Title: How to write a scientific study Nine guidelines for students
1How to write a scientific study? Nine guidelines
for students
- Christer Pursiainen
- www.kolumbus.fi/christer.pursiainen
21. What makes an article/essay/study scientific?
- A scientific debate is a social construction.
That is, the scientific community or its part
defines what science is all about at a given
time, and what is regarded as a scientific genre
and subject of study, form, style etc. in the
first place. - Those subjects, methods, forms, practices etc.
present in scientific activity at a given time
can be considered as non-science at another time.
31. What makes an article/essay/study scientific?
- Compared to journalism or fiction, a scientific
article or study is always a part of an existing
scientific debate.
41. What makes an article/essay/study scientific?
- Even in the case it brings (as it should)
something new to a debate, or creates a new
debate, it either explicitly or implicitly refers
to existing or earlier debates. - Changes in scientific beliefs, theories, methods
etc. do not arise in vacuum, instead something
new is created by challenging the older beliefs.
51. What makes an article/essay/study scientific?
- In formal arenas of science, such as scientific
journals or academic theses, one should summarize
or at least refer to the debate of which ones
study is part. - Moreover, the study should specify what previous
literature it confirms or revises.
62. Is there a research problem?
- A scientific inquiry starts, and often ends, with
a problem. Creating a research problem is the
most important part of a scientific process!!! - The need for descriptive information is not a
sufficient legitimation for a study. Instead, do
start your scientific process by asking yourself
What is my research problem?
72. Is there a research problem?
- You should also motivate your research problem
why should we be interested in it? - Many texts fail to clear the "so what?hurdle.
Even if everything in the writing is true, one
should ask whether it tells us something
important. An article or a study should frame,
discuss, solve etc. at least part of an important
puzzle.
82. Is there a research problem?
- "What" and "How" questions are always a part of a
study, but they easily lead to mere descriptions.
One should therefore also consider "Why"
questions.
93. Is there an argument or a conclusion?
- A research problem leads to more specific
research questions and puzzles, which are
supposed to be answered and resolved. - Therefore, one should always include a clear
argument, thesis, or conclusion in the study. - In order to make your text argumentative, do
argue, maintain, claim, state,
underscore, prove, conclude etc.!!
103. Is there an argument or a conclusion?
- The arguments and their conditions should be
stated clearly, so that there is no confusion
about what is and what is not argued.
113. Is there an argument or a conclusion?
- Ask all the time yourself Is the
argument/conclusion well-founded? - In other words, the legitimate counter-arguments
should be acknowledged and addressed, that is,
one should discuss also the alternative views on
the same research problem. - You should show why the argument or solution
arrived at in your study should be regarded
better than the alternatives.
123. Is there an argument or a conclusion?
- Is the argument original? It does not make much
sense to present an argument that is too
self-evident or does not challenge or revise the
existing views or beliefs, or at least bring
something new to the discussion in question.
133. Is there an argument or a conclusion?
- This originality could be, for instance
- a totally new theoretical innovation
- or a new empirical finding leading to a new
interpretation - or an application of a more general theoretical
viewpoint to an empirical problem bringing about
a new interpretation of the events and at the
same time confirming the value of the theory in
question etc.
144. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- Within contemporary philosophy of science, there
is a widely accepted belief that facts are always
theory-dependent.
154. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- Thomas Kuhn has pointed out the difficulties that
are present without any kind of a paradigm or
theory "In the absence of a paradigm or some
candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that
could possibly pertain to the development of a
given science are likely to seem equally
relevant."
164. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- Or as Paul Feyerabend puts it "The attempt to
create knowledge needs guidance, it cannot start
from nothing. More specifically, it needs a
theory, a point of view that allows the
researcher to separate the relevant from the
irrelevant, and that tells him in what areas
research will be most profitable."
174. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- Alexander Motyl has this point even clearer "If,
then, we want to understand Soviet politics,
where do we start? By carefully reading the New
York City telephone directory? The Moscow
directory? Of course not. Why?
184. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- Because our theoretical inclinations tell us that
these are nonfacts and that we should be looking
for real facts in, say, Pravda or Izvestia. How
do we know that a speech by Gorbachev is a fact
we should consider? Because we are already
working on the assumption that general
secretaries are important personalities in the
Soviet political process."
194. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- It must be noted that Motyl's example points out
only the mechanism how we are directed by our
theoretical assumptions, not what those
assumptions should be.
204. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- Theories seem therefore to be inevitable already
in the first stage of inquiry, where we have not
even started to interpret the "facts", but are
only thinking about which kind of fact-gathering
is relevant, and which fact and data, or what
units and levels of analysis, are worth of
studying.
214. Is there an explicit theory or framework?
- This seems to require an awareness of our own
theoretical assumptions, as well as those of our
rivals, which is best realised if theories are
explicated and openly scrutinised. - If you are definitive in your approach of not
using any explicit theory (as historians often
do), you should at least think what are the
(implicit) assumptions that direct the
research/fact gathering?
225. How to use theories?
- Theories and theoretical assumptions can be used
in different ways in empirically oriented studies
235. How to use theories?
- They can work as organizing frameworks and
typologies. That is, theories can be appreciated
and utililized in terms of their instrumental
value, using them as tools and generators of
concepts that lead one forward in the jungle of
facts.
245. How to use theories?
- Theories may have a great heuristic value, that
is, a theory may pour light on factors or causal
links that otherwise remain unidentified. - Two or several theories can be compared in the
light of the interpretations they produce. - Or, empirical evidence can be marshalled to
support a theory, thus trying to prove the
validity of the theory in question.
255. How to use theories?
- More ambitiously, you may want to review the
existing theories on a subject, and then produce
a revisited version of an older theory or
combine some theoretical viewpoints in an
innovative way into a new theoretical approach
or create a completely new theoretical framing
that you claim to be superior to the older ones.
266. What are the criteria for theory choice?
- Any field or subject having always several
alternative and rival, usually incommensurable
theories, explanations and interpretations, one
should at minimum be aware of and perhaps even
discuss one's own standards for theory choice
why should one prefer one solution over another?
276. What are the criteria for theory choice?
- That is, beside being aware of your own
theoretical inclinations, you should also be
informed about your own and your rivals
metatheoretical commitments. - Alternative answers can be found in philosophy of
science Positivism, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos,
Bhaskar
28Positivist theory creation and testing
hypotheses
predictions
logical deduction
theory amended
theory appears inconsistent with the facts
empirical observation
either
or
or
either
theory appears consistent with the facts
theory correct
theory disgarded, new theory needed
29Poppers falsificationist method
process of error-eliminination, falsification
and theory comparison
theory 1
theory 2
not yet falsified, that is, accepted for the
time being
theory 3
steps towards the unreachable theoretical truth
30Kuhns incommensurable paradigms
pre-paradigm period
accepted paradigm normal science
incommensurable different standards, problems
etc.
anomalies
extraordinary investigations and science
new normal science
31Lakatos sophisticated falsificationism
- theory 2(n1)
- explains the content of theory 1
- predicts novel facts
- proved if finds novel facts
theory 1 (n)
32Bhaskars theory comparison
anomalies for theory C
both explain adequately
anomalies for theory D
1
4
theory D
2
3
theory C
5
theory Cs entirely own area
theory Ds entirely own area
referential overlap
337. What are the sources of evidence?
- Have the proper sources/literature been used? Is
the study sound and reliable? One should be aware
of the scientific theoretical and empirical
debate one's study is supposed to be a part of.
One should be able to distinguish between the
rival approaches or interpretations in the
previous studies in the same field.
347. What are the sources of evidence?
- Statements of fact should be properly documented.
357. What are the sources of evidence?
- Whether some piece of evidence is a first- or
second-hand source depends on what you are
studying. - Therefore, be careful to say what you are
studying. This is especially important to pay
attention if you are doing research on issues
about which it is difficult to obtain first-hand
information.
367. What are the sources of evidence?
- If your study is, say, about "what Zyuganov
thinks", you should refer to his texts and
speeches (first-hand sources) , not to someone
else who has analyzed what "Zyuganov thinks"
(second-hand sources). - However, you can use someone else's (X) analysis
to support your own arguments and conclusions, or
to say that you have come to a different
conclusion than X has.
377. What are the sources of evidence?
- If you are only using the latter kind of
evidence, your are not really studying "what
Zyuganov thinks", rather "what X says Zyuganov
thinks". - This is quite legitimate, but if this is the
case, your object of study makes X's writings as
a piece of first-hand evidence.
388. Is the structure and organization of the study
logical?
- In case you are trying to publish your study in a
refereed journal, many journals prefer that each
article should begin with a summary introduction,
of a few paragraphs or pages, that gives the
reader an outline of the argument. - Consider this kind of a summary also in your
thesis!
398. Is the structure and organization of the study
logical?
- This summary introduction might include the
following questions, already discussed - What question or questions does the article
address? - Why do these questions arise? What scholarly
debate or current events set the context for the
article?
408. Is the structure and organization of the study
logical?
- What answer or answers does the article offer?
- Why do these answers matter? How do they affect
the debate from which they arise? - What competing arguments or explanations does
this article refute?
418. Is the structure and organization of the study
logical?
- How are the answers reached? Say a few words
about methodology. - How is this article organized? A 'roadmap'
paragraph should explain the structure of the
sections that follow.
428. Is the structure and organization of the study
logical?
- Do not include any extra information or part only
because you have done the research. Do not record
your research process, and then call it a
research report! - That is, every part, paragraph, or even a
sentence, should be there because it is necessary
to the logic of the argument.
438. Is the structure and organization of the study
logical?
- In case your study includes a "theoretical part"
and an "empirical part", sometimes it is better
to rewrite the whole study as one of the last
phases of research process into a form where
theory and empiria are mixed. - Theoretical moves in a way are then followed by
empirical applications, illustrations etc.
448. Is the structure and organization of the study
logical?
- In that way you also may notice whether you have
included into your study theoretical parts that
have no relevance to your empirical study, or,
alternatively, you may get more out of empiria if
you are concretely "matching" the theoretical
moves with new interpretations of your empirical
material.
459. How is the style?
- Think what do you regard as a good scientific
style. When trying to find your own style, use
your "idols" as models. - In a sense, also scientific writing should be
good "story-telling".
469. How is the style?
- An article/essay/study, even if "scientific",
should always at least try to be an example of
"hard writing, easy reading".
479. How is the style?
- This does not mean that you should simplify your
argumentation or theories, but you should try to
look at your study from the point of view of
"outsiders", who usually do not have gone through
the same research process as you have. - It should be easier for the reader to come to the
conclusion than it was for you!
489. How is the style?
- In the first versions, explain rather more than
less in order to make your point clear. - However, you should not write the whole research
process and call it then an article/study. The
idea is that you tell only those things that are
needed for the point you like to make.
499. How is the style?
- Make every element to do extra work. For
instance, the title should restate the central
point the same goes for the headings.
509. How is the style?
- Instead of having "Background" or "Conclusion",
these headings could be provocative, descriptive
or prescriptive. For instance, "Is Russia's
Democratization a Part of the Third Wave?", "From
Proletarian Internationalism to Minority
Problems" or "Russia's Strategy on Chechnya Was
Bound to Fail" etc.
51How to write a scientific study? Nine guidelines
for students
- Christer Pursiainen
- www.kolumbus.fi/christer.pursiainen