Research Paper

The basic, analytical, and comprehensive reasoning of people varies due to differences in social, economic, political, geographical, and religious backgrounds. These variations have led to the emergence of proponents and opponents of Griffiths` argument, "there is no hope of doing perfect research`` (97). Ideally, `perfect` and `research` are the controversial terms that form basis for either agreeing or disagreeing with the statement. Research is a process that is involves planning, execution and analysis and can be either quantitative or qualitative. According to Cropf, research is a studious examination, discovery and establishment of facts, principles and theories through systematic analysis in order to understand life processes (168). On the other hand, the term perfect in the research context would imply that without any traces of flaws unlike successful research (Mottet 75). Therefore, even though at times research may be successful and appealing, the existence of predispositions and hidden errors questions its reliability and I can argue that there is no hope of doing a perfect research. However, Griffiths` argument adds nothing vital to natural and social sciences than a topic to analyze, and a petty criticism and de-motivation. Today people`s curiosity to expand knowledge, clarify doubts and theories in order to advance and develop innovations in science and technology has made research indispensable and endless process (Mottet 74). Thus, adequate research skills and methods are inevitable. Irrespective of several research methods and designs, there is no assurance that the process and outcomes are perfect (Cropf 154). It is this imperfection, cloned with doubts and inaccuracies that motivate researchers by opening doors for further research. For instance, following the discovery of Pluto, the ninth planet by Tombaugh in 1930, the International Astronomical Union`s research in 2006 created new rules to deprive Pluto as the last planet in the solar system (Mottet 78). The illustration implies that supposing Tombaugh`s research was perfect, there would be no logic to revise his formerly proven theory. The probability of numerous research errors complicates the work of researchers in trying to balance between the interests and expectations of the people and improving research methods and results. Choosing a suitable research design and methods, duration of research, data manipulations often lead to unavoidable systematic and random errors that limit accuracy and precision of the research respectively (Cropf 215). Whilst systematic errors originate from a series of fake patterns existing between the true and the observed values and are very difficult to detect, random errors are indefinite and unpredictable (Mottet 77). The facts that the researcher can only minimize the inevitable research errors, the validity and reliability of research designs have their weaknesses; further reveal the hopelessness in doing perfect research. Therefore, should research be perfect, there would be limited or no advancement from traditional devices to modernized technologies such as palmtops, cell phones and plasma televisions among others. Personal interests based on the research financers usually play a big role in choosing a research instrument and writing research questions and formulating hypothesis, factors, which influences research methods and outcome (Cropf 178). Personal bias makes research subjective. Since biases occurs during measurements, intervention and dissemination of results, they affect the credibility of research. Research is as good as those who do them in that their outcomes are greatly under the mercies of the financers, researchers and the purpose for which it is done. While researcher may favor a particular research topic, method, result or gender, respondents may not provide information without incentives or benefits (Mottet 80). The endless quest for truth besides logic that neither the researchers nor the respondents are perfect implies that the hope of performing a perfect research is unrealistic and unattainable. However, scientifically, the statement may be insignificant as researcher often outline the inevitable limitations in theories and models used creating hope in research studies. Just as it is needless doing research if the current knowledge was perfect, it is worthless relying on dubious methodologies if the current knowledge was imperfect. For instance, none in the whole world has ever doubted Galileo`s discovery, that ``the earth is revolving around the sun`` (Mottet 73). If Galileo`s research is imperfect and its outcome factual, then Griffits` statement only provides a controversial topic for debate and does not motivate prospective researchers. Therefore, I can as well disagree with the statement. In conclusion, like Griffiths, I absolutely believe that doing a perfect research is unrealistic. Generally, research is a process of searching for facts. The fact that the study is done by an `imperfect human beings`, with different interests, induces countless errors that opens the gaps for further scrutiny (Cropf 206). Absolute perfection is not possible. However, if one`s logic is that the hope of doing perfect research is bleak then applied science is also just a figment of imagination.

Works Cited

Cropf, Rodgers. American Public Administration: Public Service for the 21st Century. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print. Mottet, Pierre. "The Innovation Union: a perfect means to confused ends." In Environmental Science and Policy 16.1(2011): 73-80. Print.