Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology.
More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies.
In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the hypothesized link between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggression has been debated in the scientific community for roughly 60 years. Even today, we will find detractors, but a consensus is building.
In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism.
When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy.
Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding the D. Drug Abuse Resistance Education program in public schools [link]. This program typically involves police officers coming into the classroom to educate students about the dangers of becoming involved with alcohol and other drugs.
According to the D. Sounds like an easy decision, right? If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, will you fund this particular program, or will you try to find other programs that research has consistently demonstrated to be effective? The D. Watch this news report to learn more about some of the controversial issues surrounding the D.
Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism.
In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with your doctor and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible. In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions.
Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.
Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method. Basically, ideas in the form of theories and hypotheses are tested against the real world in the form of empirical observations , and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on.
In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested against the empirical world; in inductive reasoning , empirical observations lead to new ideas [link]. These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.
In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive this would be your hypothesis. Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive logical conclusion.
In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see.
Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive. Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction.
Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based.
For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees.
This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.
For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns new ideas in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.
A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory. A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement e.
The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. Resources to inform your practice, help you undertake research and update you on our research activities. BACP focuses on evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of counselling and psychotherapy for people of all ages, so we do not fund research using animals.
Log in. Search BACP. Careers and jobs. Events and resources. About us. About therapy. Research matters What we do. We support and encourage research across the counselling professions by: providing a research enquiry service and guidance documents for those starting out in research or who wish to refresh their skills running practice research networks PRNs to bring together practitioners, trainers and researchers to engage in research and evaluation organising an annual, peer-reviewed conference to showcase the latest research in the counselling professions offering PhD studentships to fund research that supports our work in promoting the counselling professions.
Recent work includes: a research study with the University of Sheffield which is looking at the effectiveness of counselling and CBT in treating depression a three year trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of school-based counselling , in line with our key strategic work stream of children, young people and families a review of the current evidence for counselling older people, along with public perception and care home surveys, to support our older people strategy.
Current projects. Research resources Resources to inform your practice, help you undertake research and update you on our research activities. Research awards and grants Encouraging research into counselling and psychotherapy. Further reading Barlow DH.
0コメント