteria without which any branch of enquiry cannot be deemed as science:
replicability, precision, falsifiability, and parsimony. All of these are interrelated; thus, it is hard
to talk about one criterion without referring to others. For instance, replicability means that a
researcher’s account for the method he/she utilized in research has to be accurate, comprehensive,
and detailed. This will allow other researchers to independently replicate or repeat a scientific
study and obtain similar, if not identical results. Therefore, if one is to be able to reproduce an
experiment or study, the author of the original research has to provide precise measurements of
the different concepts used.
The ability to reproduce the same variables and conditions of the original research allows
other researchers to put the consistency of the work to the test. Thus, they will independently and
impartially test preexisting theories. Of course, in case of any discrepancy, researchers can
disprove theories. In this vein, Bhattacherjee (2012, p.5) sees “ theory must be stated in a way
that it can be disproven. Theories that cannot be tested or falsified are not scientific theories and
any such knowledge is not scientific knowledge. A theory that is specified in imprecise terms or
whose concepts are not accurately measurable cannot be tested, and is therefore not scientific.”
The last criterion, parsimony, can simply be interpreted as simplicity, being efficient, and
economical. Parsimony is a guiding principle that suggests that in case of multiple solutions to a
problem, the simplest should be preferred. A researcher should seek to find a solution that can be
generalized better across a wide range of situations. Thus, parsimonious explanations are simple,
precise, and easy to replicate as opposed to one that needs to be specifically tailored to the original
situation at hand.
3. Science as a Result
A frequently asked question in academia is “ Which is more important: the process or the
result?”. Often students when they set their mind on a topic or a problem, they try to think of the
results, anticipating, and assessing whether their research would bring the desired conclusion or
not. In this case, a student is considering the practicality of his /her research, trying to minimizing
risks. While there is no question that practicality is rather an important criterion in any endeavor,
focusing solely on an anticipated result would contradict research ethics. There is a high chance
that a researcher would be biased either intentionally or unintentionally in the design phase if the
end goals are considered as a priority.
Therefore, from an ethical standing point, the process is of paramount importance. Therefore,
success in research is arriving at any conclusion which is a result of detailed methodology, high
moral values, and accepted norms and regulations. After all, the knowledge obtained is going to
be a mere reflection of the process. Subsequently, scientific knowledge has to be, objective,
verifiable, ethical, systematically explored, reliable, precise, and abstract. There is nothing called
failure in scientific research if the procedures are carefully carried out and the above criteria are
met.
