There is no Hope of Doing Perfect Research (Griffiths, 1998, p 97)

Research is a systematic way of examining various phenomena to gain knowledge and establish new facts and principles. It entails the use of certain specific methods to obtain precise and consistent information which is then used to draw relevant conclusions on a subject. Research improves our understanding on concepts and unearths new information on areas that very little or nothing is known (Locke, Silverman and Spirduso 4). However, the biggest challenge is how to obtain the reliable and accurate information given the fallible nature of mankind. This makes it impossible to have a perfect research given that it is a product of an inherently flawed process. It doesnt matter how many times a phenomenon is researched on because as long as the research process remains inconsistent, the results will always carry some form of error (Locke, Silverman and Spirduso 4). There is no hope of doing a perfect research because not all the facts can be acquired at the time of research given that research is never concerned with results or accuracy but with the acquisition of new knowledge.

Researchers often employ the use of different techniques designed to serve the specific objectives of that particular research. The scientific method for instance uses experimentation to determine answers and provide new facts and principles. It involves creating topics, formulating hypotheses, gathering and analyzing data and then changing the hypothesis again; repeating the process until a concrete conclusion is derived. The challenge however, is that there is no guarantee of the same procedures yielding the same results. This is very common especially in the field of medicine where the same signs and symptoms of an entity may lead to different diagnoses.

According to Locke, Silverman and Spirduso, 15% of all medical cases in the developed countries are often misdiagnosed because medical practitioners interpret the same signs differently (5). This explains why diagnosis is often delayed in some cases, especially when the medical practitioners are not sure of how to interpret the results. The causes of misdiagnosis range from diseases with the same symptoms, misinterpreted lab results to poor communication between the patients and the doctors. The challenge here is on how to measure the extent of occurrence of such errors since some of them go unreported. The fact that cases of misdiagnosis of various diseases still occur despite the long durations spent researching on the same diseases is a clear indication that there can never be a perfect research. If research was perfect then such errors would have already been measured and fixed appropriately to stop deaths and injuries occurring as a result of misdiagnosis. Additionally, there are many cases where the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA)

has been forced to recall certain drugs because of the number of injuries and deaths accruing from their usage (Julian 63). The fact that these drugs are killing or injuring people after very extensive research processes mean that research no matter how repetitive it is can never reveal all the underlying weaknesses of a subject.

Julian observes that any experimental research is based on trial and error and as such is prone to inaccuracies (63). Research is often based on logical reasoning relying mostly on deduction and induction to draw conclusions. The problem however is that logic itself is a product of inherently inconsistent human thought processes that draw different conclusions from the same bases at different times. The controversies in research explain its imperfect nature; when different researchers hold different views on a subject matter and all of them can prove their assertions then confusion reigns. For instance previous research shows that eating fish minimizes the chances of getting heart diseases, a fact that can be proven scientifically. People eating a lot of marine fish seem less likely to suffer from coronary diseases compared to those who consume very little or none at all. However, Julian did a comprehensive research on the same subject and concluded that there is no correlation between eating fish and heart diseases (64). This is very confusing as an individual is left wondering where the truth lies, especially when both conflicting perspectives can be scientifically proven.

Any research that is being done now draws its base from the conclusions of the previous researches. The same goes for future research where the present conclusions will form their base. Since research is dependent in nature, present and future research will only be perfect if the past researches were perfect otherwise errors inherent in previous researches will be passed on for generations. This is why theories that had been proven in the past get rejected and new ones enacted because of the flawed nature of research. Research is therefore a process that is continuous in nature with very unpredictable outcomes since statistics vary depending on the sample statistic used at the time of research. Variations in research occur because of factors like time, state of mind and geographical location, all of which have different effects on the sample statistic. As long as such variations remain in place and research remains a trial and error process, its imperfect nature will persist.

Works cited

Locke, Lawrence, Silverman Stephen and Spirduso Waneen. Reading and Understanding Research, 3rd, Ed. New Delhi: Sage Publications, Pvt. India Ltd, 2010. Print.

Julian, Simon. The Art of Empirical Investigation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009. Print