In the opinion of scientists: are there rules in research? Pilot study on the most widespread rules of scientific research

Keywords: science, epistemology of science, scientific investigation, methodology, sociology of science

Abstract

Sociologists, ethnologists, philosophers among others have tried to identify the norms or rules that govern scientific research; however, so far, they have not been widely accepted by scientists. This team followed a different path to identify the rules that govern scientific work by asking researchers if, in their opinion, there are rules in scientific research, and, if so, what they are. An opinion poll was conducted among 270 scientists who received academic training at universities in Mexico, Europe, and the United States, and who work at three universities in Mexico. The instrument is based on a social psychology theory that divides memories into spontaneous and assisted, and a dichotomous probability distribution was used to identify variations. Between eight and nine out of ten researchers from physical, biological, and social sciences recognized that there are four rules for research: to study reality as it is, have a critical attitude, have a methodological aptitude, and express willingness to openly publish results. Despite the heterogeneity of the disciplines researchers practice and the variety of their academic training, there is a consensus among scientists about the validity of such rules to conduct scientific research, although most of the time they do not mention them spontaneously.

References

Baack, D. W. (2008). Creativity and Memory Effects: Recall, Recognition, and an Exploration of Nontraditional Media. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370407
Bachelard, G. (1948). La formation de l´espirit scientifique. France, Librarie Philosophique J. Vrin.
Bernstein, J. (1978). Pain and compassion: Rosalind Franklin and the double helix. In: Experiencing science. New York, Basic Books.
Bondi, H. (1977). The lure of completeness. In: The Encyclopedia of ignorance. Every thinking you wanted to know about the unknown. In: Ronald Duncan & Miranda Weston-Smith (comp.). Oxford. Pergamon Press. Ltd.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie du champ scientifique. París. INRA. https://doi.org/10.3917/quae.bourd.1997.01
Brezinski, C. (1993). El oficio de investigador, España, Siglo XXI.
Budker, G. (1982). El significado de la escuela científica, En M. V., Keldysh e I. Artobolevsky (coord.). La edad del conocimiento. México, Guajardo.
Curtis, L. P. Jr. (comp.). (1970). The historian´s workshop. Original essays by sixteen historians. New York. Alfred A. Knopf.
Danaher, P. J.; & Mullarkey, G. W. (2003). Factors affecting online advertising recall: A study of students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(03), 252-267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849903030319
Dobzhansky, T. F.; Ayala, G. L.; Stebbins, G. L.; & Valentine, J. W. (1977). Evolution. Cal. San Francisco. W.H. Freeman.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1993/1970). Against Method. Third Edition. London, New York, Verso.
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social psychology. (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119
Freeland, H. (2004). The Great Betrayal. Fraud in Science. Hancourt.
Glasner, T. J. (2011). Reconstructing event histories in standardized survey research: Cognitive mechanisms and aided recall techniques. (Doctoral dissertation), Oisterwijk: BOXPress. Retrieved from https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/reconstructing-event-histories-in-standardized-survey-research-co
Gould, S. J. (2004). The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister´s Pox. Harmony Books, a Division of Random House.
Gross, P. R. & Levitt, N. (1998). Higher Superstition. The academic Left and its Quarrels with science. Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.
Holton, G. (1978). The Scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2340003
Huizinga, J. (2014). The play-Element in Contemporary Civilization. In: Homo Ludens. A Study of the play-Element in Culture. Routledge.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (2013). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Elsevier, Pergamon press.
Medawar, P. (1996). The strange case of the spotted mice and others classic essays on science. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Medawar, P. B. (2013). Advice to a Young Scientist. Perseus Books.
Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, The University press.
Miller, I.; Johnson, R.; & Freund, J. (1995). Probability and statistics for engineers. Prentice Hall.
Pérez Tamayo, R. (2008). La estructura de la ciencia. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Plint, M. A. (1978). Fluid mecanics, A laboratory course. Gran Bretaña, Griffin.
Poincaré, H. (1952). Hypotheses in Physics. In Science and hypothesis. Dover Publications
Schrödinger, E. (1996). Nature and the Greeks. Cambridge. University Press.
Thuillier, P. (1988). D´Archimède à Einstein. Les faces cachées de l´invention scientifique. France. Librairie Arthéme Fayard.
Vizcaíno Sahagún, C. (2002). Las revistas de investigación y cómo publicar en ellas. México, Cuadernos altexto3. Anuies.
Wigglesworth, V. B. (1987). The Control of Form in the Living Body, In: The Encyclopedia of Ignorance. Everything you wanted to know about the unknown. In: Ronald Duncan & Miranda Weston-Smith (comp.). Oxford. Pergamon Press. Ltd.
Wilson, E. B. (1952). An Introduction to scientific research. New York, MacGraw.
Yankelevich, J. (2016). Mapas prestados para entender el plagio académico. Perfiles Educativos, XXXVIII(154), S20-S35. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-26982016000400018
Zinkhan, G. M., Locander, W. B. & Leigh, J. H. (1986). Dimensional Relationships of Aided Recall and Recognition, Journal of Advertising, 15(1), 38-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1986.10672987
Published
2021-01-31
How to Cite
de la Lama-Zubirán, P., de la Lama-García, A., & del Castillo-Mussot, M. (2021). In the opinion of scientists: are there rules in research? Pilot study on the most widespread rules of scientific research. Uniciencia, 35(1), 284-298. https://doi.org/10.15359/ru.35-1.17
Section
Original scientific papers (evaluated by academic peers)

Comentarios (ver términos de uso)