I thinks being a scientist is primary to being a researcher. The background information you have from science makes you a researcher as you can see the problems to study precisely!!
I am a teaching scholar. She is a different scientist. He is a researcher who has made great achievements in his field of specialization, and he has extensive and very large experiences and acquired great skills that led him to the path of creativity.
I am an academic who teaches and writes on psychology. All I do is evidence based but I am aware that evidence is not straightforward but is subject to perception. Too much research can at times not reveal the nature of things, especially as the capacity for abstraction is missing.
I'm an associate professor in education. As a result, I'm doing research following the shared scientific regor. But, I don't consider my self as a scientist as being a scientist requires to have many innovations via one's research attempts. I'm moving towards that end!
When thinking about the differences between a scientist and a researcher I reached a certain level of confusion. There are references to "research scientist" and "scientific researcher" as well. Therefore I ended up searching for definitions:
a) Scientist:
1) The Science Council based in London (2019). " A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. " Available at: https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/
2) Lexico.com (2019-). A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences. ‘a research scientist’ Available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/scientist
b) Researcher:
1) Lexico.com (2019). "A person who carries out academic or scientific research.
‘a medical researcher who pioneered the development of antibiotics’ >>>1.1: " A person whose job involves discovering or verifying information for use in a book, programme, etc." Available at: https://www.lexico.com/definition/researcher
2) Cambridge University Press (2019). 2.1 "someone who studies a subject, especially in order to discover new information or reach a new understanding: a television/political researcher & She's a researcher on a women's magazine." Business English: 2.2 " someone whose job is to study a subject carefully, especially in order to discover new information or understand the subject better: She is a leading researcher in the field. " Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/researcher
There might be a degree of convergence between the two concepts. I see myself more like a scientist (The Science Council), still in practice I act more like a researcher (Lexico.com). A scientific process ( the main building block of a research project) can be considered to cover multiple research processes based on scientifically sound facts. I still argue that a scientist uses definitely academically sound methods, whereas a researcher might resort also to other non-academic tools.Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely
Ideally, be a scientist-researcher committed to social transformation from his research work. Being a closed scientist in your world or a researcher by chance will not represent anything in your participation in this terrestrial sphere.
The connection between the scientist and the researcher is a direct one and often the two overlap. However, we consider that an expert in a particular field can be a scientist if to excel in that field he uses the scientific method to support the results of his own research. Moreover, the researcher broadens his area of knowledge by constantly researching a field of reference for him.
Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year 2020 with your loved ones!
The fact that somebody is teaching or researching is not making one a scientist. A scientist is the one who produces new valuable information for the benefits of mankind, and having a wide acceptance among the domain colleagues.
Typically, a scientist is a quite strong researcher, and sometimes also a very good teacher as well. A scientist isn't someone who wrote a book, though there are cases like that. A scientist is one, who's results became a treasure of the field, a new phenomenon, effect, useful tool, rule, or a concept, a new area of knowledge. Possibly, it's a hypothesis, a seed that become a whole new scientific direction.
Some people, who are working in sciences and occupy scientific positions, consider themselves as scientists. In many cases, it is a self-illusion. In reality, it is a credit, an advance given to those people with the hope they would prove themselves. Sometimes, it's happening, but sometimes it isn't.
1. Both (sometimes a researcher, sometimes a scientist, sometimes both)
2.They are different. But, there is no harm for a researcher to be a scientist, or vice versa, or both at the same time (because there are very very close relation between them, though different existance).
Careful clinical observation of any natural phenomena can generate hypothesis formation.Hypothesis formation can generate careful controlled observation( "control" group) & empirical testing of a specific hypothesis (the business of of ALL science).
"But there is nothing so PRACTICAL as a good THEORY "(Kurt Lewin 1951) ,because it tells you what specific aspects of nature require the most careful,granular and objective observation and measurement.
I think there is a difference between them. A Scientist is who find questions wich can be ansered by observation or experimentally, and a researcher is who perform those experiments.
Generally speaking, the terms are conceptually different. While a scientist is an individual whose expertise and knowledge are linked to one or more of the natural or physical sciences, a researcher is a person who conducts academic or scientific research involving discovering or verifying different world realities. On this basis, a researcher may or may not be a scientist proper. For instance, researchers working on subjects related to humanities and social matters are not scientists proper because the subject matter they deal with does not have a natural or physical nature.
Research in history, literature etc does NOT isolate and elucidate the underlying natural mechanisms (eg gravity & mass) that can PREDICT the precise angle of the bending of light from a distant star, that verified the theory of general relativity in physics.In biological science there is a quest to identify the" active ingredients"(eg digitalis(UCS) that will reliably increase the contractions of myocardial fibers(UCR) and the lack of such contractions can be associated with congestive heart failure and potentially death.
Biological science seeks to isolate and elucidate the etiology and mechanisms of disease and health.
According to the definitions below, there's a blur boundary distinction between both terms. My understanding is that a scientist is an expert in a particular domain, whereas just a researcher may not be so widely experienced and educated. It's pretty much like a difference between a postdoc and a full professor with 20-30 years of experience and achievements.
Scientist - a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Researcher - a person who carries out academic or scientific research; a person who's job involve discovering or verifying information for use in a book, program, etc..