McGrath, J. E. (1994). Methodology Matters: Doing Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. In R. Baecker & W. A. S. Buxton (Eds.), Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: An Interdisciplinary Approach (2nd ed., pp. 152-169). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
This article is about the methodological issues that researchers in behavioral and social sciences might encounter when doing research. The author provides a great categorization and overview of the common research strategies and techniques. Especially, the article points out some of the inherent limits and strengths of various features of the research processes. In my opinion, although the author focuses mainly on the behavioral and social sciences, the issues about research strategies and techniques are quite similar and can also be very valuable to natural sciences. This article can be a good reference to choose research strategies for us reaserchers in IST domain.
The major point of this article is about the research dilemma that all the methods have both strengths and limitations. Therefore, it is impossible to maximize all advantages for a single method. This is an insightful point. Actually, each piece of knowledge we gain from a research process is not totally general or complete. What we really need to do is to develop the big pictures that are comprised of each related set of research results. As researchers, we not only should to make our own research methods correct and valid, but also need to understand the results in the context of the accumulated body of knowledge on the same topic. As the author mentioned, "the research process is, at heart, a social enterprise resting on consensus".
Another interesting issue mentioned in the article is the idea of validity. As the central judgment of research processes, validity can have multiple interpretations. This reminds me of a related article (Oreskes, 1994) which discusses about the verification and validation of numerical models in natural systems. Their argument is that the complete confirmation is logically precluded by the incomplete access to natural phenomena (the problem of induction) and the fallacy of affirming the consequent (the difference between co-occurance and causual relationship). This is quite similar to the differnt types of validity mentioned in this article. In my opinion, the internal and external validity are difficult or even impossible to achieve in most research activities. However, the research results can be well evaluated based on construct and statistical validity, i.e. we can judge whether we have clearly specified the mapping from substantive domain to the conceptual domain and we can figure out whether our results are statistically significant from a probabilistical sense.
Reference:
Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences. Naomi Oreskes, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Kenneth Belitz. Nature, Vol 263, 1994.
Fink, S. (2007). The Science of Doing Good. Scientific American, 297(5), 98-106.
Fink's article demonstrates how the modern sciences, especially the new technologies, such as information and biological technologies, have begun to facilitate the humanitarian relief activities. In general, the new technologies have played several important roles in relief work: 1) The satellite imaging and information technology offer a far broader and more comprehensive view of the large-scale disasters or crises, which can improve the organization and delivery of help for relief work. 2) The new technologies allow rapid data collection and responses in the crises. Geographic information systems (GIS), Global Positioning System (GPS), and modern survey methods allow the researchers to conduct accurate studies in harsh and sometimes insecure working environments. 3) The technologies, such as GIS and DNA testing, along with methods used in social sciences, provide powerful tools to document and analyze data from disasters and violent conflicts, which can contribute to reveal the underlying forces during humanitarian crises and promote justice and human rights.
So, can science do good? Yes, it can. Fink's article has shown us how scientific and technological advances have greatly facilitate aid work. However, can science always do good? It depends. First of all, the technologies themselves may fail. The hardware and software may simply stop working in emergency situations, such as in the heat or dust. The poor data can lead to unusable systems, which misguide the crisis management. The technologies also can be difficult for the operators to use and be abandoned. The fail to use technologies in the way they are intended "may only exacerbate the inherent chaos of a crisis". Moreover, even the technologies are good, they can also be abused or unavailable to those who most need them. As Fink mentioned in the article, "for good or ill, political, diplomatic and military interventions often exert a greater impact on refugee well-being". It is possible that the technologies might be adopted for political or diplomatic purposes or only the rich may receive the benefits of expensive new technologies. That means science does not always benefit humanity and we must investigate the complex societal context within which science and technology are applied. The similar opinion has also been discussed in Crow's article, which argues that "science and its power continue to advance, yet our ability to harness that power for maximum social benefit remains stagnant".
In sum, science is a human endeavor. Sociology, politics, psychology, and similar aspects of human nature all have a profound influence on how science is conducted. To make science do good, we need to search for and follow the "most socially beneficial paths".
Related Article:
Michael M.Crow. (2001). Harnessing Science to Benefit Society. The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 9, 2001, page B20.
Odenwald, S. (2007). What if string theory is WRONG? Astronomy, 35(2), 30-34.
String theory has become an important approach in science, especially the theoretical physics. Odenwald's article comes from the dilemma confronting modern physicists and mathematicians. On the one hand, the elegance and flexibility of string theory has led many physicists to believe that string theory has the potential to unify the known natural forces by describing them with the same set of equations, as described in the theory of everything. On the other hand, however, string theory as a whole has not yet made possibilities that allow it to be experimentally tested. Scientists have to worry about the consequences if the string theory is proved to be wrong in the future. In this article, Odenwald imagines the major troubles that may occur if the string theory would go down.
Although string theory has been considered as a promising approach in physics, some contend that string theory cannot be classified as science. In the sense of Popper, a theory is called scientific only if it is falsifiable. However, no version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories and it may not be tested even in the foreseeable future. Another significant difference of string theory from classical physics is that, rather than describing one universe, it describes multiple universes, each with different constants of nature and laws of physics. The great hope in classical physics was to discover some basic principles that would determine all the constants of nature, like Newton's laws. However, string theory tells us that the constants of nature are more like local properties that vary from place to place.
In retrospect to the history of string theory, an interesting phenomena is that, unlike Newton's laws or Einstein's theory of relativity, string theory is the result of collective wisdoms. String theory includes a group of related superstring theories and a few related frameworks developed by different scholars, which are not exactly compatible with each other. In this sense, string theory is better to be understood as a general approach that have been used by many scientists to understand the universe. This may reveal that the complexity of the world under current scientific investigation has greatly increased so that no single person has the ability to settle all things down.
Reference Articles:
1. String theory - From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
2. Gefter, Amanda. Is string theory in trouble?. New Scientist. December 19, 2005. – An interview with Leonard Susskind, the theoretical physicist who discovered that string theory is based on one-dimensional objects and now is promoting the idea of multiple universes.
Gleick, J. (1988). The Butterfly Effect. In Chaos: Making a New Science (pp. 11-31). New York: Viking.
"The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does." (Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, pg. 141)
Chaos theory has been widely studied to describe how small changes can have tremendous effects within complex non-linear systems. Gleick's article introduces the story of the earliest pioneer in chaos theory, Edward Lorenz, who was working on the problem of weather predication using a simple digital computer.In an attempt to repeat a sequence of data and save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course, he found that the machine began to predict was completely different from the weather calculated before. This phenomenon, common to chaos theory, is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system. Lorenz's discovery proved that meteorology could not reasonably predict long-term weather conditions. Currently, the chaos theory has become a ubiquitous part of science to explain phenomena in complex systems. Some interesting examples include Jupiter’s red spot, fractal geometry, and economic forecasting.
Chaos theory has also been considered as the skepticism towards the human ability to understand the nature. However, in my opinion, chaos theory is more than just to admit the apparent disorder in complex systems. Chaos is not random, and the aim of chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data. As shown in many studies, chaotic systems actually reveal stable statistical patterns which might help us to understand how they work.
Reference Article: Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction. http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
Durant, W. (1953). Chapter VII: Leonardo da Vinci 1752-1519. In The Renaissance: A History of Civilization in Italy from 1304-1576 A.D. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Hart, M. H. (1992). Ts'ai Lun. In The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (pp. 36-41). New York: Citadel Press.
Durant's book chapter provides us a brief history of the famous polymath, Leonardo da Vinci, who excels in multiple fields, particularly in arts, engineering, and science. Leonardo has often been described as the archetype of the "Renaissance man" or universal genius, a man whose seemingly infinite curiosity was equalled only by his powers of invention. It is quite interesting to find that most of the notable polymaths lived during the Renaissance period, and a rounded approach to education was typical of the ideals of the humanists of the time. A good question to ask is why we don't see many notable polymaths nowadays. The first possible reason might be the exponential increase of human knowledge. Currently, scientific discoveries become not the work of one person, but of teams of people working on collaborative projects in massive laboratories. The body of knowledge in each discipline is extremely large and it's impossible for one person to know enough to advance knowledge very much. Another problem is that the competition is much fiercer. People usually have to devote much of their whole time to one single area to make distinguishing contributions. However, this does not mean well-rounded education or connection among different bodies of knowledge is not important. The key thing is we need to identify the way to organize them more efficiently. Polymaths might be no longer in a individual mind, but in collective wisdom.
Hart's article is a brief description of Ts'ai Lun. It is astonishing for me that he ranks Ts'ai Lun so high as one of the most influential people in history. As a Chinese, I got to know Ts'ai Lun when I was in the elemental school. Undoubtedly, paper is one of the most influential inventions in the history and Ts'ai Lun, as the inventor of paper, should be well known by us. However, the author poses a technology-deterministic attitude towards the role of the invention of paper in the Chinese civilization. The author argues that the primary reason why China's accomplishments exceeds those of west and later wester Europe outstripped China is because a simple technology, like the paper or the modern printing. In my opinion, this is not quite convincing. There might be various complex cultural and social issues that can influence the history.
Jones, J., & Wilson, W. (1995). Chapter 11: Science. In An Incomplete Education (pp. 490-553). New York: Ballantine Books.
This article is a pleasant reading which introduces us some fundamental concepts in modern physical sciences, such as mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry. It is amazing to see how the human curiosity has led us from the micro quark worlds to the macro theories of the universe, from the internal gene and neuro theories to the external ecology and evolution theory. This article provides us some very interesting questions in science which was supposed to be profound and boring, such as the fibonacci series in mathematics or the doppler effect in physics. However, associating this week's article with the readings in the previous two weeks, I have a strong feeling that modern science is becoming more and more complex and fragile. In every major scientific domain, there are plenty of unexplained phenomena, untested theories, and even conflicting solutions. Some of the modern theories, such as the chaos theory and the superstring theory might not be able to be directly justified using current experimental equipments.
When talking about key scientific constructs, this article is actually missing an important part of science, the social sciences, which study human aspects of the world using scientific methods. In contrast to hard sciences, such as the natural sciences, which may focus exclusively on objective aspects of nature, social sciences are usually called soft sciences. However, with the increasing interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary nature of scientific inquiries, the distinction between hard sciences and soft sciences is becoming blurred. Therefore, to discuss the key scientific constructs, we should never neglect the major fields in social sciences, such as psychology, economics, and political science.
Besides, another interesting point is the computer science, which is not the traditional natural science, nor the social sciences. As Simon discussed in "the science of design", computer science is more like a design science. A typical example is the study of artificial intelligence, which is the endeavor to understand the human mind in terms of its design. It is oriented more towards structure and mechanism rather than correlation or law in the traditional empirical inquiries. An experiment in computer science is more often an effort to build something and make it work, than to observe or analyze what already exists.
Wells, H. G. (1920). The Renascence of Western Civilization. In The Outline of History: Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind (Vol. II). Garden City, New York: Garden City Books.
This book chapter illustrates a brief history of western civilization. Although it is not merely talking about science itself, we still can get good points from the description. Anyway, the reawakening and growth of science is the key of the modernization in the West.
From this article, we can see that one of the most important points in the history of science is the freedom from medieval religions. The struggle for free intelligence and the free conscience in mankind, and against "authoritative, traditional, ceremonial and priestly religions" has greatly stimulated the development of science. The article also mentions two things that are important in the course of civilization. One is the open up of modern education systems, which provide more opportunities for ordinary people to freely access knowledge. "Education is the adapter which will make the nomadic spirit of freedom and self-reliance compatible with the co-operations and wealth and security of civilization". The other thing is the introduction of paper and the achievement of printing, which makes the popularity of books. Due to the decreased cost of boos, the knowledge of reading spread swiftly and more free discussion is spurred. In general, the development of western science is much related to the civilization process, in which a community of knowledge and will, instead of a community of faith and obedience is created.
Another interested thing raised from this article is the motive of science. From the author's description of the history, we can clearly find that to a great extent, the increasing development of western science is stimulated by the practical demands. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the alchemy was on the increase. People engaged in their research for practical ideas; "they sought not knowledge, but power". Although alchemy is not part of the science, it do stimulate a lot of scientific ideas. Even in today's world, it is still much more disposed to spend money on technical research than on pure science. However, as the author said, "it is only when knowledge is sought for her own sake that she gives rich and unexpected gifts in any abundance to her servants".
Asimov, I. (1965). Chapter 1: What is science? In Asomov's Guide to Science. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
As a famous scientific fiction and popular science writer, Asimov provides us a nice recap of the evolution of science. As Asimov said, science originates from the innate curiosity of humans. In this sense, science can be considered as the mental activities to gain knowledges. The first famous tradition of modern science come from the ancient Greek thinkers, who consider the science as an intellectual exercise. In their philosophy, deduction is the only respectable means of attaining knowledge; therefore they produce a large body of scientific knowledge in geometry and astronomy based on a set of axioms. However, the deductive method has the inherent limitation that it relies much on the basic axioms. Although deductive logic is always rational, the validity of the basic axioms cannot be ensured. Therefore, the modern science also employs the inductive logic as the logical method of science. Instead of building conclusions on an assumed set of generalizations, the inductive method starts with observations and derives generalizations from them. However, inductive logic do not give the kind of guarantee found in deductive logic, i.e. no matter how many times a theory meets its tests successfully, there can be no certainty that it will not be overthrown by the next observation. Actually, the deduction versus induction has becoming a famous debate in modern philosophy of science.
The article also mentioned about the sociology of science. With the increasing complexity and specialization in scientific research, science has switched from individual intellectual activities to collective activities as communities. A new observation or discovery is no longer considered valid unless it has been acknowledged by other investigators in the same field. However, the increasing socialization and division of work in science also produces problems. First, the science has increasingly lost touch with nonscientists. Under such circumstances, scientists come to be regarded as feared rather than admired. Also, the complexity and specialization of science also create opportunities for so called "Cargo Cult Science", i.e. the scientific theories which are not well proved or falsely generated. Due to the limitation of resources, scientists tend to build their research on some other's experiment or theory, which might be incorrect or not validated.
