1. RESEARCH METHODS B 1

2. SESSION 2: SCIENCE AND RESEARCH (cont.) V.Scientific explanations VI. Theorizing and logical process 2

3. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (1) (Selltiz, et al., 1976)  In advancing explanations and description of events : A. Developing theories through imagination and insight B. Logical analysis, in the ideal sense C. Observation and evidence 3

4. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (2) (Selltiz, et al., 1976) A. Developing theories through imagination and insight  A Theory : a set of concepts plus the interrelationships that are assumed to exist among those concepts.  Concepts : characteristics of events, situations, groups, and individua ls  Hypotheses (or propositions ): consequences that we assume logically follow from the relationship proposed in the theory 4

5. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (3) (Selltiz, et al., 1976  Example: Assume: mass media lead the poor to acquire a desire for those possessions that they have not had before. The theory proposes that because of job discrimination, it is not possible to obtain these positions through socially approved means, and that the desire for the possessions creates frustrations, and that frustrations lead to the behavior of participating in a riot. One possible hypotheses: exposure to the media is related to the incidence of riots. 5

6. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (4) (Selltiz, et al., 1976 Theory building involves imagination that is exercised in rigorous way. Theory is an intellectual creation. The assumptions on which theories are based require human ingenuity. 6

7. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (5) (Selltiz, et al., 1976)  B. Logical Analysis Deductive validity: relationship of premises to conclusion, if only if the premises are true, the conclusions must be true the truth of premises guarantees the truth of conclusion Ex. Premises: 1. In all organizations, the many are dominated by the few. 2. All student groups are organizations. Conclusion: 3. In all student groups, the many are dominated by the few. 7

8. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (6) (Selltiz, et al., 1976)  Neither premise need be true for the argument to be deductively valid Ex. Premises: 1. All Jakarta citizens are vegetarians. 2. All vegetarians are Indonesian citizens. Conclusion: 3. All Jakarta citizens are Indonesian citizens. This a deductively valid argument with false premises and a true conclusion. 8

9. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (7) (Selltiz, et al., 1976) Inductive validity When all the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true, as the conclusion makes claims beyond those of the premises Ex. P: In all student groups observed so far, the many are dominated by the few. C: In all student groups, the many are dominated by the few. 9

10. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (8) (Selltiz, et al., 1976) BUILDING BLOCKS OF SCIENCE Deduction: the process by which we arrive at a reasoned conclusion by logically generalizing from a known fact. e.g., 1. All high performers are highly proficient in their jobs. 2. John is a high performer. Thus, 3. John is highly proficient in doing his job Induction: a process where we observe certain phenomena and on this basis we arrive at conclusions e.g., we see that the production processes are the prime features of factories, we thefore conclude that factories exist for production purposes 10

11. V. SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (9) (Selltiz, et al., 1976)  C. Observation and Evidence Science is based on empiricism, i.e. evidence that originate directly or indirectly through normal human senses is admissible as support for against a hypotheses, but that no other kind of evidence counts. 11

12. Building block of science (Hypothetico-deductive-inductive method) Observation Identification of problem area Refinement of Theory orTheory Implementation Hypotheses Data Interpretation Concepts and Definitions Data AnalysisResearch Design Data Colllection 12

13. VI. THEORIZING (Selltiz, et al., 1976, pp: 23-35) Theorizing: the process of creating and developing a theory inventing sets of reasons to account for a certain event How to invent explanations: (i)look at what other investigators say, or (ii)observe characteristics of the events under study in order to generalize ‘from the data’. Whenever X occurs, does Y also occur? Whenever Z occurs, is Y always absent? Does Y occur only in the presence of W, but never in its absence? 13