What are the nine guidelines for scientific research?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The following nine guidelines are applicable to any type of scientific research, but they are particularly useful to criminologists and to those who read about criminology and criminal justice. Adherence to these guidelines will reduce the temptation “to project on what is observed whatever [one] want[s] the world to be for [one’s] own private purposes” (Hoover, 1980).
1. Test ideas against empirical reality without becoming too personally invested in a particular outcome. This testing approach is reflected in the research process and is implicit in the goal of validity. Empirical testing requires a neutral and open-minded approach: Scientists are personally disinterested in the outcome and not swayed by the popularity or the social status of those who would prefer other outcomes. This does not mean that the researchers are not personally involved or interested in the research—they must be; rather, the point is that they cannot have so much invested in a research project personally or professionally that they try in subtle or not-so-subtle ways to affect the outcome.
2. Plan and carry out investigations systematically. Social researchers have little hope of conducting a careful test of their ideas if they do not think through in advance how they should go about the test and then proceed accordingly. But a systematic approach is not always easy. For example, Sherman and Berk (1984) needed to ensure that spouse abusers were assigned to be either arrested or not on a random basis rather than on the basis of the police officers’ personal preferences. So the researchers devised an elaborate procedure using randomly sequenced report sheets in different colors. But the researchers found that police officers did not always follow this systematic procedure. Subsequently, in some replications of the study, the researchers ensured compliance with their research procedures by requiring police officers to call in to a central number to receive the experimentally determined treatment.
3. Document all procedures, and disclose them publicly. Social researchers who disclose the methods on which their conclusions rest allow others to evaluate for themselves the likely soundness of these conclusions. Such disclosure is a key feature of science. Again, Sherman and Berk (1984) provide a compelling example. In their research report, after describing the formal research plan, they described at length the apparent slippage from this plan, which occurred primarily because some police officers avoided implementing the random assignment procedure.
4. Clarify assumptions. No investigation is complete unto itself; whatever the researcher’s method, the research rests on some background assumptions. Research to determine whether arrest has a deterrent effect assumes that potential law violators think rationally, that they calculate potential costs and benefits prior to committing crimes. When a researcher conducts an election poll, the assumption is that people actually vote for the candidate they say they will vote for. By definition, research assumptions are not tested, so we do not know whether they are correct. By taking the time to think about and to disclose their assumptions, researchers provide important information for those who seek to evaluate the validity of their conclusions.
5. Specify the meaning of all terms. Words often have multiple or unclear meanings. Strain, differential association, social disorganization, subculture of violence, problem-oriented policing, and so on can mean different things to different people. Thus, the terms used in scientific research must be defined explicitly and used consistently.
6. Maintain a skeptical stance toward current knowledge. Scientists may feel very confident about interpretations of the social or natural world that have been supported by repeated investigations, but the results of any particular investigation must be examined critically. A general skepticism about current knowledge stimulates researchers to improve the validity of current research results and expand the frontier of knowledge.
7. Replicate research and accumulate knowledge. No one study can be viewed as definitive in itself; usually at least some plausible threats to the validity of the conclusions exist. In addition, no conclusion can be understood adequately apart from the larger body of knowledge to which the study is related. Scientific investigations may begin with a half-baked or off-the-wall idea, but a search of the literature for other relevant work must be conducted in short order. The other side of the coin is that the results of scientific research must be published to serve as a foundation for others who seek to replicate or extend the research.
8. Maintain an interest in theory. Theories organize the knowledge accumulated by numerous investigations into a coherent whole and serve as a guide to future inquiries. Even though much research is purely descriptive, this research can still serve as a basis for others to evaluate different theories. The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment was devised initially as a test of the competing predictions of deterrence and labeling theory, but the researchers extended their attention to control theory to help them explain unanticipated findings. These theoretical connections make the research much more relevant to other criminologists working to understand different types of crime and social control.
9. Search for regularities or patterns. Science is concerned with classes rather than with individuals (except inasmuch as individuals are representatives of a class). Scientists assume that the natural world has some underlying order of relationships and that every event and individual is not so unique that general principles cannot be discerned (Grinnell, 1992). The goal of elaborating on individual cases is to understand social patterns that characterize many individuals.