Research refers to activities carried out in the efforts of improving the knowledge base on a particular matter. It is, therefore, seen that results from research improve our understanding of various phenomena. Consequently, they make life processes more efficient than previously, as they are executed. Many research projects have been carried out. Most of them, however complex, usually relate to daily life processes in one way or the other. For instance, NASA research brought about tools as important as the MRI machine.
This has helped in the diagnosing of various illnesses in affected individuals. Similarly, it has helped psychologists in understanding human brain activity through imaging. Consequently, some disabled individuals have been able to control prosthetic limbs from the research carried out. This has allowed them to participate effectively in daily tasks around their societies. Behavioral research has enabled scientists to identify human habits and what prompt them to happen. Due to that, human beings can adopt efficient habits, hence improving their lives and those of others (Giles, 2002).
It has been seen that research plays a central role in our lives around later years. In ensuring its effectiveness, scientists need to adopt empirical measures that can be proven across a range of settings. Validity is a term that refers to the degree to which researchers measure what they were intended to quantify. This is important since studies that conduct measures on unrelated phenomena are impractical from the onset. There are three main forms of validity are content, construct and criterion-related. Validity is seen through its internal and external forms. Internal validity relates to the quantities and tests used within the study itself. This assists in highlighting and explaining the relationship between different variables. Conversely, external validity relates to the extent to which research findings can be generalized to a larger population (Ellis and Macrae, 2001).
Measures of validity are imperative due to a number of reasons. Firstly, internal validity is what links observations recorded under cause and effect. It is significant to note that the correlation does not necessitate causation between different variables. However, proving the relationship between the variables is often useful in research. On the other hand, external validity is important in discovering the implications for research in the real world. This is particularly useful when results from the laboratory are not easily generalized to the real world (Kihlstrom and Norcross et al., 2005).
For effective research studies, scientists need to understand the concepts of validity. Without them, researchers are unable to generalize the causation and results observed to the real world. Various measures may be adopted in ensuring that the study yields valid results. Firstly, randomization needs to be carried out on the study. This will assist the researchers in minimizing issues associated with bias. Similarly, it will allow application of the results, to the real world, to be realistic. Valid research requires an appropriate sample size. Researchers should select sample populations that allow them to achieve reliable results that are significant to the problems at hand (Kihlstrom and Norcross et al., 2005).
Research on vital issues
Critical research activities relate to issues that play a fundamental role on the human population. For instance, such activities relate to concerns such as disease and disorders in the human body or its personality. They are considered important since they directly relate to our existence as humans (Giles, 2002). Other research activities have been carried out for commercial interests. These studies are typically considered to be of lower importance than the significant research activities. Such studies may be seen through research on cosmetics and recreational activities. Common perception holds that vital studies should receive greater rigor than their less critical counterparts in research. However, it is my view that both forms of research should receive similar levels of attention. After all, they are both carried out through scientific principles. This view is attributable to a number of reasons.
Firstly, research activities consume extensive resources. These relate to financing and man-hours employed in conducting the study. This notion does not segregate the research purposes at hand. For example, both clinical and cosmetic product trials are just as expensive as one another once specialized equipment; tests and staffs are factored in. Giving greater regard to one set of research activities will result in grave inefficiencies in the other. For example, ineffective cosmetic products may be produced with financial consequences such as poor retail. As a result, more time and resources have to be used in developing the product to be a commercial process.
Research activities involve a lot of testings. This is necessary for ensuring that the results can be generalized without harming the potentially involved populations. For example, medical treatments under research need extensive clinical trials before they are provided to the public. This is necessary for identifying unintended consequences of the proposed clinical procedures. The same idea needs to be applied to non-critical concerns in research. Extensive trials need to be carried out on recreational or cosmetic products. Failure to do so may result in haphazard results for the company in question. For example, consumers’ health may be affected adversely following consumption of the developed product. This may translate into lawsuits and financial losses for the organization which arise from negligence during the research activities (Hasson, n.d.).
It is seen that research activities play an important role in our daily activities. Results from the research enable individuals to access treatment to ailments that may be affecting them. Similarly, less important research enables them to improve their lives in different ways. For success in real world implementations, studies carried out need to be effective, valid and empirical in nature.
Ellis, H. and Macrae, N. (2001).Validation in psychology. New Brunswick, NJ [u.a.]: Transaction Publ.
Giles, D. (2002). Advanced research methods in psychology. Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.
Hasson, R. (n.d.). Working paper on negligence and strict liability for products.
Kihlstrom, J., Norcross, C., Beutler, L. and Levant, R. (2005). What qualifies as evidence of effective practice? Scientific research. Evidence-based practices in mental health: Debate and dialogue on the fundamental questions, pp. 23–31.
Originally posted 2017-08-08 00:45:38.