Firstly I think that
we just have to accept that disciplines can be categorized according to hard or
soft and that research can be classified according to pure or applied.
What is the
significance of this? A discipline that tends to use quantitative data, tends
to be predictive, tends to be experimental is classified as a hard discipline.
While a soft discipline is one that tends to use qualitative data, generally no
experiments are performed, and no predictions concerning the future are made
based on the research performed. As such as biology tends to be quantitative
rather than qualitative, the discipline is classified as hard. History f. ex.
tends to be qualitative rather than quantitative and thus it can be classified
as soft.
However, the world is
rarely simple. Some researcher in history may say that, I will argue that my
branch of history, or the way I perform history is quantitative and therefore
hard science (I don’t know if this would be very likely). And it may perhaps be
argued that somebody would classify biology as soft.
With regard to the
difference between pure and applied research, this difference is closely tied
to the rationale and the purpose of the study as well as the research questions
posed. The rationale of applied research would be to use the results for some
specific purpose, often related to management related issues.
As the pure and
applied classification refers to research, that would theoretically mean that
most disciplines could have research that was applied. Though for some
disciplines it may be difficult to think that applied research could be
possible. Such as for instance the disciplines history and Latin.
No comments:
Post a Comment