By: Dennis Salamanes
It has been said that “nobody is perfect” and since research is a product of human mind, which is susceptible to error, therefore research is not perfect as well. There are various instances that can support this golden rule. For instance, a product of research such as nuclear power plant provides a lot benefits such as reduction in air pollution, price stability, improved safety, and reduced reliance of energy imports, improved fuel reprocessing and diversified energy supply (Duncan, 2002). However, it can also provide multiple risks such as lack of plan to store waste, risks of catastrophe and lack of public support (Duncan, 2002). The fact that nuclear power plant lacks public support could be driven into the inquiry on some possibilities such as the possibility of having a “nuclear meltdown” that can put the people in a colossal danger against radiation, if ever an earthquake occurs with a magnitude ranges to its peak. This phenomenon is not impossible to happen because even research and its breakthroughs have no capacity to predict an occurrence of an earthquake. Nuclear power plant which was a product of wide research is just a clear manifestation that a research has negative and positive side of it. If a research has dominant positive effects, we can call a research as “success” but if a research has a dominant negative effects, it would be the time that we say, “there is no hope for perfect research.” Indeed, research has boundaries and the imperfections of research as given earlier were just few out of the many reasons that made research as imperfect.
In a scientific point of view, research would mean as a methodical investigation into a subject in order 1) to discover facts, 2) to establish or revise a theory, or 3) to plan an action based on the facts discovered (electronic Encarta dictionaries). Now if we go with the first objective of research which is to discover facts, many questions can arise. Are the people ready to accept the discovered facts? Are these discovered facts definitely applied in real life situations? For example, the research that discovered the facts that the high stress work has hidden dangers such as health risks associated with working night shift which a recent International Labor Organization (ILO) study pegged at 42.6 percent (sunstar.com.ph). Are the people who have night shifts working schedule ready to accept this research outcome and make necessary precautions to prevent them from being unhealthy? Would the people who have night shift working schedule apply the research outcome and prefer to lose their jobs than having a health risks? May be few people will follow and apply the research outcome but as usual, not all will conform.
Going to the second objective which is to establish or revise a theory, would this mean that whatever theories to be established now might possibly be revised tomorrow. If this is the case, the applicability of a certain research outcome can be altered every now and then and the possible alterations can contradict everything, thus, making the people to be confused. For example the two contradicting theories coming from two renowned linguists can be a clear manifestation that a theory that was already established can still possibly be revised, opposed or reacted in one way or another, thus making a theory as difficult to be put into practice. In fact, there has already been much debate about the linguistic competence of Noam Chomsky and communicative competence of Dell Hymes in the second and foreign language teaching literature, the outcome has always been the consideration of communicative competence as a superior model of language following Hymes' opposition to Chomsky's linguistic competence. This opposition has been adopted by those who seek new directions toward a communicative era by taking for granted the basic motives and the appropriateness of this opposition behind the development of communicative competence (wikipedia.com). In relation to the two contradicting theories as mentioned earlier, many questions can arise. First, which theory should always be put into practice? Second, who should I believe with, Dell Hymes or Noam Chomsky? With these questions, confusions can also arise. If research is meant to revise a theory, would this mean that the existing theories we have now applied in real life situations are possible to some inaccuracy which can lead to their revisions. Which of the applied theories nowadays are inaccurate or ineffective and which of these are not? People can cast those questions about research but certainly those questions can only be answered through research itself. Even if there is no hope for perfect research, still, research will always remain within our way, for it is only through research that made our questions be answerable.
On the third objective of research which is to develop a plan or action based on the facts discovered, do you think after determining the research outcomes, a certain plan or action can be radically implemented without the impediments of the possible offended parties? For example, a research that discovered facts about the health risks that a cigarette can bring to the people. Would the action or plan to ban cigarettes in the market become the priority of the authorities? If the authority will act prior to this issue accordingly, would the cigarettes manufacturing companies never appeal to this? Would the authority ban cigarettes in the market knowing the fact that a cigarette manufacturing company is one of the highest tax payers? Regardless of the facts that a research can bring, there is just one thing that is certain and that like medicine, research really has side effects since research can be beneficial to the few but detrimental to others or vice versa.
Indeed, there is no hope for perfect research since if research has to be perfect, then you can no longer see people who die because of cancer and Acute Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) since these two types of diseases are subjects of ongoing researches. These two types of diseases are clear manifestations that research is imperfect and it can never be perfect unless you keep on researching. Humans have gone so far when it comes to research, but the hopelessness in attaining a perfect research is always present because of the fact that in this world, you cannot have everything you desire.
Hence, research is a never-ending process and its outcomes are not predictable and may vary from time to time and in a case to case basis. It is also a time and money consuming. Even if there is no hope for perfect research because of the abovementioned reasons, still, people do research because there is an element of necessity and every individual has his or her own unique needs and aims that can only be acquired through research. Ultimately, there is no hope for perfect research because humans by nature do not have contentment; they keep on researching to redevelop what was underdeveloped, to renew what was traditional, to regain what was lost, to revise what was obsolete, to revisit what has been overtaken, and to make possible what was impossible.
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
References:
Dunstan, Roger. “Benefits and Risks of Nuclear Powers in California.” April 2002.
http://www.ca.gov/crb/02/08/02-008.pdf .
Competence.
Soto, Soto. “ Risky Booming Business.” November 2, 2010. http://www.sunstar.com.ph.
pls. read my article
TumugonBurahin