Research findings should be reported 'as is' whether you agree with the findings or not. Findings should not be 'sugarcoated' or manipulated for the sake of satisfying research questions or hypotheses. Any finding should be valued equally.
Do you agree/disagree? Explain
In positivistic research your point is more valid because the researcher, his/her values and believes are separate from the rest of the world. But in interpretivist research the study findings can be value laden, even though there are methods such as bracketing used sometimes to minimize the researcher value biases. Some element of influence may therefore exist in interpretivist research.
Thank you Ruwangi Chandrasekara . I like the way you outlined both paradigms of research. I do agree that there can/may/will always be 'elements of influence', but these should be within limits to bring about factual research.
Sachin Suknunan
One of the problems this statement ignores is the competence of data analysis and conclusions of authors. This can be an issue. Sometimes the conclusions are not supported by evidence. So at this level sometimes there are 'wrong' findings in research.
The question needs to be more nuanced as there are different levels of competence among those who do conduct research, as well as different interpretations of what is meant by the word 'wrong'.
Hello Valerie Saunders , I dont think the question requires nuancing as i am trying to guage different viewpoints based on how the question is interpreted to the diverse researchers on this platform. On that note, thank you for your contribution as well. The issue of statistical validation is important.
I completely agree, research is meant to study and verify whether one's observations and hypotheses are testable through a scientifically conducted study with methodological rigor. The results must be objectified and transparently shared so that they can be useful and transferable to clinical practice.
Hi Daniele Origo, thank you very much for your inputs. I support your response thereof. I do agree with, and support 'objective' and truthful reporting of research findings. We need this in order to inform correct theoretical and practical developments.
Your question fails to deal with a very basic point: Have the research scientists strictly followed the established and required scientific norms? If a scientific study was poorly designed, not ethically approved, not registered, implemented poorly, written with flaws, and proofed/published with less than ideal vigor, then the "findings" are essentially worthless. Are you able to identify when that happens? For the sake of this question/debate, let's assume there are 10 things that must be accomplished when one publishes research. Did the authors accomplish 2 of those goals? Did they accomplish 7? Should we appreciate and trust findings from studies that check all 10 boxes over those that have an equally shinny manuscript but only accomplished 2? Stated otherwise, please consider the integrity of the research process as opposed to the feel good vs. feel bad nature of the results. The questions we pose should be in line with the scientific method. If you ask a bad question then you will likely obtain bad results, and this is a bad question.
Stephen M. Shaffer , I don't think my question fails to deal with anything as such. It is meant to be a broad question to draw responses from different perspectives, as you have now given yours.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction