Desktop study is usually carried out by reading books, research papers and published reports etc related to a phenomenon. In empirical study one has to move to the study area to collect factual data. Which one of these studies do you prefer and why?
An empirical study indicates getting first hand information after collecting data while desktop study points out to getting second hand information. An inquistive brain will seek the first while the analytical critical brain will seek the second. I think that both types are fine & the researcher will utilize each as fits the case under investigation.
Dear asmat
I prefer globally empirical because primary data have originally nature but i think Remote sensing is empirical study.
Respected @Behrooz Arastoo, thanks for taking initiative to respond. I very much appreciate that. That's true primary data have originally nature, I agree with this. You also have added a new and interesting dimension to this question, I endorse that, "Remote sensing is empirical study"
Dear Asmat,
Discovering and learning the wonders of nature one should go out. I deal with entomology and ecology so without direct contact with nature I have been lost.
@Asmat, i prefer empirical and focused study, collecting data, their analysis, and then go back to books, papers, etc..for engineering the needed knowledge
@Asmat, thank you for your interest. For your query, I think researchers are specialized in their field of science or applied science, so they have knowledge and experiences on how collecting data and which data they need for the subject they do research.. If they are involved in a research topic not familiar of them or different from their specialty, sure they need books first
An empirical study indicates getting first hand information after collecting data while desktop study points out to getting second hand information. An inquistive brain will seek the first while the analytical critical brain will seek the second. I think that both types are fine & the researcher will utilize each as fits the case under investigation.
I think empirical study is good one and that I have used during my PG time as you come to know the actual situation rather then what other studies have stated..
And as Dr. Nizar said you will get first hand information..
Afrer collection of data n processing u may go for reviewing other research but not before that..
Dear Asmat,
I think each of us is a part of the biosphere. Without contacts with nature I cannot be a real progeny of it. Of course, some scientific activity can be implemented with some reservation to outer world.
Dear Asmat,
Andras is largely correct. Remember, Surah Al-Haj wherein emphasis on travelling, watching and listening is placed. In general practice initially science expeditions used to be sent to report original conditions and bring back specimens. To wonder and to explore and analyse this is still valid in several branches of knowledge. However, available information is already vast. Therefore, one in order what to investigate has to go through what you call desktop study or armchair research and find out what is amiss and what one can justifiably contribute. Then one can go on field work or generate data in the lab, but the necessity of field work cannot be undermined as still it always pays in several branches to be there to watch and make memory notes and book notes in the field. However, to know one’s direction one should devote time to desktop study. The days have gone when data pattern and trend used to speak to formulate theories. Nowadays, pre-existing theories tend to dictate what sort of data are required to carry out research.
Dear @Asmat, I must do both types since I am in the field of control engineering, not only control science. I do enjoy the lab work and the knowledge transfer,the application of results in industry! It is real satisfaction!
Respected @ Dr. Nizar Matar,
You are given very thoughtful answer. I support it fully. Let me endorse it, "first hand information after collecting data while desktop study points out to getting second hand information. An inquistive brain will seek the first while the analytical critical brain will seek the second. I think that both types are fine & the researcher will utilize each as fits the case under investigation.
Respected @Mohammad Firoz Khan,
thanks for your contribution and citing excellent reference. I agree with you that , " The days have gone when data pattern and trend used to speak to formulate theories. Nowadays, pre-existing theories tend to dictate what sort of data are required to carry out research"
No, not different study approach, but control engineering and control science , as many engineering oriented science, would demand strong connection between applied research and industry! Verification of results happens outside the lab!
Dear Asmat:
As you said a balanced approach is very reasonable. But in some work one of them may be dominant. But some times an empirical or a pragmatic approach may be the best.
Gamal
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research