Analysis Of General Considerations On Method In Research

Introduction

The article “General Considerations on Method in Research” is written by Seward Hiltner of Princeton Theological Seminary and William R. Rogers of Chicago Theological Seminary and was published in Journal for The Scientific Study of Religion. The purpose of the article is to present a perspective of method with a reduced-focus on technical procedures. The authors target audience are scholars who focus on relating religion to studies of personality. The article delineates eight aspects of method that researchers should consider when doing a research. These aspects, the authors contend move chronologically, from early to late. While this is so, they argue that it does not mean that once one aspect is completed, it will not have

They note that if the potential religious relevance of the project is established from the beginning, the project is likely to have both “specificity and force.”

Third, “Stating the hypothesis or the thesis of the specific project or study.” The authors note that stating the hypothesis entails stating the specific problem to be studied within its context and stating the direction of the study. They contend that while researchers should be opened to the findings of the study, they should clearly state their claim in presenting their hypothesis. They contend that when the researchers are bold in their hypothesis, they will be more likely to be diligent in their observations, and fair to all that they find, than when they are not

They advise that the researchers use different types of tools in their investigation and that they should master the use of the tools, which they choose to use. This is essential, they argue, because the gathering of data is affected by how well the researcher masters the tools that they use in the investigation.

Sixth, “Organizing and integrating the findings.” The authors posit that giving consideration to the following questions will aid the researchers in organizing their findings: “Does some point seem to stand out strongly, regardless of whether it was part of the original hypothesis or not? Were there surprises? What aspects of the data seem to fit under the set of categories used in the procedural planning? What aspects do not?”

Seventh, “The data, as brought together and organized, are explicitly compared and contrasted with the hypothesis or thesis.” The authors contend that if the nature of the study has a high degree of precision, to some degree, the data may prove or disprove the hypothesis. However, they note that there is a possibility for the data to suggest some alteration of the hypothesis or thesis. This outcome, they contend should not be feared as it will lead to an increase in the body knowledge of the subject