2nd

 Epistemology

The term "epistemology" originated from the Greek words "episteme" and "logos". The word "Episteme" means that "knowledge" or "understanding" and the word "logos" can be converted as the meaning of "science, argument and reason".

Epistemology is associated with ways of knowing and learning about the world and focuses on issues such as how we can learn about reality and what forms the basis of our knowledge. This deals with learning the How and What part in exploring the truth. I.e. if we know that there is knowledge or a phenomenon than 'what is it' and 'How do we' discover or reveal it.

Epistemology is concerned with all aspects of the validity, scope and methods of acquiring knowledge, such as a) what constitutes a knowledge claim; b) how can knowledge be acquired or produced; and c) how the extent of its transferability can be assessed. Epistemology is significant in light of the fact that how the researchers frame their research process to find information. By looking at the connection between a subject and an object, we can investigate the possibility of epistemology and how it impacts research design. Objectivist epistemology presumes that reality exists outside, or independently, of the individual mind. Objectivist research is useful in providing reliability and external validity.

Constructionist epistemology rejects the idea that objective 'truth' exists and is waiting to be discovered. Instead, 'truth', or meaning, arises in and out of our engagement with the realities in our world. That is, a 'real world' does not pre-exist independently of human activity or symbolic language. The value of constructionist research is in producing contextual understandings of a characterized subject or issue.

Subjectivist epistemology identifies with the possibility that reality can be communicated in a range of symbol and language frameworks, and is extended and moulded to fit the reasons for people to such an extent that individuals force significance on the world and decipher it such that it sounds good to them. The value of subjectivist research is in uncovering how a person's experience shapes their impression of the world.

All research methods assimilate a variety of epistemological and ontological assumptions. As indicated by Bryman, epistemology is a theory of knowledge and concern of what is considered as admissible information in a specific discipline. Another scholar, Saunders, points out that epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and what concoct acceptable knowledge in the field of study. Epistemological presumptions can be viewed as a question of what seems to be (or ought to be) viewed as worthy knowledge in a discipline.

The focal issue of epistemology in social science is the issue whether the social world can and ought to be concentrated by similar standards and strategies as the natural sciences. The answer to that question directs the route toward the agreeableness of the information created from the research process. Therefore, epistemological assumption can be regarded as associated with the nature of knowledge and the methods through which that knowledge can be gained. There are two epistemological assumptions that will be discussed in this section namely: Interpretivism/ phenomenological and positivism.

Positivism and Interpretivism Two main philosophies that have influenced the development of social research are positivism and interpretivism. Positivism holds that methods of the natural sciences are appropriate for social enquiry because human behaviour is governed by law. That it is possible to carry out independent, objective and value free social research while interpretivism, claims that natural science techniques are not fitting for social investigation in light of the fact that the social world isn't represented by normalities that hold law-like properties. The philosophy of qualitative research is depend on the principle of interpretivism.

According to Saunders, interpretivism is an "epistemology that it is necessary for the researcher to understand differences between humans in our role as social actors." Interpretivists researchers are related as the 'feeling researchers. This is because interpretivists researchers play a role as 'social actors' where they could decipher their everyday social roles in accordance with the meaning given to these roles and interpret the social roles of others in accordance with our own set of meanings. Apart from that, interpretivists see that the realities and values are not extraordinary and discoveries are affected by the analyst's viewpoints and values.

The fundamental thoughts of a positivist view can be regarded, as the social world exists externally. The positivists approach to deal with research is that the examination attempted beyond what many would consider possible, in a value freeway.

The researchers must be free and its qualities ought to be estimated through objective methods. For example through experimental methods - the testing of theory or hypotheses to gradually develop and refine universal laws of nature. Positivist researchers believe that there are obvious connections among things and occasions in the outside world and individuals' have knowledge on them. This is because of the way that positivist specialists endeavour to explain and anticipate what occurs in the social world via looking through normalities and causal connections between its constituent components. Research methodologies in positivist perspectives are influenced by the rationale of experimental got from natural science. Research methods like large-scale survey of population or representative sample, formal questionnaires, standardized interviews are used to research a wide scope of subjects. The utilization of statistical analysis and measures of association and the development of measurement models are remarkable in this approach.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics is the theory and philosophy of comprehension and interpretation. The term derived from Hermes, a son of Zeus, who deciphers messages from the Greek gods.

Hermeneutics as the approach of interpretation is concerned with issues that emerge when dealing with meaningful human activities and the products of such activities, in particular the text. Simply, treating issues of the interpretation of human activities, texts and other significant material. Hermeneutic hypothesis perceives that interpretive difficulties can be investigated from different perspectives that set various suppositions about what understanding involves and what the objectives of interpretation ought to be.

Hermeneutics alludes to an interpretive way to deal with science as opposed to a solitary bound together logical way of thinking. Hermeneutics began during the seventeenth century as a methodology for deciphering scriptural writings. During the late nineteenth century, the area of hermeneutic inquiry began to incorporate the study of human conduct. Philosophers like Wilhelm Dilthey gave more preference to understanding human beings than gaining empirical knowledge of nature. The nature of interpretation in various subjects is different from the interpretation associated with natural science.

If you trace out the history of Hermeneutics tradition related to four philosophical phases. The first hermeneutics research heritage is related to the philosopher Friedreich Schleiermacher. The distinctive characteristic of this hermeneutic research tradition is the conviction that the right interpretation of a text is achieved by the author and how it was enacted in the appropriate situation.

The second hermeneutic tradition is associated with the contribution of Dilthey known as hermeneutic re-enactment and reproductive Hermeneutics. This tradition gives more emphasis to interpretation and empathetic process. Empathetic understanding can acquire through the think from someone else's point of view and imagine recreating the real and possible experiences of others.

The third hermeneutic research method is referred to as hermeneutic reconstruction or basic hermeneutics. This line of thinking was put forward by Carl-Otto Apple and Jurgen Habermas. One of the characteristics of this tradition is the presence of a "false consciousness" that deliberately loses our understanding of human experience. Supporters of hermeneutic reconstructionism propose that science must create theory and techniques touchy to social and tyrant structures so as to comprehend human activity.

The last hermeneutic research convention has been alluded to as productive or projective hermeneutics. These marks help us to recognize this hermeneutic custom from hermeneutic re-authorization. The reader presumes a unique meaning to text due to hermeneutics objectivism. Conversely, hermeneutics keeps up that researchers can't "bracket" their assumptions, nor can they really underline with another's insight. Rather, they. Keep up that a "completely blameless" perusing of text is unthinkable, and that the interpreter assumes a functioning part in making the understanding. Generally, the interpreter or researcher helps to "produce" meaning during the time of analysis.

The modern thoughts of Hermeneutics began in the eighteenth century in Germany and this systematically developed with the contribution of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the two prominent philosophers Martin Heidegger and Hans Georg Gadamer provided great contribution to the development of philosophical Hermeneutics.

The Hermeneutic approach holds that the most fundamental fact of social life is the meaning of an action. Social life is established by social activities, and activities are important to the actors and to the next social members. In addition, subsequent activities are based towards the meaning of earlier activities; so understanding the later activity necessitates that we have an interpretation of the meanings that different members assign to their own activities and those of others. So the different disciplines in social science should be hermeneutic: researchers need to give their attention for the interpretation of the meaning of social activities.

The significant element of philosophical hermeneutics that is so crucial to research is interpretation. The huge component of philosophical hermeneutics that is so urgent to research is translation. Interpretation of text and discourse can accordingly be diagnostically isolated into two separate domains. On one side, the researcher needs to analyse the text and speech by placing it into its authentic and social setting, by interfacing the part to the entire. This development isn't to be puzzled with recreating the original meaning of the text. Because no total reproduction of all relevant factors will ever be possible and no need for that reproduction. Rather, the second analysis emphasises that one can arrive at an adequate comprehension of the text or speech being referred to that is grounded in one's own chronicle situatedness. The undertaking of getting that person accurately doesn't likewise need "going local" and remaking the underpinnings on which current proclamations rest. As individual's, we as a whole offer a shared belief of building our reality in manners that are significant to us. The utilization of language is at the center of this chance, as our significant developments of reality lay on language as the principle methods for this development, and language additionally establishes the primary vehicle of conveying across ages and societies. Hans- Georg Gadamer points out that language as naturally interpretive, sharp, and self-expressive presses back against the embodiment of words as components to be checked and infers that even sorts of effective assessment must be moved closer with care. For philosophical hermeneutics, understanding is etymological and language is interpretive.

Conclusion

As people we are as of now naturally introduced to a world that has been organized. The researcher is an important part of the social reality, he or she is attempting to comprehend. So the researcher should attempt to expect a nonpartisan or objective position toward social realities. Research isn't just about the question of methodology, yet in addition the choice of research strategy which includes a few perspectives or beliefs that underlie the circumstance of what is being studied.

Philosophical points of view are significant in light of the fact that, when made express, they uncover the suspicions that researchers are making about their research, leading to decisions that are applied to the reason, design, methodology and methods, data analysis and interpretation for the research. At the most fundamental level, the simple decision of what to concentrate in the sciences forces values regarding one's subject.

With an expansion in interdisciplinary exploration, an assessment of the purposes of contrast and convergence between the philosophical methodologies can create basic reflection and discussion about what we can know, what we can realize and how this information can influence the lead of science and the ensuing decisions and actions.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

Introduction

Etymologically, the term "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia", meaning knowledge. Science refers to the systematic and organised body of expertise in some field of study that is obtained by means of the "scientific method." Science can be categorized into two broad classifications: natural science and social science. Natural science is the science of natural objects or phenomena, such as light, objects, matter, planet, celestial bodies, or the human body. Natural sciences can be further categorised as physical sciences, earth sciences, life sciences, and so on. Social science, on the other hand, is the science of individuals or classes of people, including such groups, corporations, populations or economies, and their individual or collective actions. Social sciences can be categorized into fields such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics.

Scientific Knowledge and Scientific method

Sciences may also be categorized on the basis of their function. Basic sciences, also known as pure sciences, are the ones that describe the most basic structures and powers, the interaction between them, and the laws that regulate them. Examples are mechanics, arithmetic and genetics. Applied sciences, also known as functional sciences, are sciences that relate fundamental scientific expertise to the physical world.

Nicholas Walliman, in his book, Social research methods, mentioning steps in scientific method.

• Identification or clarification of problems..

• Formulation of provisional solutions or hypotheses.

• Practical or theoretical testing of solutions or hypotheses.

• Elimination or adjustment of unsuccessful solutions.

The problem of evaluating hypotheses in real life raises challenges. Realistic scientific theories comprise a diverse series of statements, each of which can be based on observations based on earlier theories. Testing approaches are often based on hypotheses which are affected by environmental factors. If the assumptions of the hypothesis are not carried out in the outcomes of the experiments, it may be the underlying principles that would be at fault rather than the theory itself. Scientific Knowledge

The goal of research is to establish scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge refers to a generalized body of laws and hypotheses that describe the phenomenon or action of concern that is obtained by the scientific method. The purpose of scientific study is to discover laws and postulate hypotheses that can describe natural or social phenomena or, in other words, construct scientific knowledge. It is necessary to understand that this experience can be incomplete or far from the facts. Often there may not be a single fundamental fact, but rather a balance of various truth. We must realize that the hypotheses on which scientific understanding is founded are merely reasons for a single phenomenon, as proposed by a scientist.

Theories and experiments are the two foundations of science, while experimental study works at two levels: theoretical and observational. The theoretical level is concerned with the creation of abstract ideas regarding a natural or social phenomenon and the relationship between these concepts. whereas the empirical level is concerned with evaluating theoretical concepts and relationships to see how well they match our observations of reality, with the intention of eventually building better theories.

Obviously it depends on the researcher's expertise and interest, the experimental investigation can take one of two potential forms: inductive or deductive. The researcher's aim in inductive analysis is to derive scientific principles and patterns from the evidence found. In deductive analysis, the researcher's aim is to evaluate testable concepts and patterns using new empirical evidence. Inductive analysis is often also referred to as theory-building research, and deductive research is theoretical-testing research. Notice that the purpose of the theory-testing is not only to validate the theory, but likely to refine, strengthen, and expand it. Notice that inductive and deductive analysis is two-half of the research duration, which is continuously aligned between hypothesis and observation. You cannot do inductive or deductive analysis until you are familiar with both the theory and the evidence components of the research. A full researcher is, of course, one who can go through the whole study cycle and manage both inductive and deductive research. Science is simply a way to an end. Science gives answers as to how certain activities should be carried out in order to protect certain ends.deductive analysis until you are familiar with both the theory and the evidence components of the research. A full researcher is, of course, one who can go through the whole study cycle and manage both inductive and deductive research. Science is simply a way to an end. Science gives answers as to how certain activities should be carried out in order to protect certain ends.

Characteristics

Scientific information is empirical and well-accepted. Objectivity simply requires the willingness to see and recognize things as they are. Objectivity requires that all types of individual interests be put aside, such as opinions, desires, ideals and biases. This indicates that the analyst is absolutely abstaining from contributing his own viewpoints. If the prosecutor records the true evidence, they are said to have been obtained. Science's main goal is to uncover the real truth. It is completely necessary to preserve objectivity in order to maintain the other virtues of science. Although it's easy to speak about upholding objectivity. it's hard to follow it. This is particularly true in the case of sociology, since it is a topic of research in society, including the scientific community. Humans have an overwhelming temptation to illustrate sparkling facets of self-describing. This will disrupt the scientific mindset of the inquiry.

Scientific data is founded on verifiable facts such that other researchers can detect, calculate or quantify the same phenomenon and verify the accuracy of the observations. Accurate and reliable results need to be obtained through systematic methods in science. A scientist who identifies those who are researching under the same conditions would consent. It is the responsibility of the scientist to reject his observations as baseless and unreasonable. Science should not transfer moral judgment on the truth. It doesn't mean they're either good or evil. It is necessary to note that concepts which cannot be rationally evaluated are philosophical directives and therefore do not come under the limits of empirical law.

Science is commonly characterized as a systematic analysis of a particular field of knowledge. The purpose of research thus becomes knowledge, while systematic analysis has become the mechanism by which the established objective is attained. A systematic approach by science to the phenomenon to be studied. Scientific knowledge is not the one obtained in a haphazard manner, but it is compiled with accuracy, rigor and formality. Truth can only be revealed by a structured approach. And if it is unveiled in the absence of an approach, it can only be viewed as an unintended final exception. In reality, the purpose of every kind of analysis is to acquire information or facts. It is only this systemic mechanism that separates research from other types of methods.

Science is ethically neutral in nature, it's all searching for information. If this information is to be used is decided by the principles of society. Ethical neutrality does not mean that the scientist has no meaning at all. It clearly implies that it does not cause its principles to distort the nature and conduct of its study. Scientific information is either value- neutral or value-free.

Science (1) offers a way of solving problems, i.e. obtaining values; (2) offers alternative approaches such that marginal costs may be calculated; (3) provides a way of predicting what the other effects of the course of action might be. The scientific approach moves past the solution to the practical dilemma. There is a compulsion to use new tools to help fix the dilemma or to find different ways to solve it more satisfactorily. The scientific approach process requires supervised experimentation. This implies that, although the application of casual scientific observation could solve a fundamental issue.

The scientific solution attempts wider generalizations. As a scientist is focusing on issues, he is mindful that he is creating a science. It looks for certain facts, wherever they may be found, which constitute methodological uniformity. This, in essence, are being analyzed in an effort to find the basic values. The realistic approach, however, is merely an intermediate step and not the end of the journey for the scientist. Scientific experimentation is based on an established body of generalizations. This sentence is a continuation of the previous paragraph. Not only does the scientist pursue generalizations, but he also seeks to expand their usefulness by comparing them to other generalizations; in short, he wants to construct a structure of philosophy.

Science aims to explore certain parts or aspects of fact, with an overarching method of reasoning to explain those fragments, it should not be shocking that each science creates its own words or principles for the purpose of communicating its findings. Too much so that we can apply to the scientific framework of science as a logical system. We use these words to stand for the phenomenon or elements of the phenomena we are researching. As a consequence, when we propose a proposal, we use definitions as representations of the phenomenon we research, and it is essentially these fundamental phenomena that we refer to each other. However, since we interact explicitly with only the meanings, it is clear that we will often confuse the term with the phenomenon that it is intended to symbolize. This is a typical mistake to be addressed in a moment under the word "reification."

Scientific principles must be communicable in a very special way. They must not only give rise to an ambiguous "feeling" but must be so built that all the components are identified. The core processes of description, fundamental to the basic issue of conceptualization, are the derivation and explanation of the elements of such a construction. Owing to the variations between the common sense paradigm and the empirical way of looking at the universe, careful description has a paradoxical nature. It promotes collaboration within the sciences, but it also establishes obstacles to the comprehension of scientific principles.

Since each specialization deals with various phenomena, a variation of scientific jargon has been created to express these basic information. The difference between these many sciences differs, based on the closeness of the relationship between the frames of the sources. The difference between sociology and the physical sciences is a chasm. The ordinary sociologist cannot read any of the Chemistry and Physics reports in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, with any great comprehension. He clearly does not know the terms, he does not have the requisite definitions.

The scientific method is commonly used in many fields of science, but does not, and has never enjoyed, absolute superiority in all topics. Any of the world's best philosophers disagreed with the ideals of positivism found in the scientific method. The alternative approach to science is focused on the philosophy of idealism and humanism. It maintains that the vision of the world we see around us is the product of the imagination. This doesn't really mean that the universe is not real, but instead which we can perceive it only directly through our experiences that are conditioned by our preconceived notions and beliefs; we are not impartial, disembodied observers. Unlike natural sciences, the researcher cannot observe events outside the system, but is inextricably tied up with the human condition he/she is researching. In comparison, by focusing on the quest for constants of human behavior, the researcher emphasizes the routine, stagnant and invariant nature of culture and lacks what is contextual, individual and imaginative.

Scientific method in social research

Sociologists often begin the research process by raising questions about how or when things are occurring in this world. It may be a new question about a current movement or an old question about things like a general field of life. If the sociologist poses a question, he or she will answer it in an in-depth way. The researcher can adopt a theoretical approach or an interpretive framework to determine how this process is organized. Sociologists use experimental and practical analysis techniques, such as analyses, surveys and field experiments. But human beings and their social interactions have become so dynamic that it can seem impossible to graph or explain those relationships.

Due to its complexity, we use scientific approaches to research human behaviour. The scientific research process carries out criteria to help ensure that the conclusions are objective and accurate. Scientific approaches have strengths and limitations that drive the study and organize its conclusions.

The scientific method is to develop and evaluate world theories on the basis of observable facts. It is marked by a determination to continuously analyse the world of experience, to learn to be empirical, analytical, skeptical and rational. The results of the study are not erroneous, as scientific methods are used in sociological studies. The purpose of optimizing sociological problems allows people access to historically unprecedented material, such as knowledge of a variety of other cultures, comprehension of customs and values, or knowledge of trends and attitudes. No matter what research methods researchers have used, researchers would really like to optimize the efficiency and validity of the research.

Sociologists may use the scientific method not only to collect but also to display and interpret data. Scientific logic and objectivity have been deliberately introduced. They act within their own social or political interests. It does not mean that researchers do not have their own personalities, including interests and viewpoints. However, sociologists actively use the scientific method to maintain as much objectivity, clarity and precision as is possible in such a complex analysis.

The School of Social Thought stresses another component of the scientific method, that is, theoretical and empirical. To this point, they aim to return the very necessary and proper application of the scientific method to social studies. Yet do a lot more wisely. Some of them even go to extremes and reject any relevance to the observational and research approaches of sociology.

Absolute objectivity has thereby practically become a nonsensical term. If seventeenth-century physical advancements tainted it with subjectivity, and nineteenth- century inventions demolished its absoluteness and rendered all physical information relative to the observer (including space, time, and cause), twentieth-century advancement has gone much further and has shown that the "object" of observation and the "subject" observer constantly interact, that there is very definiteness. The cultural perspective maintains that social processes are more adaptable to theory than to natural science approaches, that introspection and "subjective" research must continue to be of utmost importance, that social interactions can only be studied externally to a very limited degree, and that, in place of, and in contrast to, empirical, experimental, and calculating techniques, social relations can only be observed externally.

Social phenomena are really dynamic in the sense that their existence depends on a variety of variables. Social, cultural and physical conditions can profoundly affect social processes, and it is often difficult to discern the general order in which they occur. It is also very complicated in the social sciences to draw up an all-encompassing generalized theory. There are legitimate protections to this claim. While nuances and variations occur in social phenomena; similarities in specific features are observable. It is true that there are not going to be two absolutely similar individuals. It must be understood, however, that distinctions between individuals are not central, but peripheral. Furthermore, uncertainty is not an absolute term. When man's understanding of complete entities increases, the uncertainty itself will disappear. Once again, the dynamics are not only linked to social phenomena. They can also use in physical phenomena.

Another significant challenge to the application of the empirical method is understood to be the unpredictability of social phenomena. It is impossible to introduce stimuli in the middle of unpredictable actions, because even though they are introduced and the result is accomplished, it is difficult to distinguish the effect of stimuli from the subjective behavior of phenomena.

The qualitative nature of social processes is seen as an obstacle to the successful application of the scientific process. Atomic sciences applying the quantitative aspects to phenomena. Physical challenges include density, weight, etc., which can be expressed in quantitative and specifically calculated terms. How enigmatic is the standard, the routines. the status, etc., as seen from this perspective. In some cases, in the social sciences, it is difficult to distinguish the cause and the consequence. This interdependence of variables poses difficulties in implementing the method. The evolving existence of social dynamics is known to be a significant limitation on the implementation of the system. Phenomena is evolving, and deductions dependent on previous rules are becoming ridiculous.

Conclusion

The scientific method has proven valuable in the field of sociological science. The scientific method provides an organized, coordinated series of steps that help to ensure objectivity and consistency in the exploration of the problem of society. They have the tools to enhance reliability, accuracy and authenticity. In the end, the scientific method presents a common basis for debate and study.

NATURE OF SOCIAL REALITY

Introduction

What does the word 'social truth/reality' mean? Truth is the totality of what it actually is. As a consequence, social truth can be systematically and rationally described as that aspect of what is social. An overview of the essence of social existence is an account of that aspect of what is social. What does 'social' mean by that? Whereas the Latin 'socialis' connotes companionship, the term 'social' is used in contemporary days to describe some kind of human coexistence. Think of experience as allowing one insight to reality, to what it really is. What I mean is that reality is, for the most part, irrespective of the perception of any single person, and that experience is something from which people comprehend reality.

 Nature of social reality

All social scientists are interested in the perspectives of people and how these experiences are influenced by encounters with social groups and culture as a whole. As far as a sociologist is concerned, personal and human choices do not occur in a vacuum. Cultural trends and socioeconomic influences are placing pressure on individuals to choose one alternative over another. Social reality lies in the interrelationship of the constant passing of various people's lives. In 1966, sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann wrote the book The Social Construction of Reality. In it, they argued that culture is formed by human activity and human interaction, which they term Habitualisation. Social truth is the aspect of the universe to which knowledge allows us entry, which is the domain of human coexistence. Social existence consists of a constant, interrelated existence. This indicates that the processes in which social existence has its roots are phenomena constituting and interrelated life: (i) Actions, (z) Intelligibility- determining factors, (3) The entities found in settings, and (4) Interrelations.

Society consists of various structures of relationships between individuals and between individuals and objects, as well as of relationships between individuals and objects. These relationships do not, however, occur between particular persons, but rather between roles held by individuals and activities in which, by nature of their occupation of such positions, they participate. These roles and behaviours form a system regulated by certain connections systems, the explanation of which is the role of social science.

Sociologists aim to define these common phenomena by analysing the actions of large numbers of individuals living in the same community and feeling the same social stresses. When general behaviours continue over time and become repetitive or routinized at micro- levels of involvement, or legitimized at macro or global levels of interaction, they are known as the social systems. The subjects analysed in social science involve social organization, e.g., family structure, historical accounts, cultural and intellectual revolutions, forms of government, socio-economic classes, historical periods, infrastructure, and the workings of the market economy. Clearly, certain phenomena constitute a heterogeneous collection in nature. But if so, it is not clear how the technique of seeing the implications of the existence of its subjects of research for social science can very easily allow one to understand social science.

All social phenomena, and therefore all subjects of social investigation, would be elements or portions of them. As a result, an analysis of social reality makes possible a detailed account of the universe of all the subjects of social science. Developing the latter systemic approach to dealing with problems of social theory and the philosophy of social science includes, first, an analysis of the essence of social fact and, secondly, a tracing of the implications of this analysis for the formation of social processes and the character of social research.

The problem of social reality has been dealt with significant findings by philosophers of the phenomenological tradition, in particular Alfred Schutz, who used the word "social world" to characterize this distinct dimension of reality. Inside the social universe, Schütz differentiated between a social reality that could be encountered immediately and a social reality outside the immediate horizon which could also be experienced if tried.

The challenge with sociology lies with the fact that it sometimes uses ordinary vocabulary to describe a variety of relatively everyday phenomena. The relationship between the individual and society is one of the most complicated sociological concerns. This is partially because of the reified manner in which these two words are used in daily conversation. Reification refers to the manner in which abstract ideas, dynamic structures, or mutable social relations are thought of as "things."

The principle that the individual and society are indistinguishable is a central foundation of social reality. Without the other, it is difficult to research one. The German sociologist Norbert Elias (1887-1990) called for a mechanism of parallel study of the actions of individuals and culture that forms that behaviour. The conceptualization of people and cultures is far more nuanced than the normative construct implies and needs to be explored by evidence-based instead of moral-based study.

Conclusion

Social phenomena are deliberating are the products of human behaviour. Scholars have little unity of mind on the empirical essence of disciplines concerned with social phenomena, largely because of their nuances, which limit the application of scientific care to them. There are certain unusual characteristics of social phenomena which are different from physical phenomena. Sociologists, however, strive to sort out social facts from social reality using a scientific method.

Objectivity

Introduction-

Objectivity must play a significant role in social sciences but it shall not be made alone standard in judging research studies of social sciences. Objectivity is a goal of scientific investigation. Objectivity presupposes an independent reality that can be grasped. Objectivity is believed to be the most universal trait of the sciences, which differentiates them from unscientific points of view. Simply, objectivity, means the elimination of all subjectivity, is not limited to science alone; but it is an attitude towards life which one can assume also in practical affairs.

Origin

The 'objectivity is not the product of the 19th century but it is as old as science itself and even before the Renaissance era objectivity was mostly used in philosophical literature. From a philosophical point of view, the word 'objectivity' is used to understand the relationship between the human mind and nature (God) and how to get enlightenment. The word 'objectivity is derived from Latin adverbial or adjectival form obiectivus/obiective, introduced by the 14th century Scholastic philosophers such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham (Daston&Galison, 2008). After this time, many other philosophers used the term objective/objectivity in their philosophical writings; Immanuel Kant gave a new meaning and sense to this term. In different contexts, whatsoever they may be, objectivity has been meant and understood completely incompatible by different people.

Objectivity in social research Social science research offers us knowledge about the social world which is not necessarily available by other means, then we are making some privileged claims about our work. Robert Bierstadt states, "Objectivity means that the conclusions arrived at as the result of inquiry and investigation are independent of the race, colour, creed, occupation, nationality, religion, moral preference, and political predisposition of the investigator. If his research is truly objective, it is independent of any subjective elements; any personal desires that he may have". Objectivity is pre-eminently the basic attitude of the scientist. Since the rise of modern natural sciences, the criterion of such objectivity has been universal validation.

Sociological research has always emphasized the establishment of objectivity. For example, renowned sociologist Emile Durkheim in his book 'Rules of the Sociological Method' stated that social facts must be treated as things and all preconceived notions about social facts must be abandoned (Durkheim, 1895 as cited in Jones, 1986). Similarly. Max Weber's emphasis on 'sociology must be value-free' indicates the significance of objectivity in social or sociological research (Sharlin, 1974). Social scientists also seek to establish the same 'universal validation', which is used by natural scientists, but it is not as casy for them as for natural scientists. Because natural sciences study objects', which are not dynamic while social sciences study the human mind, actions, and behaviours, which are ever- changing and not universal. We cannot reduce the human mind to object experiments. Therefore, universal validation cannot be attained (Bollnow, 1974) in social sciences.

Problems of Objectivity in Social research:

a) Social scientist is part of human society and their judgments are subjective and coloured by researchers own experience.

b) The subject matter of social science research is too complex. All propositions are limited to particular social groups and contexts. Thus objectivity is a major issue in social science research.

c) All members of the society have different values, social researcher will unconsciously

influenced by their values.

d) Social scientist fails to achieve objectivity because the respondents are human beings have certain human problems, .e.g. a refusal of the respondent, improper understanding. reluctance, etc. All these problems cause biases and invalidate the research findings and conclusions.

Factors Affecting Objectivity:

It is very difficult to achieve objectivity in social science research. This difficulty arises out of the adverse influences of (a) Personal prejudices and bias. (b) Value judgment, (c) Ethical dilemma, and Complexity of social phenomena.

a) Personal prejudices and biases: Prejudices and biases are like fantasies to believe what is comforting to believe. It makes you believe something without considering the evidence. The subjective bias in research is a result of adverse influences of personal motives, customs, and social situations. The sources of bias are selfishness, over-ambition, friendship. relationship, caste and community, class, religion, location, nationalism, language, political affinity, profession, opportunism, sexual bias, business, careerism, group bias, temperament bias, power bias, personal bias, pessimism, optimism, fanaticism, and militancy. Guarding against such biases becomes a matter of perpetual vigilance for a true researcher. In social research and is directly related to the investigator's wishes and feelings. For example, a researcher, who is physically disabled, researches to know the socio-economic problems of the disabled persons. Is it possible for that researcher to be 'objective' in his/her research study? Does the researcher keep control over his/her emotions and experience being a disabled person? It could be hard, if not impossible, for keeping his/her feelings, emotions, and experiences aside. It is mostly believed in social sciences that the selection of topics for research is based on subjectivity, thus the results could not be objective. However, the choice of research topic cannot be free from the personal preferences/interests and ideological biases of the researcher. The first and foremost obstacle or problem to establish objectivity in social science is the researcher's particular involvement in the topic of choice that relates to both his/her research interest and emotional basis.

b) Value Judgment: It is widely believed that the researcher's values affect research. Value related problems arise from the social context within which research occurs. A researcher's attitudes towards socio-economic issues are influenced by his values. He/she possesses cultural traditions, values, mores, religious beliefs, etc. being a member of a particular group. He/she has a strong attachment/involvement with these traditions and values and he/she also considers these traditions superior to all others throughout the world. The objective observer must strive at self-elimination in his judgments and provide an argument that is as true for each mind as his own. He has to overcome his subjective judgment. But all persons living in a society are bound to have a set of values.

This natural tendency of human beings impels investigators to put personal feelings in their research. Every human has some intellectual preferences and standpoints (Agassi, 1974) which affect objectivity in social research,

c) Ethical dilemma: Research relation with other aspects of research creates ethical problems. E.g. Relation with sponsors, relation with source data, relation with research subject etc. Complexity of social phenomena: The difficulty with the humanities/social sciences is that the subjectivity of the knower/researcher cannot be eliminated because of the many factors such as researcher's feelings, emotions, cultural values and sympathies with the observed community/group.

As the cultural values and beliefs are not universal but vary from society to society. community to community, and group to group, this variation of meaning and sense of cultural values and beliefs create hurdles for the researcher to understand the proper meaning and sense of these cultural traditions and values of an observed community. Here most of the researchers observe the cultural values and traditions of the observed community in the context of their cultural values and traditions, which further lessens the objectivity.

Observation, perception and interpretation are of crucial significance in social research and the ability of the researcher to observe, perceive and interpret the phenomenon also maximizes or minimizes objectivity. Observation is a technique in social research to receive knowledge of the outside world through senses or record data by using scientific instruments. It could be a particular way we look at things or something. Observation plays an important role in testing hypotheses and coming to conclusions with data gathered in research. It is also believed that personality traits affect scientific observation. The assumption that social inquiry is scientific if proper techniques of observation and record (preferably statistical) are employed.

Conclusion

In Social Research most social scientists agree upon that complete objectivity in social studies /research is, of course, impossible but they also emphasize that it does not mean that a researcher goes away from the scientific methods of research and presents his /her results. He/she has to follow the set of various existing methods of research that minimize the subjectivity and help to find out the neutral results which could also be acceptable to the other researchers. Thus, objectivity is such a concept that may not completely but somehow binds the social researcher to be 'objective' in his/her studies.

SOCIAL RESEARCH - NATURE AND TYPES

Introduction

Research is a systematic and organized attempt to explore a particular issue that needs to be addressed. It adds to the general information body and corrects human knowledge, too. Study is essentially the method of seeking a credible solution to the problem through the scheduled and organized compilation, review and evaluation of the data. Study is the most critical method for the development of science in order to facilitate change and to make it possible for man to react more efficiently to his surroundings in order to achieve his goal and overcome his disputes.

Social Research

Every thinking person has a capacity to and should do research. It is an essential and powerful tool that leads human beings towards progress. According to John W Best "the secret of cultural development has been research, pushing back the areas of ignorance by discovering new truths, which in turn leads to better ways of doing things and better products. Today the process of research is not confined to science laboratory rather every fields of life make use of research that adds to or explains the existing knowledge. There are two broad classifications of research; Research in physical or natural sciences and the research in social or human sciences. Research in physical sciences deals with physical and natural phenomena and mainly with things that can be put to laboratory tests under guided conditions. On the other hand the research in social sciences deals with social phenomena and more specifically with human behaviour that is influenced by different physical, social, temperamental, psychological and economic factors. We can never put such human beings to laboratory tests and even if it is done, their responses will not be natural as it is influenced by the awareness of being studied.

Social research is a scientific tool to study and analyse social problems. It is academic research on topics relating to questions relevant to social life. It involves research that draws on the social sciences for conceptual and theoretical inspiration. Such research may be motivated by developments and changes in society and employs social scientific ideas to illuminate those changes. It is deeply rooted in the ideas and intellectual traditions of the social sciences. There is no single reason why people do social research and it is done because there is an aspect of our understanding of what goes on in society that is to some extent unresolved. Mary Stevenson defines "social research as a systematic method of exploring, analysing and conceptualizing social life in order to extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether that knowledge aids the construction of a theory or in the practice of an art".

Social scientists face human concerns that natural scientists have not paid much attention to. The problems start from gaining access to individuals as sources of data for the study. The terms in which clients and respondents initially consent to engage in the inquiry decide the essence of the conclusions. Both the respondent and the interviewer, whether they know it or not, take on a position. Initial structuring of this position relationship will affect, in a conscious and implicit fashion, both the fullness and substance of its subsequent responses - much as initial orientation towards any object will influence later actions in its relationship. These details of social life must also be included in the study preparation process. Then simply we can say that the relationship of position between the investigator and the subject is ethical.

Nature of social research

Social research deals with social phenomena and it aims at discovering new facts about social life. It is a scientific undertaking in which logical and systematized techniques are used to gain new knowledge about the social phenomena or to verify what we already know about it. It assists in the understanding of existing theories and helps to build new ones. Social research requires deep knowledge and minute investigation of the topic concerned.

Since we are studying social phenomena in social science, experimentation is not always possible. Social research must be objective as much as possible to draw inferences that are free from bias and prejudices. But the absolute objectivity of the social science research is not achievable as it deals with human beings. Social research is dynamic in nature, because the truth of the past may not be the truth of the present. In social research interrelationship between variables is must. Social research in any field is interrelated. Social research says that the social events are also governed by some rules and regulations like the physical events and it is complementary to the research in physical science.

ETHICAL CONCERN IN SOCIAL RESEARCH 

Introduction

Ethics is defined by Webster's dictionary as conformance to the standards of conduct of a given profession or group. Such standards are often defined at a disciplinary level though a professional code of conduct, and sometimes enforced by university committees called even Institutional Review Board. Even if not explicitly specified, scientists are still expected to be aware of and abide by general agreements shared by the scientific community on what constitutes acceptable and non-acceptable behaviours in the professional conduct of science. For instance, scientists should not manipulate their data collection, analysis, and interpretation procedures in a way that contradicts the principles of science or the scientific method or advances their personal agenda.

Research ethics is because, science has often been manipulated in unethical ways by people and organizations to advance their private agenda and engaging in activities that are contrary to the norms of scientific conduct. Ethics is the moral distinction between right and wrong, and what is unethical may not necessarily be illegal. These ethical norms may vary from one society to another, but there are some ethical standards as applied to scientific research.

Problem Formulation

The formulation of a research problem is the most important step in the research process. It is the foundation, in terms of design, on which you build the whole study. Broadly speaking, any question that you want answered and any assumption or assertion that you want to challenge or investigate can become a research problem or a research topic for your study. However, it is important to remember that not all questions can be transformed into research problems and some may prove to be extremely difficult to study. Potential research questions may occur to us on a regular basis, but the process of formulating them in a meaningful way is not at all an easy task.

It requires considerable knowledge of both the subject area and research methodology. Once you examine a question more closely you will soon realize the complexity of formulating an idea into a problem which is researchable. It is essential for the problem you formulate to be able to withstand scrutiny in terms of the procedures required to be undertaken. Hence you should spend considerable time in thinking it through. The importance of formulating a research problem

The formulation of a research problem is the first and most important step of the research process. It is like the identification of a destination before undertaking a journey. In the absence of a destination, it is impossible to identify the shortest - or indeed any - route. Similarly, in the absence of a clear research problem, a clear and economical plan is impossible. The research problem serves as the foundation of a research study: if it is well formulated, you can expect a good study to follow. If one wants to solve a problem, one must generally know what the problem is.

You must have a clear idea with regard to what it is that you want to find out about and not what you think you must find. A research problem may take a number of forms, from the very simple to the very complex. The way you formulate a problem determines almost every step that follows: the type of study design that can be used; the type of sampling strategy that can be employed; the research instrument that can be used or developed; and the type of analysis that can be undertaken.

The formulation of a problem is like the 'input' to a study, and the 'output - the quality of the contents of the research report and the validity of the associations or causation established - is entirely dependent upon it.

Sources of research problems

Most research in the social sciences revolves around four Ps:

• People;

• Problems;

• Programmers;

• Phenomena.

Most research studies are based upon at least a combination of two ps. You may select a group of individuals (a group of individuals or a community as such - 'people'), to examine the existence of certain issues or problems relating to their lives, to ascertain their attitude towards an issue ('problem'), to establish the existence of a regularity ("phenomenon') or to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention ('programme').

Considerations in selecting a research problem

When selecting a research problem/topic there are number of considerations to keep in mind which will help to ensure that your study will be manageable and that you remain motivated. These considerations are:

• Interest - Interest should be the most important consideration in selecting a research problem. A research endeavour is usually time consuming, and involves hard work and possibly unforeseen problems. If you select a topic which does not greatly interest you, it could become extremely difficult to sustain the required motivation and put in enough time and energy to complete it.

• Magnitude - You should have sufficient knowledge about the research process to be able to visualise the work involved in completing the proposed study.

• Measurement of concepts If you are using a concept in your study (in quantitative studies), make sure you are clear about its indicators and their measurement.

• Level of expertise - Make sure you have an adequate level of expertise for the task you are proposing.

• Relevance - Select a topic that is of relevance to you as a professional. Ensure that your study adds to the existing body of knowledge, bridges current gaps or is useful in policy formulation. This will help you to sustain interest in the study.

• Availability of data - make sure that the data will be available and in the format you want before finalizing your topic.

• Ethical issues - Another important consideration in formulating a research problem is the ethical issues involved

Steps in formulating a research problem

The formulation of a research problem is the most crucial part of the research journey as the quality and relevance of your research project entirely depends upon it. As mentioned earlier, every step that constitutes the how part of the research journey depends upon the way you formulated your research problem.

Step 1: Identify a broad field or subject area of interest to you.

The researcher needs to think about the subject area of your interest. You should identify the field in which you would like to work a long time after your academic study or graduation. It will help you tremendously to get an interesting research topic. The selected discipline and expertness in the subject area will help you to formulate a problem. Suppose, if you are a sociologist, you may consider or form research problems related to different aspects or dimensions of society as well as social problems like Pandemic or epidemic disease and employment loss, unemployment, drug abuse, social inequality etc. Likewise, if you are an economist, you may form research problems related to economic aspects, such as opportunity cost, production and consumption, economic inequality, monetary deficiency and other economic problems.

Step 2: Dissect the broad area into subareas.

You need to break down and define your broad research field of study in some sub- areas at this point. In this respect, you should consult your supervisor and discuss writing the sub areas. If you choose a research topic related to urban problems within urban studies, you need to identify sub areas such as homelessness, urban infrastructure and social life, the different types of pollution etc. This allows the researcher to identify specific areas and causes of a particular problem.

Step 3: Select what is of most interest to you.

It is almost impossible to do research in all sub-areas. That is why it is essential to identify your area of interest. Your curiosity should be the most crucial factor in your research studies. Once you have selected a research-worthy research topic, you can exclude other sub-sectors that are not participating in it. Bear in mind that it will not ultimately carry any outcomes if you lose your confidence in your research report. 

Step 4: Raise research questions.

In this phase of formulating a research problem, you will point out your research questions in the field of interest. "The central task involved in problem formulation is that of framing the terms of inquiry. The specific terms of inquiry may be formulated either in terms of research questions or guiding hypotheses. Merton, for instance, has underlined the importance of research questions for framing the terms of inquiry. In particular, he mentions three types of questions: originating question, the question of rationale and the specifying questions.

• Originating question is a statement of what one wants to know and it can range from ascertaining facts to explain empirical uniformities or variations.

The question of rationale states why the originating question is worth asking and what will happen to other parts of knowledge or practice as a result of answering the question

• The specifying questions are concerned with specifying the conditions that point toward possible answers to the originating question in terms that satisfy the rationale". (Sharma, S.L)

Step 5: Formulate objectives.

The basic and sub-objectives of the study need to be clearly stated. Basically, learning priorities arise from research issues. It is important to define clear main and sub-objectives.

Step 6: Assess your objectives.

Now, you should review your objectives and ensure that your research analysis offers the ability to accomplish them. Assess the objectives at the hands in terms of time, expense, money and technological skills. In view of fact, you can also analyse your study questions. Determine what result your analysis would offer. It can bring substantial outcomes in the long-term if you can correctly determine the intent of the research analysis. Step 7: Double-check.

Go back and give final consideration to whether or not you are sufficiently interested in the study, and have adequate resources to undertake it.

Conclusion

Identification and formulation of a problem represent the starting point in a research process. The meaning of entire research cannot be emphasized without appropriate selection or formulation of research problems. Simply, we can say that success of the research process mainly depends on appropriate formulation of the research problem. Improper formation of the research problem may, in later times, create unexpected difficulties for the researcher.

Avoid plagiarism

When writing a literature review, you do not take and use another person's thoughts and words without giving an appropriate citation. The reviewer needs to give appropriate citations to the source you mentioned in research. Webster dictionary defines "plagiarist as one who plagiarizes, or purloins the words, writings, or ideas of another, and passes them off as his own; a literary thief". So simply we can say that, plagiarism as "taking someone words or ideas as if they were your own"

Simply plagiarism means "reproducing another person's work without attribution". The reviewer should provide a citation to the source of information. 

Plagiarism is considered academic cheating and unethical. Nowadays, different software is used for detecting plagiarism.

Tactics to avoid plagiarism

✔Follow instructions provided by authors

✓ Provide citations and acknowledge all information and data, even thoughts, ideas, and words from other sources.

✔Provide quotation marks to material taken directly from other sources.

✓ Provide accurate citation and references

✔To make a summary and paraphrase in a simple and objective way

✔Aware of copyright law

✓ Express factual information in your own words

Conclusion

Review of literature a significant process in your whole research. It provides deep knowledge in the fields of study, including different methodologies and theories. Scholar develops knowledge in their fields through existing literature and should follow thematic or topic-oriented. As well as a researcher can build methodological and theoretical background with the help of relevant literature. A Literature review provides clarity to your research problem and conceptual framework. So, researchers need to involve great effort in the complete process of literature review.

HYPOTHESES

Construction of a hypothesis is an important step in research. Hypotheses primarily arise from a set of 'hunches' that are tested through a study and one can conduct a perfectly valid study without having these hunches or speculations. However, in epidemiological studies, to narrow the field of investigation, it is important to formulate hypotheses. The importance of hypotheses lies in their ability to bring direction, specificity and focus to a research study. They tell a researcher what specific information to collect, and thereby provide greater focus.

As a researcher you do not know about a phenomenon, a situation, the prevalence of a condition in a population or about the outcome of a programme, but you do have a hunch to form the basis of certain assumptions or guesses. You test these, mostly one by one, by collecting information that will enable you to conclude if your hunch was right. The verification process can have one of three outcomes. Your hunch may prove to be: right, partially right or wrong. Without this process of verification, you cannot conclude anything about the validity of your assumption. Hence, a hypothesis is a hunch, assumption, suspicion, assertion or an idea about a phenomenon, relationship or situation, the reality or truth of which you do not know. A researcher calls these assumptions, assertions, statements or hunches hypotheses and they become the basis of an enquiry. In most studies the hypothesis will be based upon either previous studies or your own or someone else's observations.

Definitions of hypothesis

According to Kerlinger, 'A hypothesis is a conjectural statement of the relationship between two or more variables'.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1976) defines a hypothesis as a proposition, condition, or principle which is assumed, perhaps without belief, in order to draw out its logical consequences and by this method to test its accord with facts which are known or may be determined'.

Black and Champion define a hypothesis as a tentative statement about something, the validity of which is usually unknown'

From the above definitions it is apparent that a hypothesis has certain characteristics:

1. It is a tentative proposition.

2. Its validity is unknown.

3. In most cases, it specifies a relationship between two or more variables.

The functions of a hypothesis

While some researchers believe that to conduct a study requires a hypothesis, having a hypothesis is not essential as already mentioned. However, a hypothesis is important in terms of bringing clarity to the research problem. Specifically, a hypothesis serves the following functions:

• The formulation of a hypothesis provides a study with focus. It tells you what specific

aspects of a research problem to investigate.

 

• A hypothesis tells you what data to collect and what not to collect, thereby providing focus

to the study. 

• As it provides a focus, the construction of a hypothesis enhances objectivity in a study.

• A hypothesis may enable you to add to the formulation of theory. It enables you to conclude specifically what is true or what is false.

The testing of a hypothesis

To test a hypothesis you need to go through a process that comprises three phases: (1) constructing a hypothesis; (2) gathering appropriate evidence; and (3) analysing evidence to draw conclusions as to its validity. It is only after analysing the evidence that you can conclude whether your hunch or hypothesis was true or false. When concluding about a hypothesis, conventionally, you specifically make a statement about the correctness or otherwise of a hypothesis in the form of the hypothesis is true' or 'the hypothesis is false". It is therefore imperative that you formulate your hypothesis clearly, precisely and in a form that is testable. In arriving at a conclusion about the validity of your hypothesis, the way you collect your evidence is of central importance and it is therefore essential that your study design, sample, data collection method(s), data analysis and conclusions, and communication of the conclusions be valid, appropriate and free from any bias. The features of good a hypothesis

There are a number of considerations to keep in mind when constructing a hypothesis, as they are important for valid verification. The wording of a hypothesis therefore must have certain attributes that make it easier for you to ascertain its validity. These attributes are:

• A hypothesis should be simple, specific and conceptually clear. There is no place for ambiguity in the construction of a hypothesis, as ambiguity will make the verification of your hypothesis almost impossible. It should be 'unidimensional' - that is, it should test only one relationship or hunch at a time. To be able to develop a good hypothesis you must be familiar with the subject area (the literature review is of immense help). The more insight you have into a problem, the easier it is to construct a hypothesis.

• A hypothesis should be capable of verification. Methods and techniques must be available for data collection and analysis. There is no point in formulating a hypothesis if it cannot be subjected to verification because there are no techniques to verify it. However, this does not necessarily mean that you should not formulate a hypothesis for which there are no methods of verification. You might, in the process of doing your research, develop new techniques to verify it.

• A hypothesis should be related to the existing body of knowledge. It is important that your hypothesis emerges from the existing body of knowledge, and that it adds to it, as this is an important function of research. This can only be achieved if the hypothesis has its roots in the existing body of knowledge.

• A hypothesis should be operationalisable. This means that it can be expressed in terms that can be measured. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be tested and, hence, no conclusions can be drawn.

Types of hypothesis

Theoretically there should be only one type of hypothesis that is the research hypothesis - the basis of your investigation. However, because of the conventions in scientific enquiries and because of the wording used in the construction of a hypothesis, hypotheses can be classified into several types. Broadly, there are two categories of hypothesis:

1. Research hypotheses:

2. Alternate hypotheses.

The formulation of an alternate hypothesis is a convention in scientific circles. Its main function is to explicitly specify the relationship that will be considered as true in case the research hypothesis proves to be wrong. In a way, an alternate hypothesis is the opposite of the research hypothesis. Conventionally, a null hypothesis, or hypothesis of no difference. is formulated as an alternate hypothesis.

When you construct a hypothesis stipulating that there is no difference between two situations, groups, outcomes, or the prevalence of a condition or phenomenon, this is called a null hypothesis and is usually written as HO. A hypothesis in which a researcher stipulates that there will be a difference but does not specify its magnitude is called a hypothesis of difference.

A researcher may have enough knowledge about the smoking behaviour of the community or the treatment programme and its likely outcomes to speculate almost the exact prevalence of the situation or the outcome of a treatment programme in quantitative units. Examine the third hypothesis in both sets of examples: the level of infant mortality is 30/1000 and the proportion of female and male smokers is 60 and 30 per cent respectively. This type of hypothesis is known as a hypothesis of point-prevalence. The fourth type of hypothesis stipulates the prevalence of a phenomenon in different population groups (twice as many female as male smokers"). This type of hypothesis is called a hypothesis of association. Hypotheses in qualitative research

One of the differences in qualitative and quantitative research is around the importance attached to and the extent of use of hypotheses when undertaking a study. As qualitative studies are characterised by an emphasis on describing, understanding and exploring phenomena using categorical and subjective measurement procedures, construction of hypotheses is neither advocated nor practised. In addition, as the degree of specificity needed to test a hypothesis is deliberately not adhered to in qualitative research, the testing of a hypothesis becomes difficult and meaningless. This does not mean that you cannot construct hypotheses in qualitative research; the non-specificity of the problem as well as methods and procedures make the convention of hypotheses formulation far less practicable and advisable. Even within quantitative studies the importance attached to and the practice of formulating hypotheses vary markedly from one academic discipline to another. For example, hypotheses are most prevalent in epidemiological research and research relating to the establishment of causality of a phenomenon, where it becomes important to narrow the list of probable causes so that a specific cause-and-effect relationship can be studied. In the social sciences formulation of hypotheses is mostly dependent on the researcher and the academic discipline, whereas within an academic discipline it varies markedly between the quantitative and qualitative research paradigms.

Hypotheses bring clarity, specificity and focus to a research problem, but are not essential for a study. You can conduct a valid investigation without constructing a single formal hypothesis. On the other hand, within the context of a research study, you can construct as many hypotheses as you consider being appropriate.

CONCEPTS

Concepts are basic elements of scientific method but by and large all concepts are abstractions and represent only certain aspects of reality. In the words of P.V.Young "Each new class of data, isolated from other classes on the other basis of definite characteristics, is given name, a label in short hand concept. A concept is in reality a definition in short hand of a class or group of facts". A concept is an abstract symbol representing an object, a property of object, or a certain phenomena.

Categories of Concept

Concepts are divided into two categories i.c. Concepts by postulation and concept by intuition. The concepts following in the first category have meaning except from the specific theory: When these concepts are used in two different theories these communicate two different meanings, sometimes even different and opposite from each other on the other hand concept by intuition devotes something which is immediately apprehended. The meaning of these concepts is constant whoever uses it. Both the categories of concepts have equal importance and significance in social science research. 

Features of Good Concept

• The concepts should be clear, definite and precise.

• The concept should be comprehensive and clear information and understanding.

• The concept should avoid multiple meaning and as far as possible should convey exactly what was intended when the concept was coined.

Types of Concepts

Concrete concepts: - Symbolize material objects which can be seen, touched and fret. e.g. book, table etc.

Abstract concepts refer to properties or characteristics of objects. eg. weight, height

Characteristics of concepts

• Concepts are symbols which we attach to the bundle of meanings we hold.

• Concepts represent only one part of reality.

Different people hold different concepts of the same thing.

Concepts also represent various degrees of abstraction.

RESEARCH DESIGN

 Definition

The research design refers to the overall strategy that the researcher chooses to integrate the different components of the study in a coherent and logical way, thereby, ensuring the effective addressing of the research problem. It constitutes the framework for the collection, measurement, and analysis of data. It is a "blueprint" for empirical research aimed at answering specific research questions or testing specific hypotheses, and must specify at least three processes: (1) the data collection process, (2) the instrument development process, and (3) the sampling process. Decisions regarding what, where, when, how much, by what means concerning an inquiry or a research study constitute a research design. It can be viewed as the arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in procedure. In fact, the research design is the conceptual structure within which research is conducted. As such the design includes an outline of what the researcher will do from writing the hypothesis and its operational implications to the final analysis of data.

Functions of research design

The function of a research design is to ensure that the evidence obtained enables the researcher to effectively address the research problem logically and as unambiguously as possible. In social sciences research, obtaining information relevant to the research problem generally entails specifying the type of evidence needed to test a theory, to evaluate a program, or to accurately describe and assess meaning related to an observable phenomenon. The major functions of a research design can be identified as follows;

 As a Blueprint of the study

Perhaps the most important function of research designs is that they provide the researcher with a blueprint for studying social questions. Without adequate drawings and plans, a homebuilder would become burdened with insurmountable problems such as where to place the foundation, what kinds and qualities of materials to use, how many workers are required, how large should the home be, and so on. By the same token, a social researcher faces comparable obstacles if he commences his study without some kind of research plan. To minimize these research problems, there are several decisions the researcher should make before beginning the project. These problems are given strong consideration in a research proposal, prospectus, or study outline that many investigators elect to construct in advance of their research.

2. Directional Function

Research designs dictate boundaries of research activity and enable the investigator to channel his/her energies in specific directions. Without the delineation of research boundaries and/or objectives, a researcher's activities in a single project could be virtually endless. With clear research objectives in view, however, investigators can proceed systematically towards the achievement of certain goals. The structure provided by the research plan enables the investigator to reach closure and consider any given project completed.

3. Anticipatory Function

A third function of a research design is that it enables the investigator to anticipate potential problems in the implementation of the study. It is customary for researchers to review current literature central to the topic under investigation. In the course of the literature review, they may learn about new or alternative approaches to their problems. At the same time they can acquire information concerning what can reasonably be expected to occur in their own investigation. More important, many authors provide criticisms of their own work so that future investigations of the same or similar topics may be improved. In addition, the design can function to provide some estimate of the cost of the research, possible measurement problems, and the optimal allocation of resources such as assistants (manpower) and material.

Types of research design

There are various types of research design accruing to the nature of the study and methods employed.

1. Action research design

The essentials of action research design follow a characteristic cycle whereby initially an exploratory stance is adopted, where an understanding of a problem is developed and plans are made for some form of interventionary strategy. Then the intervention is carried out (the action in Action Research) during which time, pertinent observations are collected in various forms. The new interventional strategies are carried out, and the cyclic process repeats, continuing until a sufficient understanding of (or implement able solution for) the problem is achieved. The protocol is iterative or cyclical in nature and is intended to foster deeper understanding of a given situation, starting with conceptualizing and particularizing the problem and moving through several interventions and evaluations.

Action research design is a collaborative and adaptive research design that lends itself to use in work or community situations. Design focuses on pragmatic and solution-driven research rather than testing theories. When practitioners use action research it has the potential to increase the amount they learn consciously from their experience. The action research cycle can also be regarded as a learning cycle. Action search studies often have direct and obvious relevance to practice. There are no hidden controls or pre-emption of direction by the researcher. It is harder to do than conducting conventional studies because the researcher takes on responsibilities for encouraging change as well as for research. Action research is much harder to write up because you probably can't use a standard format to report your findings effectively. Personal over-involvement of the researcher may bias research results. The cyclic nature of action research to achieve its twin outcomes of action (e.g. change) and research (e.g. understanding) is time-consuming and complex to conduct.

2. Case study design

A case study is an in-depth study of a particular research problem rather than a sweeping statistical survey. It is often used to narrow down a very broad field of research into one or a few easily researchable examples. The case study research design is also useful for testing whether a specific theory and model actually applies to phenomena in the real world. It is a useful design when not much is known about a phenomenon. Case study approach excels at bringing us to an understanding of a complex issue through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships. A researcher using a case study design can apply a variety of methodologies and rely on a variety of sources to investigate a research problem. Design can extend experience or add strength to what is already known through previous research. Social scientists, in particular, make wide use of this research design to examine contemporary real-life situations and provide the basis for the application of concepts and theories and extension of methods. The design can provide detailed descriptions of specific and rare cases.

A single or small number of cases offers little basis for establishing reliability or to generalize the findings to a wider population of people, places, or things. The intense exposure to study of the case may bias a researcher's interpretation of the findings. Design does not facilitate assessment of cause and effect relationships. Vital information may be missing, making the case hard to interpret. The case may not be representative or typical of the larger problem being investigated. If the criteria for selecting a case is because it represents a very unusual or unique phenomenon or problem for study, then your interpretation of the findings can only apply to that particular case.

3. Causality research designs

Causality studies may be thought of as understanding a phenomenon in terms of conditional statements in the form, "If X, then Y," This type of research is used to measure what impact a specific change will have on existing norms and assumptions. Most social scientists seek causal explanations that reflect tests of hypotheses. Causal effect (nomothetic perspective) occurs when variation in one phenomenon, an independent variable, leads to or results, on average, in variation in another phenomenon, the dependent variable. Conditions necessary for determining causality:

• Empirical association--a valid conclusion is based on finding an association between the independent variable and the dependent variable.

• Appropriate time order to conclude that causation was involved, one must see that cases were exposed to variation in the independent variable before variation in the dependent variable.

• Nonspuriousness--a relationship between two variables that is not due to variation in a third variable.

Causality research designs helps researchers understand why the world works the way it does through the process of proving a causal link between variables and eliminating other possibilities. Replication is possible. There is greater confidence the study has internal validity due to the systematic subject selection and equity of groups being compared. Not all relationships are casual! The possibility always exists that, by sheer coincidence, two unrelated events appear to be related. Conclusions about causal relationships are difficult to determine due to a variety of extraneous and confounding variables that exist in a social environment. This means causality can only be inferred, never proven. If two variables are correlated, the cause must come before the effect. However, even though two variables might be causally related, it can sometimes be difficult to determine which variable comes first and therefore to establish which variable is the actual cause and which is the actual effect.

4. Cohort Study Design Often used in the medical sciences, but also found in the applied social sciences, a cohort study generally refers to a study conducted over a period of time involving members of a population which the subject or representative member comes from, and who are united by some commonality or similarity. Using a quantitative framework, a cohort study makes note of statistical occurrence within a specialized subgroup, united by same or similar characteristics that are relevant to the research problem being investigated, rather than studying statistical occurrence within the general population. Using a qualitative framework. cohort studies generally gather data using methods of observation. Cohorts can be either "open" or "closed."

• Open Cohort Studies [dynamic populations, such as the population of Los Angeles] involve a population that is defined just by the state of being a part of the study in question (and being monitored for the outcome). Date of entry and exit from the study is individually defined, therefore, the size of the study population is not constant. In open cohort studies, researchers can only calculate rate based data, such as, incidence rates and variants thereof.

• Closed Cohort Studies [static populations, such as patients entered into a clinical trial] involve participants who enter into the study at one defining point in time and where it is presumed that no new participants can enter the cohort. Given this, the number of study participants remains constant (or can only decrease).

5. Cross-sectional research design

Cross-sectional research designs have three distinctive features: no time dimension, a reliance on existing differences rather than change following intervention; and, groups are selected based on existing differences rather than random allocation. The cross-sectional design can only measure differences between or from among a variety of people, subjects, or phenomena rather than change. As such, researchers using this design can only employ a relative passive approach to making causal inferences based on findings. Cross-sectional studies provide a 'snapshot' of the outcome and the characteristics associated with it, at a specific point in time. Unlike the experimental design where there is an active intervention by the researcher to produce and measure change or to create differences, cross-sectional designs focus on studying and drawing inferences from existing differences between people, subjects, or phenomena.

6. Descriptive research design

Descriptive research designs help provide answers to the questions of who, what, when, where, and how associated with a particular research problem; a descriptive study cannot conclusively ascertain answers to why. Descriptive research is used to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomena and to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation. The subject is being observed in a completely natural and unchanged natural environment. True experiments, whilst giving analysable data, often adversely influence the normal behaviour of the subject. Descriptive research is often used as a precursor to more quantitatively research designs, the general overview giving some valuable pointers as to what variables are worth testing quantitatively. If the limitations are understood, they can be a useful tool in developing a more focused study. Descriptive studies can yield rich data that lead to important recommendations. This Approach collects a large amount of data for detailed analysis.

7. Experimental Research Design

A blueprint of the procedure that enables the researcher to maintain control over all factors that may affect the result of an experiment. In doing this, the researcher attempts to determine or predict what may occur. Experimental Research is often used where there is time priority in a causal relationship (cause precedes effect), there is consistency in a causal relationship (a cause will always lead to the same effect), and the magnitude of the correlation is great. The classic experimental design specifies an experimental group and a control group. The independent variable is administered to the experimental group and not to the control group, and both groups are measured on the same dependent variable. Subsequent experimental designs have used more groups and more measurements over longer periods. True experiments must have control, randomization, and manipulation.

Experimental research allows the researcher to control the situation. In doing so, it allows researchers to answer the question, "what causes something to occur?" It Permits the researcher to identify cause and affect relationships between variables and to distinguish placebo effects from treatment effects. Experimental research designs support the ability to limit alternative explanations and to infer direct causal relationships in the study. This approach provides the highest level of evidence for single studies.

8. Exploratory design

An exploratory design is conducted about a research problem when there are few or no earlier studies to refer to. The focus is on gaining insights and familiarity for later investigation or undertaken when problems are in a preliminary stage of investigation. The goals of exploratory research are intended to produce the following possible insights:

• Familiarity with basic details, settings and concerns.

• Well-grounded picture of the situation being developed.

• Generation of new ideas and assumptions, development of tentative theories or hypotheses.

• Determination about whether a study is feasible in the future.

• Issues get refined for more systematic investigation and formulation of new research questions.

• Direction for future research and techniques get developed.

This Design is a useful approach for gaining background information on a particular topic. Exploratory research is flexible and can address research questions of all types (what, why, how).Provides an opportunity to define new terms and clarify existing concepts. Exploratory research is often used to generate formal hypotheses and develop more precise research problems. Exploratory studies help establish research priorities.

Conclusion

There are three aspects a good research design does. It includes, first of all, a summary of the different elements of the inquiry. It defines the general approach to science which will be followed and describes the data collection techniques and interpretation that will be used. Second, the design of research gives a basis for the choice of research approach in relation to research problems. It describes how the different techniques of data collection and analysis apply to the particular study questions being studied and demonstrates how they can yield data that are relevant for the form of research questions being investigated. In this way, the design needs to be suitable for purpose. Third, the research architecture explains how the core elements of the research project are connected together. It describes the rationale of the testing process as it passes from one step to the next, and illustrates how the processes of data collection and interpretation are compatible with their general philosophy.

LOGIC OF INQUIRY-INDUCTION AND DEDUCTION

Introduction

The scientific method requires a logical reasoning procedure. This logical method is used to draw inferences from the finding of an analysis or to arrive at a conclusion. The logical method of inference consists of induction and deduction. The traditional principle of distinguishing between these logical approaches to understanding is that induction is the creation of a generalization derived from the analysis of a collection of particulars, whereas deduction is the recognition of an undefined particular, derived from its similarity to a set of known evidence, both the induction and the deduction of a logical method are very useful in research studies.

Induction

Inductive reasoning is based on concrete observations and drawing abstract inference from them. Induction was the first and, still today, the most common method of scientific activity. Every day, our experiences lead us to draw lessons about which we prefer to generalize. The introduction of this method by scientists such as Galileo and Newton in the seventeenth century heralded the modern revolution. The philosopher Francis Bacon summed this up by arguing that, in order to grasp humanity, one must consult nature, not the works of ancient thinkers such as Aristotle or the Scriptures. Darwin's theory of evolution and Mendel's discovery of genetics are probably the most popular hypotheses to be derived from inductive reasoning. Three conditions must be satisfied for such generalizations to be considered legitimate by inductivists:

1. There must be a large number of observation statements.

2. The observations must be repeated under a large range of circumstances and conditions.

3. No observation statement must contradict the derived generalization.

Example- Varun likes math. Today's lesson is about division. Varun will like today's lesson.

Types of Induction

Theodorson, in their book, A modern dictionary of sociology, classified two basic types of induction; Enumerative and Analytic.

Enumerative Induction :- it is the most common form of induction used in social science research. This type of induction involves generalization from samples and the generalizations are usually derived through the analysis of data. Enumerative inference is a modest method of logic. It is also used by every one of us, whenever we extrapolate from a uniform past experience. It is not a deductively sound method of logic, since the meaning of the premise leaves open the possibility that the inference is false. But, as we say, this can be inductively potent. By this we say that, if the premises cites enough instances of this sort, and we have any justification to conclude that the investigated instances are indicative of the entire kind with respect to our target property, then the validity of the premises makes it very plausible that the inference is correct.

Analytic Induction :- Analytical induction is a research logic used to gather evidence, interpret and coordinate the presentation of research results. The formal purpose is the causal interpretation, the determination of the independently essential and collectively required conditions for the appearance of a certain aspect of social existence. Analytic Induction argues for the radical redefinition of the phenomena to be clarified and the reason for preserving a perfect partnership. Primary cases are inspected to identify common causes and preliminary hypotheses. When new cases are investigated and original theories are contradicted, the hypothesis is reworked in one or both respects. The concept of the explanandum may be reinterpreted in such a way that problematic cases either become compatible with the explanans or collapse beyond the reach of the investigation; or the explanans may be amended in such a way that all cases of the target phenomena show the descriptive circumstances. O R Krishaswami and Ranganatham, in their book, Methodology of research in social research, point out different steps in analytic induction.

1 – Specify the phenomena to be explained

2 – Articulate the hypothesis to explain the phenomena

3 - Study the circumstance to determine if the hypothesis suits the situation.

4 – If the hypothesis doesn't really match the evidence, then redefine the hypothesis or reframe the phenomenon in such a manner that the scenario is omitted.

5 – Investigate a small number of cases in order to obtain functional certainty; however, if a negative case that disapproves of the theory is found, reformulate the hypothesis.

6 – Continue this process of analysing cases, reinterpreting the phenomena and reformulating the theory, until a universal relationship is formed.

7 – For the sake of evidence, analyse cases beyond the scope of the concept to decide whether or not the final hypothesis refers to them.

Blaikie, Norman in his book "Designing social research" point out 'Inductive and Deductive strategy' in research process. The research strategies provide different ways of answering research questions with various research steps. The inductive strategy start with data collection, followed by data analysis and then the development of generalizations. The statement based on objective observations become theoretical statements about the order in reality. Inductive strategy is based on three principle;

• Accumulation- Scientific knowledge consists of well-established regularities that are arrived at by the accumulation of much data.

• Induction- General laws are produced by applying inductive logic to the carefully

accumulated observations and experimental results.

• Instance confirmation- The plausibility of any general law is proportional to the number of instances of it that have been observed. The researcher must begin by setting aside all preconceptions about how the world works and then proceed to gather data using objective methods. Inductive logic is used to produce generalizations about the patterns or regularities that exist in the data obtained. The greater the number of instances of the regularity that has been observed, the greater is the confidence that the generalization corresponds to the timeless uniformities in the world.

He point out four characteristics to inductive strategy.

1- All facts are observed and recorded without selection or guesses as to their relative importance

2- These facts are analysed, compared and classified, without using hypotheses

3- From this analysis, generalizations are inductively drawn as to relations between facts

4- These generalizations are subjected to further testing.

Blaikie, Norman also put forward some criticism against inductive strategy

• Preconceptions can be set aside to produce objective observations

• Relevant observations can be made without some ideas to guide them

• Inductive logic has the capacity to mechanically produce generalizations

• Universal generalizations can be based on a finite number of observations

• Establishing regularities is all that is necessary to produce explanations

So we need to make some amendment to the pure form of the inductive research strategy in order to use it in research. Given that presupposition less data collection is impossible, concepts and the theoretical baggage with them are required before any observations or measurements can be made. The choice of concepts, and the way they are defined, will predetermine what data are collected. Therefore, the researcher will begin with some preconceptions and choices about what will be observed. While this procedure infringes the original requirement for the research strategy, if the definitions of the concepts are made explicit the conclusions can be evaluated in terms of them, and other researchers can attempts to replicate the findings. With these modifications, the inductive strategy can be used for two purposes; to pursue explanatory and descriptive objectives to answer ‘what’ questions, i.e. to describe phenomena and establish regularities which need to be explained; or to pursue an explanatory aim i.e. to discover laws or vey general regularities that can be used to explain observed regularities.

Deduction

The ancient Greeks were the first to develop deductive logic. A case based on deduction starts with abstract statements and, by logical argument, comes to a clear conclusion. Syllogism is the easiest kind of this type of reasoning which comprises a major general premise (statement), followed by a minor, more precise premise, and an inference that follows logically. In this case, analysis is driven by the hypothesis that precedes it. Theories are speculative solutions to perceived questions that are evaluated through observation and experimentation. Although the probable validity of the hypothesis can be verified by observations which endorse it, the theory can be falsified and completely refuted by having observations that are inconsistent with its argument. In this way, research is shown to continue by trial and error: as one hypothesis is ignored, another is proposed and evaluated, and so the most suitable theory persists. In order to evaluate the theory, it must be formulated as an assertion called a hypothesis. The basic essence of the theory is that it needs to be falsifiable. This suggests that it would objectively be possible to make valid observational statements that are at odds with the theory, and therefore can be skewed. The method of falsification, though, leads to a devastating outcome of the correct dismissal of the hypothesis, requiring a totally new beginning.

The deductive strategy begins with an observed regularity that need to be explained, a tentative theory is acquired or constructed, then hypotheses are deduced and then tested by collecting appropriate data. The deductive strategy is also known as the hypothetico- deductive method, or falsificationism, the deductive strategy was developed by popper. It is the attempt to overcome the deficiencies of positivism and the inductive strategy. The key point put forward is that observations do not provide a reliable foundation for scientific theories and as inductive logic. He provided a solution to accept that all data collection is selective and involve interpretations by the observer, and then to develop an appropriate logic.

Observations are always made from a point of view, with a frame of reference, with a set of expectations, thus making the notion of presupposition less observations impossible. To collect any useful data, it is necessary first to have some ideas about what to look for. It is necessary to have some tentative answers to ‘why’ questions, some hypotheses that have been derived from a theory, to provide direction for data gathering. Popper point out that ‘reality cannot be observed directly, all that can be done is to try to match the theory with the data. On the perspective of Popper, deductive strategy have different steps;

1- Begin by putting forward a tentative idea, a conjecture, a hypothesis or a set of hypotheses that form a theory.

2- With the help, of other previously accepted hypotheses, or by specifying the condition under which the hypotheses are expected to hold, deduce a conclusion, or a number of conclusions.

3- Examine the conclusions and the logic of the argument that produced them. Compare this argument with existing theories to see if it constitutes an advance in our understanding. If you satisfied with this examination.

4- Test the conclusion by gathering appropriate data, make the necessary observations or conduct the necessary experiments.

5- If the test fails, i.e. if the data are not consistent with the conclusion, the theory must be false. If the original conjecture does not match the data, it must be rejected.

6- If the conclusion passes the test, i.e. the data are consistent with it, the theory is temporarily supported; it is corroborated, but not proven to be true.

Some of the criticism regarding deductive research strategy.

1- If observations are interpretations, and we can never observe reality directly, how can regularities be established confidently and theories be refuted conclusively?

2- The tentative acceptance of a yet unrefuted theory requires some inductive support

3- There is no interest in where tentative theories should come from, or how they might be constructed

4- Science needs to be less logical to allow for chance discoveries

5- Paying too much attention to logic can stifle scientific creativity

6 - The process of accepting or rejecting theories involves social and psychological processes, not just logical ones.

Conclusion :- Induction and deduction are an indistinguishable feature of the rationale method. These two types of logic have a very distinct feel to them when you're doing research. Inductive reasoning, by its own nature, is more open-minded and exploratory, particularly at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is more narrow in nature and is involved with checking or proving theories. At any stage in the experiment, most social science includes both inductive and deductive inference methods. Induction and inference are two methods to problem-solving, generally separate but never incompatible. The dilemma must be overcome by checking the legitimacy of the hypothesis or inference drawn, etc. from any way. Induction and deduction are also useful, often complimentary, methods that make it easier to solve problems.