(Sometime back, I wrote an essay on Morwenna Griffith's statement, "There is no hope for doing perfect research". It has given me an opportunity to understand research with a new perspective. I am reproducing the essay with the hope it may be useful to many people).
First and
foremost, the above expression by itself is only a phrase, and does not explain
full meaning of the expression. However, taking this in the context of its
usage by Griffiths, this expression relates to the completeness and perfection
of research. In order to dwell on the subject in some detail, let us examine
this phrase to understand what it means in common terms. To do so, let us begin
by examining three key words in the phrase: hope, perfect, research. According
to Oxford dictionary ‘hope’ is a feeling
of expectation and desire for something to happen; ‘perfect’ means having all
the required elements or qualities; and ‘research’ is study of materials and
sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.
In the broader context of what the above
phrase means, irrespective of disciplines,
methodologies, sources, data, results, conclusions, and theories
propounded in any research, the expected outcome of research is vulnerable, it is far from being
lasting, and is subject to evolution, and thus it is ‘not Perfect’. I believe
the statement is an outcome of substantial research, thinking and
interpretation of what we observe with ongoing research across wide range of
disciplines. I believe the statement “There is no hope for doing perfect
research” by Griffiths, when judged in a very broad perspective of our
natural word, holds true due to the very nature of the physical word, and manifestation of diverse materials, life,
systems, forces, interacting in space and time. In spite of this, a research
study carried out under given conditions of facilities, budget, timeframe, etc.
has met its objectives is ‘Perfect’ in its full meaning for the given research
project.
Research
is ‘not-Perfect’ in broader perspective, why?
To
discuss the vulnerability of any research being ‘not perfect’, we must examine
the forms of physical world and its manifestations. The world is divisible into
three broader components: physical world, living and social, and any research
will fall within one of these three broader domains. Now let us examine each of
these domains to find why the statement ‘Research is not perfect’ holds true.
The
physical world: The physical word is a material world
composed of substances in several forms which continue to be under influence of
the nature’s forces, visible and invisible, in space and time. What holds true
at a place in January will not hold true in June or September due to change of
the position of the Earth, and thus the season; what will hold true in day will
not hold true in night. Innumerable variables are at interplay giving rise to
innumerable new variables, varied outcome under different sets of conditions. Any
research, be it in the field of sciences or humanities, can only be held valid under
a given set of variables, and the moment variables and research conditions
change, the outcome may change. The physical world is governed by forces, which
interact with each other, yet fundamental forces of nature do not change by
themselves, like the gravity on Earth, speed of light, composition of hydrogen,
density of water, and so on. But each principle can be exploited with tools and
techniques for some desired outcome for human use, depending upon the
sophistication of the techniques, and tools available, and used. Thus a
research which is ‘not-Perfect’ in broader sense if judged in the light of its
completion in a given time, budget, and has fulfilled the objective, it becomes
‘Perfect’.
The living world: The world of living organisms is made possible due to the
presence of life sustaining elements and systems on Earth. The life is under
direct influence of natural forces. Anything that disturbs life sustaining
forces will disturb the life on Earth. The living world is evolving and
changing overtime. This provides unlimited space or opportunities to conduct research
in living world to develop, evolve and grow, making it ‘not-Perfect’ in
general, but being ‘Perfect’ when it serves the objective.
The social world: Art and humanities: The
man has evolved as a social animal having capability to think, organize, plan, research,
acquire knowledge, invent, adopt tools and technologies, and improve his social
environment on regular basis by offsetting the existing conditions, and by
evolving new societal norms and practices. This ever evolving social
environment is a dynamic system, and thus at any given point the conditions are
not perfect, and therefore no research endeavor is ‘Perfect’ in broader
meaning. But research is ‘Perfect’ in limited sense as explained above.
Natural world as driver of ‘not-Perfect’ research: Whatever
exists in our physical word is determined by natural forces, and the influences
of natural forces traverse through all spheres of human activities and pursuits,
and manifest into complex sets of effects. We humans can divide our life, as it
concerns us, into three domains: living, nonliving and social. Human life evolves
and continues by relative understanding and exploitation, and ever changing
perception of our relationship between fellow humans, elements of nature, and
those complex set of influences.
Research
is thus a very complex pursuit to follow, with an existing space provided on
every frontier, as an opportunity to explore in every conceivable and
non-conceivable direction, over time, an innate property of the nature. And
this is what it makes it difficult to reach the end point of a given research,
as new opportunities open up overtime,
linearly, or as side chains, in a branching fashion, or as parallel
opportunities, or as unrelated side chain ‘spin off’ of the research with a
different objective.
Research
endeavors: Humanities versus sciences:
In
general, research carried out in any field, irrespective of the sciences or
humanities, is an endeavor which is far from being perfect; though, research is
more quantifiable in sciences than in humanities. The reason being that in
humanities there is greater room for bias, individual views, opinions, role of
social hierarchy leading to overall subjectivity in deciding the outcome of
research and its applications. In sciences, however, the objectivity is greater
due to factual findings, supported by automated machines and instruments. In
sciences, standardized conditions for data collection are common, and for
certain biological disciplines it is mandatory to adopt good laboratory practices for generation of
data otherwise data will not be acceptable to regulatory agencies. These set of
conditions are expected to provide more accurate data.
In spite
of the use of defined conditions for research in most disciplines, research in
any field of science is far from perfect, and is under constant improvements
due to new emerging technologies providing greater vision and scope for
analysis in research, and advancements of knowledge. Therefore, due to the
fluidity of research in general, it is not valuable to draw a line between
sciences and humanities, and thus engage in discussion in more general context of
research as such. To further enlarge the scope of discussion on the subject,
‘there is no hope for doing perfect research’ it is worth finding out the
various types and characteristics of research, and their relationship in
achieving ‘Perfect’ research. The analysis follows.
Weather a
research is perfect or not, dependents upon the type of research. Research can
be of several types:
Blue-sky research is a nascent or emerging discipline. Researches
in such a field are never perfect due to rapid progress, due to fast changing
evidence, evolving theories, and use of new tools and techniques.
Fundamental and basic
research revolutionize current and
old thinking, and opens new horizons. Researches in these areas set milestones,
but these are never perfect due to advances at a faster pace due to the use of
new tools and techniques.
Applied
research enables utilization of fundamental
and basic research for development of technologies and products for commercial
application and as social goods. The technologies and products which stand in
use over a period of time are examples of ‘Perfect’ research until the products
are replaced by improved substitutes.
In
addition there are advances in disguise, which are more superficial research,
for quick application on ground. Products of such research phases out quickly,
examples, newer applications in computers, softwares, mobile versions, etc.
Characteristics
of research:
Research operates in time and space:
Progress in research in any discipline depends upon the existing state-of-the-art
knowledge. Thus a new discipline with no existing knowledge in the field,
except the fundamental knowledge, has opportunities to grow faster, and thus every
research that comes through in this field will be less perfect and short-lived.
Research has a life-span:
Any research is time-dependent, and has is a life-span depending upon the
progress of research in that field. There is a beginning and an end point of
any research finding, the end point, however, does not mean its death, but its
reduced importance or obsolescence.
Research value determines perfection:
Perfection of a research changes with its practical use, application,
technological failure, and social perception of its importance. Research
leading to a drug is ‘Perfect’, as long as it is safe, but the moment it
records side effects, the research becomes ‘not-Perfect’ due to technological
failure, and social perception as a harmful drug.
In the
absence of democratic settings in conventional societies, top-down approach is applied
in decision taking about the quality of research. Such research is meaningless
as the perception of the society for which the research aims at is not the deciding
force in formulating policies. For example, some government wants to establish
an atomic plant at a place, based on its independent feasibility studies and
research data. But, the public interest groups, armed with their own survey
findings, environmental concerns, expected human suffering due to displacement
of communities, damage to environment and loss of rare biological diversity,
want the plant located at some other place. In such research, there is a loss
of value due to non-involvement of stakeholders, and therefore it is ‘not-Perfect’
research.
Thus, when the research perspective
changes, the research value changes. A change of government can overnight
reverse the decision, though the set of research findings are the same. A
different viewpoint changes or reverses the research value. Some research outcome
considered valuable by one government may not find appreciation by another
government, and may be dubbed as a waste due to a different view point. In
these situations research is ‘not-perfect’ perception moves a step further,
research becomes volatile!
In order
to judge whether a research is perfect or not, there is a need to measure the
outcome of research. Research is a complex multi-dimensional pursuit, and
therefore it can’t be measured by any single criterion. There are several
criteria in vogue to measure research; some of the criteria are explained
below:
Criteria for completion of research, and
fulfillment of objectives: (i) compilation of research findings on
completion of research in the form of a report; (ii) publication of research findings
in peer- reviewed journals, or publication in high impact factor journals, not
below a definite rating; (iii) completion of research in a given
setting/population/cases/patients, etc.; (iv) achievement of objectives.
Criteria for standards of research
/publication, and fulfillment of standards: This is a practice adopted by
research faculties and institutions engaged in sponsored research. Development
of a technology or product of specified standard implies the research has
fulfilled its objective, and the research is perfect. Similarly, the
publication of research findings in a reputed peer- reviewed journals and high
impact factor journals is considered as equal to perfect research.
Criteria of Research Funding
/Peer-recognition/awards/ honors: A research group that is able to draw
huge funds from grant agencies and sponsors supports the view that the group is
involved in conducting valuable research. Similarly, recognitions bestowed upon
researchers by academies, organizations/governments are indicators of the
acceptance of research, and such recognitions amount to quality research.
Where
research satisfies the criteria of its measurements it justifiably achieves
fulfillment of research objective and qualifies as ‘Perfect’ research, even
though it still follows the cardinal principle of being ‘not-Perfect’ research
and is subject to improvements in the future.
Factors
that enable ‘Perfect’ research:
There are
several factors which determine the research output, quality, applicability,
innovation and weather it is perfect or not. Factors which influence research
are:
Resources:
Financial, infrastructure and facilities, human; each of the factor influence
research outcome and its quality and hence, the ‘Perfect’ nature.
Time-gap/period:
Any development called ‘Perfect’ research is time-dependent, and is seldom
achieved in haste.
Existing
state-of-the art: An area already having advanced field
has greater chances for ‘Perfect’ research.
An
Objective: There has to be an objective for completion of a
research, though some outcome may not be foreseeable and it may be
serendipitous or chance finding.
In the large number of fields of research, be it
sciences, social sciences and humanities, the Griffiths belief that no research
is ‘Perfect’ holds true everywhere. But this is not applicable in a narrow set
of conditions when the research is carried out with a defined objective and
goals, with a given budget, given skilled human resource, and a time limit, and
it fulfills the objectives. Such research is undoubtedly ‘Perfect’ in a limited
sense. But as the objectives change, and all other conditions change, the
research qualifies ‘not-Perfect’ option. Perfect research is not necessarily dependent
upon large budget as required in drug R&D. A drug becomes obsolete soon
needing a new drug to meet new challenges of quality, efficacy and safety.
Similarly, celebrated computer software, or a research into the status of women
education in a tribe, development , and so on, will change with change in
perspectives, policy and demands.
