Research Structure and Paradigms

  • J. Christopher Westland
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 22)


The hypothetico-deductive model pioneered by Galileo is commonly received as the ideal research standard. But, in many situations it may not be feasible to implement every aspect of that approach. This chapter surveys the objectives of research and the various approaches that might be pursued to answer specific questions in pursuit of research objectives. This chapter considers the role of statistics, causality, risk, alternative models, Neyman–Pearson hypothesis testing, and other factors in pursuit of publishable research.


  1. Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo, and Zoltan N. Oltvai. 2004. “Network Biology: Understanding the Cell’s Functional Organization.” Nature Reviews Genetics 5 (2): 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, Craig M., George L. Wolford, and Michael B. Miller. 2009. “The Principled Control of False Positives in Neuroimaging.” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 4 (4): 417–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Box, George E.P., and Norman R. Draper. 2007. Response Surfaces, Mixtures, and Ridge Analyses. Vol. 649. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Feinian, Kenneth A. Bollen, Pamela Paxton, Patrick J. Curran, and James B. Kirby. 2001. “Improper Solutions in Structural Equation Models: Causes, Consequences, and Strategies.” Sociological Methods & Research 29 (4): 468–508.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cochran, William G., Frederick Mosteller, and John W. Tukey. 1954. “Principles of Sampling.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 49 (265): 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freedman, David A. 1987. “As Others See Us: A Case Study in Path Analysis.” Journal of Educational Statistics 12 (2): 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freedman, David H. 2010. “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science.” The Atlantic 306 (4): 76–84.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodhue, Dale, William Lewis, and Ron Thompson. 2006. “PLS, Small Sample Size, and Statistical Power in Mis Research.” In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006. Hicss’06. Vol. 8, 202b. Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  9. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. 1997. Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, R.L. 1999. Information Graphics: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill, Bruce M. 1979. “Posterior Moments of the Number of Species in a Finite Population and the Posterior Probability of Finding a New Species.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 74 (367): 668–673.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hume, David. 1758. Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects. Edinburgh: A. Millar, A. Kincaid, A. Donaldson.Google Scholar
  14. Ioannidis, J.P.A. 2005a. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2 (8): e124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2005b. “Differentiating Biases from Genuine Heterogeneity: Distinguishing Artifactual from Substantive Effects.” In Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, 287–302. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Kline, Rex B. 1998. “Software Review: Software Programs for Structural Equation Modeling: Amos, Eqs, and Lisrel.” Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 16 (4): 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liberati, Alessandro, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C. Gøtzsche, John P.A. Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, Pl J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, and David Moher. 2009. “The Prisma Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration.” PLoS Medicine 6 (7): e1000100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCarthy, Mark I., Gonçalo R. Abecasis, Lon R. Cardon, David B. Goldstein, Julian Little, John P.A. Ioannidis, and Joel N. Hirschhorn. 2008. “Genome-Wide Association Studies for Complex Traits: Consensus, Uncertainty and Challenges.” Nature Reviews Genetics 9 (5): 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merton, R.K. 1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science 159 (3810): 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merton, Robert K. 1988. “The Matthew Effect in Science, Ii: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property.” Isis 79 (4): 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 1995. “The Thomas Theorem and the Matthews Effect.” Social Forces 74 (2): 379–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merton, Robert King, and Robert C. Merton. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York City: Simon and Schuster.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Michotte, Albert, and Georges Thines. 1991. “Perceived Causality.” In Michotte’s Experimental Phenomenology of Perception, 66–87. East Sussex: Lawrence Erlbaum Hove.Google Scholar
  24. Noonan, Richard, and Herman Wold. 1982. “PLS Path Modeling with Indirectly Observed Variables: A Comparison of Alternative Estimates for the Latent Variable.” In Systems Under Indirect Observation, Part II. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  25. Scheines, Richard, Peter Spirtes, Clark Glymour, Christopher Meek, and Thomas Richardson. 1998. “The Tetrad Project: Constraint Based Aids to Causal Model Specification.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 33 (1): 65–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sokal, Alan D. 1996. “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.” Social Text, no. 46/47: 217–252.Google Scholar
  27. Sokal, Alan D., and Jean Bricmont. 1998. Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers’ Abuse of Science. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  28. Stigler, Stephen M. 1980. “Stigler’s Law of Eponymy.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 39 (1 Series II): 147–157.Google Scholar
  29. Tabachnick, Barbara G., Linda S. Fidell, and Jodie B. Ullman. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2002b. A New Kind of Science. Vol. 5. Champaign: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information & Decision SystemsUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations