Whether or not research is perfect has been subject to a heated debate in modern times. In most cases, researchers try very hard to convince us that research is perfect and the validity of the results should not be questioned. However, another approach to the same is that research is never perfect. This is because were research perfect, the results of the same would be un-negotiable hence no need to further the findings on the matter. In addition, we know that all humans are not perfect. How then would research be perfect in the presence of this negative attribute to human nature?
In modern day research field, trial and error is considered itself a valid research procedure. This is irrespective of the fact that this process is subject to numerous errors and inaccuracies that occur during the research process. The research process takes place in two stages namely; the primary or the preliminary research and the secondary of the conclusive research. Under preliminary research, data which does not previously exist is collected from the field. “The findings from the preliminary research are used in secondary research to come up with the findings hence the results of the research” (Schwab 19).
According to Creswell, man is one of the creations that have an excellent mind which he uses to further his knowledge on the universe hence better his chances of survival (31). This explains why man has tried to discover almost everything that he has come across. Were it not for some of these great discoveries, life would be almost impossible and meaningless. However, research has helped man improve his life and the life of other living and non living forms. Despite the efforts that man has put in the research process, there is the question of validity and reliability of some of the findings by man. Sometimes, it is very difficult to comprehend why researchers arrive at contrasting results even when conducting a similar research. Going by this, it is clear that the research process just like any other process is open to human errors and inaccuracies that sometimes occur due to deliberate or un-deliberate omissions, personal bias and negligence during the research process.
During my masters program in business administration, I undertook a research that was aimed at establishing whether entrepreneurial qualities are essential in a business. Prior to my preliminary research, I had the perception that entrepreneurial characteristics and skills are inherent hence cannot be acquired. This perception greatly influenced the outcome of my research while at the same time put to question the validity of the results. In the course of my research, I later came to learn that some of the most successful businessmen had no prior experience in entrepreneurship but this did not hinder their success.
We undertook another institutional research to identify the role played by poverty in HIV /Aids transmission. In the course of our research, most of my colleagues were already biased taking the approach that poverty is directly related to the rate of HIV infections. This personal bias played a big role in the final submissions of our test results that also seemed to suggest the same. However during the research process, we ignored one fundamental fact that poverty may not be directly related to the rate of new HIV infections. This is because, poor people at times maybe very preoccupied with making the best out of life financially as opposed to the social aspect of life.
As observed from the above analysis, it is not possible for human to achieve perfection. The research process should not be an exemption from the above statement and hence the process cannot be perfect. This explains why as the days go by, most researchers revisit previous discoveries and either try to advance the discoveries or disregard the discoveries and instead make new discoveries that oppose the previous ones.
Creswell, J. Watson. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Education, Inc.2008. Print
Schwab, Merkel. Draft Proposal: Journal for Artistic Research, Bern University of the Arts. 2009. Print