ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

There is no hope of Perfect Research

Updated on January 11, 2012

“There is No Hope of Doing Perfect Research” (Griffiths, 1998, p97). Do you agree?

‘There is no scope of improvement in perfection;’ keeping in view this statement how can we disagree with the topic, despite the fact that, we witness a new research within more or less every minute, on one or another research exertion accomplished. This all is made to modify the existing research. We can refer to no research perfect until and unless this world exists having a creation in it that, by nature, is curious, known as human. Possessing this innate curiosity, no research can satisfy human nature. Even in this modern age, where we were considering ourselves on the peak of the technology, Steve Jobs’s eyes were seeing a deficit in the technology, and he started working to revise it. Therefore, it will not be a big deal if someone from the approaching generations, or even from existing generation, starts undergoing that Apple products should be customized.

Earlier than I go deeper in the issue it seems better to enlighten this expression ‘research’. Research is defined by the Research Council of Nipissing University as, “any original and systematic investigation undertaken in order to increase knowledge and understanding and to establish facts and principles.” In addition, it also means “studious inquiry; usually, critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation having for its aim the reversion of accepted conclusions, in the light of newly discovered facts.” These definitions of the word ‘research’ themselves testify that research can’t be perfect. Following states the rationale.

Hugh Johnson said, “No two gardens are the same; no two days are the same in one garden.” Same is the situation with the research. Research is conducted by human mind and it is based on one’s own findings; it is not a calculating process by a calculating machine, and as a result it is all but unattainable to have the matching results by two persons running on the same project, or even by the same person on different attempts, or using different environments. As soon as the qualitative tools occur in the research, it can never be perfect. Owing to these facts we find no corner except to agree with the Griffiths 1998 p97 statement that there is no hope of perfect research.

Now, at this juncture, if we are asked to draw a conclusion, we would promptly say that there is no hope of doing perfect research. Then suppose someone asks that if really there is a chance of adjustment in each and every research, and the process of research can’t be stopped, then why so far no modification have been made in the treatment of malaria?; why till today malaria is treated by quinine which is found in the bark of cinchona? We know that quinine has been used since at least the early 17th century, and during passage of so many centuries no one bothered to revise it. There are many other examples such as value of Greek pi, speed of light, value of standard gravity and many other researches that since they emerged are not amended. Here we are left with nothing except nail biting. Now if we consider the pattern of Apple products, or other similar technologies, such as passage of abacus to computer, or journey of candle to electricity, the statement “there is no hope of perfect research” sounds cent per cent true, but reviewing the example of treatment of malaria, or other researches such as speed of light, value of standard gravity and others, we conclude that the perfect research is attainable, which can afford no modifications by any means. How these two contradictory statements can go together? Either of the two must be erroneous. Following states the explanation:

Research can be categorized into two: the theoretical and the output. Innovations and inventions are parts of output research; the discoveries are part of theoretical. The example of Apple products falls in the first category while the discovery of cinchona and making compound of quinine with it is said to be theoretical. There will remain a constant call for innovations and inventions in research, but once a discovery appears, it will be used again and again in the future research without any alteration. For example since the treatment of malaria is discovered, it will remain the same. The innovations are invited only to the extent of changing the shape of quinine; for example instead of intake of quinine tablet there may be a quinine spray, quinine drops, or something else. Thus the discovery of cinchona, value of gravity and some other researches of this type completely cover the whole area of research, without leaving a single area untouched, hence are perfect researches. No one in the future will try to reopen it.

Concluding all this discussion, we can say that research is a continued course of action, which will not stop until and unless this naturally curious human being creation exists in this world. It will continue to add more inventions and innovations and to introduce new technologies, by using both previously formulated theoretical research and newly formulated as well.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Website Examiner 5 years ago

      A very interesting, thoughtful, and intelligently written article.

      You are obviously right about your conclusion. Some research has resolved issues. But the pressure on governments to provide funds for research is enormous, progress is oftentimes very slow, and findings also tend to lead to discovery of new unknowns.

    • Rabia Khitran profile image
      Author

      Rabia Saif 5 years ago from Multan, Pakistan

      Firstly I also loved it when I read it first time after accomplishing but now... :(

      In fact I wrote it as a test essay for 'Academia Research on line writings' and the mistake I committed was I published it here on hub pages and so it is rejected by Academia Research on ground of plagiarism. I wondered how it can be plagiarized despite the fact that I wrote it myself and I solemnly testify not even a single line in this essay is copied :( may be the Academia Research does not deserve a writer like me ;)

    Click to Rate This Article