CLASS 2. What Is Science and the Scientific Method?

MMC 9002 Researching Communication I Fall 2007 Lombard

CLASS 2. What is science and the scientific method?

This is big-picture context: The philosophy of science We’re talking about methodology - the study of how knowledge is gathered, or meta- knowledge, rather than methods, the actual means of gathering knowledge.

How do we "know" things? • Personal (direct) experience • Intuition • Authority (parents, teachers, books, religion…) • Tradition • Magic, superstition, mysticism • Socialization

But this means most of what we know is based only on agreement that it is so.

All of these methods of knowing are subject to major errors in reasoning • Overgeneralization • Selective or inaccurate observation • Illogical reasoning --Jumping to conclusions based on invalid assumptions

So all these common ways of knowing have important flaws in how we observe the world and reach conclusions about it.

But in general we should be more satisfied with ways of knowing that use data of some kind! It's better to be constrained by data than to just casually develop opinions.

Why is scientific research a relatively good way to 'know' something? • It’s constrained by data (not all scholarship is) • It involves use of logical, systematic, explicit methods to answer questions • It requires a public (peer-reviewed) process that allows others to inspect and evaluate methods and results

Why use the scientific method? • Clarifies/organizes our thoughts • Ends aimless wandering • Guides us to new knowledge • Helps ideas gather shape • Establishes repeatable procedures (for replication) • Applies not just to ‘academic’ topics, but at some level to everything • Good choice for curious, smart people!

But what exactly is science? • A process (steps) and a product (knowledge) • Goals are description, prediction and explanation regarding some aspect of the world • Best way to accomplish these is via theory • Science only leads to tentative knowledge, not “Truth” for all time

3 principles of the science process • Empirical – Relies on what we experience, directly or indirectly, through the senses • Objective – Does not mean free of bias - that’s impossible – Intersubjective agreement is best we can do – Which means it has to be replicable and public • Control – Uses a variety of techniques to eliminate error/bias • e.g., double blind studies and random sampling – Systematic

Science as product • Focuses on scientific questions – Verifiable questions – At middle level of abstraction – Not philosophical, moral, normative questions

• Knowledge as description – Focus on clearly defined concepts; abstractions communicated by words that refer to common properties among phenomena – Concepts must have agreed-upon ways to be measured (operationalized) – Concepts have to be judged by their usefulness

• Knowledge as explanation/prediction – Understanding when things will occur – Relationships of concepts are hypotheses – Confirmed or supported hypotheses are propositions – Sets of propositions are theories

• Knowledge as understanding – Look for underlying processes - the why – Hard to distinguish explanations/prediction from understanding

Assumptions of (social) science • The world exists and is orderly • There are individual and social regularities • Regularities are observable and measurable – We can know the world through our senses • Evidence does not require personal faith • Behaviors have understandable causes • Predictions lead to principles of behavior

What is the process of science?

Here’s one model (picture) of it:

*theory *lit. review *observation || \/ hypotheses || \/ data gathering, data preparation, data analysis, interpretation and then each of the later steps in process leads back to all the earlier steps.

After enough iterations, 'verified' or 'supported' hypotheses, we have theory. The picture we draw of the relationships among the concepts is a model of the theory.

Here’s another version: evidence (data) --> hypotheses --> proposition --> evidence [i.e., beginning, and repeat] \--> hypotheses again

--> model --> theory (eventually)]

The ‘building blocks’ of theories are:  Concepts, which can be constant (e.g., male) or variable (e.g., gender), with values (for gender values are male and female).  The term construct usually refers to more indirectly observable, or even hypothetical, concepts.  An hypothesis is a statement of relationship between 2 or more variables.  An hypothesis is hypothetical until verified (supported by evidence).  Changing hypotheses to propositions is verification (i.e., designing and conducting of study).  Using evidence to develop hypotheses is induction (a data-driven process).  Using propositions to develop hypotheses is deduction (a proposition or theory- driven process).  Eventually enough propositions are developed to generate a model and theory of the phenomenon being studied and how it works.  So hypotheses come from induction, deduction, models, or theories.  A side view of the model would show an ever-tightening circle with theory on top (i.e., “tightest”), and then model, hypotheses, and evidence on bottom (i.e., "loosest").

What is a theory? • A set of interrelated concepts that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relations among concepts, with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena. • A predicted relationship among concepts, including why things may be occurring.

Some distinguish between informal and formal theories An informal theory: 1. list of propositions 2. conceptualized into a dominant model 3. and a dictionary of conceptual and operational definitions of all terms.

A formal theory is all of the above plus... 4. a formal mechanism for manipulation of the model (to generate predictions, etc.); for example, mathematical formulae (set theory, fuzzy sets, chaos theory) or formal logic with concepts (which is what math is).

If these are formal systems of manipulation, what is an informal system of manipulation?  abstract symbolic: music  abstract symbolic: nonverbal comm. in sign language, dance, etc.  abstract symbolic: language  concrete symbolic: chemicals, solar systems, etc. in hard sciences

We need more formal theories in communication (only 10-20 percent are, including Shannon and Weaver's Information Theory and a few attitude change theories, along with applied work that has generated formulae for audience reach and frequency) What makes a good theory? (See Chaffee reading, What Communication Scientists Do) • Useful in explaining some part of world • Which theory is better? – Most parsimonious – Explains broadest phenomena – Most accurate

Popper’s ideas on theories • Is the theory incompatible with certain possible results of observation? • Confirmations only count if they’re the result of risky predictions. • Every good theory forbids certain things from happening • Non-refutable theories are non-scientific • Every test of a theory is a test to refute it

Moving from specific theories to the nature of development of societal knowledge...:

Our knowledge is always tentative • Current knowledge stands “On the shoulder of giants” • We never can reach complete understanding or Truth • New questions/problems will always arise • Since science is based on observable evidence, our knowledge could always be contradicted by new evidence

What is a paradigm (Kuhn)? • Coherent tradition of scientific research – Create a set of assumptions – Open-ended to allow for much lower-level research (normal science)

Scientific revolutions • Transformations from one paradigm to another – A characteristic of a mature science – They occur because of a growing sense of a paradigm’s inadequacy • Science is not linear - examples can be seen at the level of an individual study, in which a researcher has sudden inspiration, change of perspective, etc., and society’s knowledge growth over millennia

Logic of science • Valid argument – Affirming the antecedent • If P, then Q • P • Therefore, Q – Denying the consequent • If P, then Q • Not Q • Therefore, not P

• Finding a result in support of an hypothesis is not proof – there could be another explanation – Fallacy of affirming the consequent • If P, then Q • Q • Therefore, P – Fallacy of denying the antecedent • If P, then Q • Not P • Therefore, not Q

• The greater number of tests and greater variety of tests to confirm a theory, the more probable the validity (truth) of the theory • The greater number of plausible alternative theories that have been disconfirmed, the more probable the validity (truth) of the theory

Strength of inductive argument • Future research tries to replicate with different samples and eliminate alternative explanations – Increases the strength of the inductive argument – More alike samples = the weaker argument – Less alike samples = stronger argument – More sweeping claims = weaker argument – More replication = stronger argument – More based on previous research = stronger argument

BUT this whole picture of science is pretty idealistic! There are no guarantees, the ‘system’ is subject to abuse, conscious and unconscious biases, sloppiness, etc.

How does science REALLY work? Mahoney: metaphors of game, religion, romance Importance of replication and why it isn't done. (If nothing else, compare the lists at the beginning; note the sports metaphor list a few pages in)

Cautions about social science • It’s based on people – People vary over time – Each person is different from all others – We can’t observe everyone – We must use samples, and no sample is perfect or represents a population exactly • Social science is a ‘betting game’ – “Am I pretty sure?” • That’s why replication is so important

Objectivity  Mahoney (ch. 1) thinks scientists are not objective - we ignore data and anomalies, etc.  Example: Gould book on craniometry - The mismeasure of man: American polygeny and craniometry; a good summary quote starting on page 53 (plus see p. 39, 51, 54-56, and 60-61).  But as Mahoney says, do we even want passionless objective science? Would we be motivated to persevere?  Chaffee wrote a good piece about how we actually act in ways contrary to our values - e.g. we're concerned with what the audience needs, but our research is about how they are affected; we value information gain but we ignore it in favor of studying persuasion; he suggests we be passionate about our choices of topics and our beliefs in them but then try to be dispassionate in testing those beliefs.  Knowing that science isn't totally objective, that it always involves telling a story, means it can be judged in some of the ways that art is - for elegance, creativity, provocativeness, etc.

Is something pseudoscience? (Voodoo Science) • Discovery pitched directly to media. • Effect is always at very limit of detection. • Evidence for discovery is anecdotal. • Belief is said to be credible because it has endured for centuries. • Important discovery is made in isolation. • New laws of nature are proposed to explain an incredible observation. ______

Communication as a concept

 An exercise in an essential piece of the scientific method - explicating (defining in detail) a single concept:

 What does concept of 'communication' mean? (we need to be explicit, think critically, think systematically - the process can and should be used in all research and can help one ‘think better’)  The concept and how people define it is just as diverse as the field!

 Elements of definition: --What is it - a person, place, object, process…? --Between what/who? --What is communicated? (and does that term need to be defined?) --How many entities are/must be involved? --Does it have to be intentional? --Does it have to "succeed"? --How do you know when it has occurred? --What is NOT communication? A useful definition must be operationalizable and distinguish effectively