| SDJ |
| Editorial Board |
| Advisory Board |
| Information for authors |
| Submit manuscript |
| Subscribe to SDJ |
| Search SDJ |
| About SDJ |
| SDJ Current Issue |
| Journal Archives |
| 2010-22 |
| 22-1 |
ISSN (Print) 1013-9052
EISSN 1658-3558
The Saudi Dental Journal,
P.O. Box 52500,
Riyadh 11563,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
P.O. Box 52500,
Riyadh 11563,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| Tel. |
966-1-467-7328 |
| Fax. |
933-1-467-7308 / 966-1-467-7534 |
| Email |
saudidj@ksu.edu.sa |
|
Editorial
The scientific method and research models
A major advantage
that graduate students of today have over those of yesterdecades is a structured
exposure to the scientific method and its related research models which are powerful
tools available to make a systematic and objective inquiry that (hopefully) results
in or yields knowledge. Before scientific research in health sciences emerged as
a uniquely cognitive enterprise over one hundred years ago, what was accepted as
medical and health-related knowledge rested on a combination of trial and error
approach which was largely deductive (a priori reasoning).
In modern day scientific research,
a formulated theory produces a hypothesis which in turn generates a research design
that produces data which may perhaps generate a scientific law. This is the exciting
and instructive learning experience or exposure that today's graduate student has
as he or she decides on what topic to research for a higher degree.
Having accepted the scientific method of inquiry, a nascent or established researcher must choose an appropriate research model to use for the scientific research topic at hand. The selected model is expected to reflect the aim of the study and the methods available for the researcher to collect the data. Many research models are proposed but there is no universal agreement that indeed they all constitute research models. ' One author lists eight models - experimental, clinical, educational, heuristic, correlational, methodological, historical and survey. Some purists think that experimental method is the acme of research and probably the only research method! This is of course plainly not so unless one equates research with experimental design. Scientific research is not and cannot be confined to one method. The defining criteria of a scientific research are basically an unbiased research plan and an objective collection of data. Most health researchers in reality do combine research models in their research endeavors. An undisputed and outstanding advantage which an experimental research design does have over all other models is the ability of the investigator to directly manipulate causes and observe the effects of such manipulation in highly controlled environments. Historical landmarks and measurable progress in health sciences research had been made through a combination of different research models employed by creative minds. We should note the observation of Simmons and Wolff6 who wrote over forty years ago: " This fusion of art and science has pushed medical knowledge to the point where persons doing research are aware that human beings should be studied in their day-to-day environments as well as in the laboratory and the clinical and in psychosocial as well as biophysical perspective, if we are to understand fully the conditions and processes of both health and disease." In our particular environment, graduate students should not and must not be made to think that the researcher who is injecting chemicals in the laboratory animal is conducting research while the clinical investigator interviewing patients about an identified health problem or topic is not really doing research. Scientific research as a profession, we must remember, is not an old invention. References
|