Empirical research is research using empirical
evidence.
It is a way of gaining knowledge by means
of direct and indirect observation or experience.
Empiricism values such research more than
other kinds.
Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct
observations or experiences) can be analyzed
quantitatively or qualitatively.
Quantifying the evidence or making sense of
it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer
empirical questions, which should be clearly
defined and answerable with the evidence collected
(usually called data).
Research design varies by field and by the
question being investigated.
Many researchers combine qualitative and quantitative
forms of analysis to better answer questions
which cannot be studied in laboratory settings,
particularly in the social sciences and in
education.
In some fields, quantitative research may
begin with a research question (e.g., "Does
listening to vocal music during the learning
of a word list have an effect on later memory
for these words?") which is tested through
experimentation.
Usually, a researcher has a certain theory
regarding the topic under investigation.
Based on this theory, statements or hypotheses
will be proposed (e.g., "Listening to vocal
voice has a negative effect on learning a
word list.").
From these hypotheses, predictions about specific
events are derived (e.g., "People who study
a word list while listening to vocal music
will remember fewer words on a later memory
test than people who study a word list in
silence.").
These predictions can then be tested with
a suitable experiment.
Depending on the outcomes of the experiment,
the theory on which the hypotheses and predictions
were based will be supported or not, or may
need to be modified and then subjected to
further testing.
== Terminology ==
The term empirical was originally used to
refer to certain ancient Greek practitioners
of medicine who rejected adherence to the
dogmatic doctrines of the day, preferring
instead to rely on the observation of phenomena
as perceived in experience.
Later empiricism referred to a theory of knowledge
in philosophy which adheres to the principle
that knowledge arises from experience and
evidence gathered specifically using the senses.
In scientific use, the term empirical refers
to the gathering of data using only evidence
that is observable by the senses or in some
cases using calibrated scientific instruments.
What early philosophers described as empiricist
and empirical research have in common is the
dependence on observable data to formulate
and test theories and come to conclusions.
== Usage ==
The researcher attempts to describe accurately
the interaction between the instrument (or
the human senses) and the entity being observed.
If instrumentation is involved, the researcher
is expected to calibrate his/her instrument
by applying it to known standard objects and
documenting the results before applying it
to unknown objects.
In other words, it describes the research
that has not taken place before and their
results.
In practice, the accumulation of evidence
for or against any particular theory involves
planned research designs for the collection
of empirical data, and academic rigor plays
a large part of judging the merits of research
design.
Several typologies for such designs have been
suggested, one of the most popular of which
comes from Campbell and Stanley.
They are responsible for popularizing the
widely cited distinction among pre-experimental,
experimental, and quasi-experimental designs
and are staunch advocates of the central role
of randomized experiments in educational research.
=== Scientific research ===
Accurate analysis of data using standardized
statistical methods in scientific studies
is critical to determining the validity of
empirical research.
Statistical formulas such as regression, uncertainty
coefficient, t-test, chi square, and various
types of ANOVA (analyses of variance) are
fundamental to forming logical, valid conclusions.
If empirical data reach significance under
the appropriate statistical formula, the research
hypothesis is supported.
If not, the null hypothesis is supported (or,
more accurately, not rejected), meaning no
effect of the independent variable(s) was
observed on the dependent variable(s).
The outcome of empirical research using statistical
hypothesis testing is never proof.
It can only support a hypothesis, reject it,
or do neither.
These methods yield only probabilities.
Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence
(as distinct from empirical research) refers
to objective evidence that appears the same
regardless of the observer.
For example, a thermometer will not display
different temperatures for each individual
who observes it.
Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well
calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence.
By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective,
depending on the observer.
Following the previous example, observer A
might truthfully report that a room is warm,
while observer B might truthfully report that
the same room is cool, though both observe
the same reading on the thermometer.
The use of empirical evidence negates this
effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience
or time.
The varying perception of empiricism and rationalism
shows concern with the limit to which there
is dependency on experience of sense as an
effort of gaining knowledge.
According to rationalism, there are a number
of different ways in which sense experience
is gained independently for the knowledge
and concepts.
According to empiricism, sense experience
is considered as the main source of every
piece of knowledge and the concepts.
In reference with a specific piece of knowledge,
this paper will focus on differentiating between
rationalism and empiricism or rational views
and empirical views.
In general, rationalists are known for the
development of their own views following two
different way.
First, the key argument can be placed that
there are cases in which the content of knowledge
or concepts end up outstripping the information.
This outstripped information is provided by
the sense experience (Hjørland, 2010, 2).
Second, there is construction of accounts
as to how reasoning helps in the provision
of addition knowledge about a specific or
broader scope.
Empiricists are known to be presenting complementary
senses related to thought.
First there is development of accounts of
how there is provision of information by experience
that is cited by rationalists.
This is insofar for having it in the initial
place.
At times, empiricists tend to be opting skepticism
as an option of rationalism.
If experience is not helpful in the provision
of knowledge or concept cited by rationalists,
then they do not exist (Pearce, 2010, 35).
Second, empiricists hold the tendency of attacking
the accounts of rationalists while considering
reasoning to be an important source of knowledge
or concepts.
The overall disagreement between empiricists
and rationalists show primary concerns in
how there is gaining of knowledge with respect
to the sources of knowledge and concept.
In some of the cases, disagreement at the
point of gaining knowledge results in the
provision of conflicting responses to other
aspects as well.
There might be a disagreement in the overall
feature of warrant, while limiting the knowledge
and thought.
Empiricists are known for sharing the view
that there is no existence of innate knowledge
and rather that is derivation of knowledge
out of experience.
These experiences are either reasoned using
the mind or sensed through the five senses
human possess (Bernard, 2011, 5).
On the other hand, rationalists are known
to be sharing the view that there is existence
of innate knowledge and this is different
for the objects of innate knowledge being
chosen.
In order to follow rationalism, there must
be adoption of one of the three claims related
to the theory that are Deduction or Intuition,
Innate Knowledge, and Innate Concept.
The more there is removal of concept from
mental operations and experience, there can
be performance over experience with increased
plausibility in being innate.
Further ahead, empiricism in context with
a specific subject provides a rejection of
corresponding version related to innate knowledge
and deduction or intuition (Weiskopf, 2008,
16).
Insofar as there is acknowledgement of concepts
and knowledge within the area of subject,
the knowledge has major dependence on experience
through human senses.
== Empirical cycle ==
A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:
Observation: The observation of a phenomenon
and inquiry concerning its causes.
Induction: The formulation of hypotheses - generalized
explanations for the phenomenon.
Deduction: The formulation of experiments
that will test the hypotheses (i.e. confirm
them if true, refute them if false).
Testing: The procedures by which the hypotheses
are tested and data are collected.
Evaluation: The interpretation of the data
and the formulation of a theory - an abductive
argument that presents the results of the
experiment as the most reasonable explanation
for the phenomenon.
== See also ==
Case study
Fact
