empirical research observation

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer
QuestionPro

Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples

Content Index

Empirical research: Definition

Empirical research: origin, quantitative research methods, qualitative research methods, steps for conducting empirical research, empirical research methodology cycle, advantages of empirical research, disadvantages of empirical research, why is there a need for empirical research.

Empirical research is defined as any research where conclusions of the study is strictly drawn from concretely empirical evidence, and therefore “verifiable” evidence.

This empirical evidence can be gathered using quantitative market research and qualitative market research methods.

For example: A research is being conducted to find out if listening to happy music in the workplace while working may promote creativity? An experiment is conducted by using a music website survey on a set of audience who are exposed to happy music and another set who are not listening to music at all, and the subjects are then observed. The results derived from such a research will give empirical evidence if it does promote creativity or not.

LEARN ABOUT: Behavioral Research

You must have heard the quote” I will not believe it unless I see it”. This came from the ancient empiricists, a fundamental understanding that powered the emergence of medieval science during the renaissance period and laid the foundation of modern science, as we know it today. The word itself has its roots in greek. It is derived from the greek word empeirikos which means “experienced”.

In today’s world, the word empirical refers to collection of data using evidence that is collected through observation or experience or by using calibrated scientific instruments. All of the above origins have one thing in common which is dependence of observation and experiments to collect data and test them to come up with conclusions.

LEARN ABOUT: Causal Research

Types and methodologies of empirical research

Empirical research can be conducted and analysed using qualitative or quantitative methods.

Quantitative research : Quantitative research methods are used to gather information through numerical data. It is used to quantify opinions, behaviors or other defined variables . These are predetermined and are in a more structured format. Some of the commonly used methods are survey, longitudinal studies, polls, etc
Qualitative research: Qualitative research methods are used to gather non numerical data. It is used to find meanings, opinions, or the underlying reasons from its subjects. These methods are unstructured or semi structured. The sample size for such a research is usually small and it is a conversational type of method to provide more insight or in-depth information about the problem Some of the most popular forms of methods are focus groups, experiments, interviews, etc.

Data collected from these will need to be analysed. Empirical evidence can also be analysed either quantitatively and qualitatively. Using this, the researcher can answer empirical questions which have to be clearly defined and answerable with the findings he has got. The type of research design used will vary depending on the field in which it is going to be used. Many of them might choose to do a collective research involving quantitative and qualitative method to better answer questions which cannot be studied in a laboratory setting.

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Research Questions and Questionnaires

Quantitative research methods aid in analyzing the empirical evidence gathered. By using these a researcher can find out if his hypothesis is supported or not.

Survey research: Survey research generally involves a large audience to collect a large amount of data. This is a quantitative method having a predetermined set of closed questions which are pretty easy to answer. Because of the simplicity of such a method, high responses are achieved. It is one of the most commonly used methods for all kinds of research in today’s world.

Previously, surveys were taken face to face only with maybe a recorder. However, with advancement in technology and for ease, new mediums such as emails , or social media have emerged.

For example: Depletion of energy resources is a growing concern and hence there is a need for awareness about renewable energy. According to recent studies, fossil fuels still account for around 80% of energy consumption in the United States. Even though there is a rise in the use of green energy every year, there are certain parameters because of which the general population is still not opting for green energy. In order to understand why, a survey can be conducted to gather opinions of the general population about green energy and the factors that influence their choice of switching to renewable energy. Such a survey can help institutions or governing bodies to promote appropriate awareness and incentive schemes to push the use of greener energy.

Learn more: Renewable Energy Survey Template Descriptive Research vs Correlational Research

Experimental research: In experimental research , an experiment is set up and a hypothesis is tested by creating a situation in which one of the variable is manipulated. This is also used to check cause and effect. It is tested to see what happens to the independent variable if the other one is removed or altered. The process for such a method is usually proposing a hypothesis, experimenting on it, analyzing the findings and reporting the findings to understand if it supports the theory or not.

For example: A particular product company is trying to find what is the reason for them to not be able to capture the market. So the organisation makes changes in each one of the processes like manufacturing, marketing, sales and operations. Through the experiment they understand that sales training directly impacts the market coverage for their product. If the person is trained well, then the product will have better coverage.

Correlational research: Correlational research is used to find relation between two set of variables . Regression analysis is generally used to predict outcomes of such a method. It can be positive, negative or neutral correlation.

LEARN ABOUT: Level of Analysis

For example: Higher educated individuals will get higher paying jobs. This means higher education enables the individual to high paying job and less education will lead to lower paying jobs.

Longitudinal study: Longitudinal study is used to understand the traits or behavior of a subject under observation after repeatedly testing the subject over a period of time. Data collected from such a method can be qualitative or quantitative in nature.

For example: A research to find out benefits of exercise. The target is asked to exercise everyday for a particular period of time and the results show higher endurance, stamina, and muscle growth. This supports the fact that exercise benefits an individual body.

Cross sectional: Cross sectional study is an observational type of method, in which a set of audience is observed at a given point in time. In this type, the set of people are chosen in a fashion which depicts similarity in all the variables except the one which is being researched. This type does not enable the researcher to establish a cause and effect relationship as it is not observed for a continuous time period. It is majorly used by healthcare sector or the retail industry.

For example: A medical study to find the prevalence of under-nutrition disorders in kids of a given population. This will involve looking at a wide range of parameters like age, ethnicity, location, incomes and social backgrounds. If a significant number of kids coming from poor families show under-nutrition disorders, the researcher can further investigate into it. Usually a cross sectional study is followed by a longitudinal study to find out the exact reason.

Causal-Comparative research : This method is based on comparison. It is mainly used to find out cause-effect relationship between two variables or even multiple variables.

For example: A researcher measured the productivity of employees in a company which gave breaks to the employees during work and compared that to the employees of the company which did not give breaks at all.

LEARN ABOUT: Action Research

Some research questions need to be analysed qualitatively, as quantitative methods are not applicable there. In many cases, in-depth information is needed or a researcher may need to observe a target audience behavior, hence the results needed are in a descriptive analysis form. Qualitative research results will be descriptive rather than predictive. It enables the researcher to build or support theories for future potential quantitative research. In such a situation qualitative research methods are used to derive a conclusion to support the theory or hypothesis being studied.

LEARN ABOUT: Qualitative Interview

Case study: Case study method is used to find more information through carefully analyzing existing cases. It is very often used for business research or to gather empirical evidence for investigation purpose. It is a method to investigate a problem within its real life context through existing cases. The researcher has to carefully analyse making sure the parameter and variables in the existing case are the same as to the case that is being investigated. Using the findings from the case study, conclusions can be drawn regarding the topic that is being studied.

For example: A report mentioning the solution provided by a company to its client. The challenges they faced during initiation and deployment, the findings of the case and solutions they offered for the problems. Such case studies are used by most companies as it forms an empirical evidence for the company to promote in order to get more business.

Observational method: Observational method is a process to observe and gather data from its target. Since it is a qualitative method it is time consuming and very personal. It can be said that observational research method is a part of ethnographic research which is also used to gather empirical evidence. This is usually a qualitative form of research, however in some cases it can be quantitative as well depending on what is being studied.

For example: setting up a research to observe a particular animal in the rain-forests of amazon. Such a research usually take a lot of time as observation has to be done for a set amount of time to study patterns or behavior of the subject. Another example used widely nowadays is to observe people shopping in a mall to figure out buying behavior of consumers.

One-on-one interview: Such a method is purely qualitative and one of the most widely used. The reason being it enables a researcher get precise meaningful data if the right questions are asked. It is a conversational method where in-depth data can be gathered depending on where the conversation leads.

For example: A one-on-one interview with the finance minister to gather data on financial policies of the country and its implications on the public.

Focus groups: Focus groups are used when a researcher wants to find answers to why, what and how questions. A small group is generally chosen for such a method and it is not necessary to interact with the group in person. A moderator is generally needed in case the group is being addressed in person. This is widely used by product companies to collect data about their brands and the product.

For example: A mobile phone manufacturer wanting to have a feedback on the dimensions of one of their models which is yet to be launched. Such studies help the company meet the demand of the customer and position their model appropriately in the market.

Text analysis: Text analysis method is a little new compared to the other types. Such a method is used to analyse social life by going through images or words used by the individual. In today’s world, with social media playing a major part of everyone’s life, such a method enables the research to follow the pattern that relates to his study.

For example: A lot of companies ask for feedback from the customer in detail mentioning how satisfied are they with their customer support team. Such data enables the researcher to take appropriate decisions to make their support team better.

Sometimes a combination of the methods is also needed for some questions that cannot be answered using only one type of method especially when a researcher needs to gain a complete understanding of complex subject matter.

We recently published a blog that talks about examples of qualitative data in education ; why don’t you check it out for more ideas?

Since empirical research is based on observation and capturing experiences, it is important to plan the steps to conduct the experiment and how to analyse it. This will enable the researcher to resolve problems or obstacles which can occur during the experiment.

Step #1: Define the purpose of the research

This is the step where the researcher has to answer questions like what exactly do I want to find out? What is the problem statement? Are there any issues in terms of the availability of knowledge, data, time or resources. Will this research be more beneficial than what it will cost.

Before going ahead, a researcher has to clearly define his purpose for the research and set up a plan to carry out further tasks.

Step #2 : Supporting theories and relevant literature

The researcher needs to find out if there are theories which can be linked to his research problem . He has to figure out if any theory can help him support his findings. All kind of relevant literature will help the researcher to find if there are others who have researched this before, or what are the problems faced during this research. The researcher will also have to set up assumptions and also find out if there is any history regarding his research problem

Step #3: Creation of Hypothesis and measurement

Before beginning the actual research he needs to provide himself a working hypothesis or guess what will be the probable result. Researcher has to set up variables, decide the environment for the research and find out how can he relate between the variables.

Researcher will also need to define the units of measurements, tolerable degree for errors, and find out if the measurement chosen will be acceptable by others.

Step #4: Methodology, research design and data collection

In this step, the researcher has to define a strategy for conducting his research. He has to set up experiments to collect data which will enable him to propose the hypothesis. The researcher will decide whether he will need experimental or non experimental method for conducting the research. The type of research design will vary depending on the field in which the research is being conducted. Last but not the least, the researcher will have to find out parameters that will affect the validity of the research design. Data collection will need to be done by choosing appropriate samples depending on the research question. To carry out the research, he can use one of the many sampling techniques. Once data collection is complete, researcher will have empirical data which needs to be analysed.

LEARN ABOUT: Best Data Collection Tools

Step #5: Data Analysis and result

Data analysis can be done in two ways, qualitatively and quantitatively. Researcher will need to find out what qualitative method or quantitative method will be needed or will he need a combination of both. Depending on the unit of analysis of his data, he will know if his hypothesis is supported or rejected. Analyzing this data is the most important part to support his hypothesis.

Step #6: Conclusion

A report will need to be made with the findings of the research. The researcher can give the theories and literature that support his research. He can make suggestions or recommendations for further research on his topic.

A.D. de Groot, a famous dutch psychologist and a chess expert conducted some of the most notable experiments using chess in the 1940’s. During his study, he came up with a cycle which is consistent and now widely used to conduct empirical research. It consists of 5 phases with each phase being as important as the next one. The empirical cycle captures the process of coming up with hypothesis about how certain subjects work or behave and then testing these hypothesis against empirical data in a systematic and rigorous approach. It can be said that it characterizes the deductive approach to science. Following is the empirical cycle.

Observation: At this phase an idea is sparked for proposing a hypothesis. During this phase empirical data is gathered using observation. For example: a particular species of flower bloom in a different color only during a specific season.
Induction: Inductive reasoning is then carried out to form a general conclusion from the data gathered through observation. For example: As stated above it is observed that the species of flower blooms in a different color during a specific season. A researcher may ask a question “does the temperature in the season cause the color change in the flower?” He can assume that is the case, however it is a mere conjecture and hence an experiment needs to be set up to support this hypothesis. So he tags a few set of flowers kept at a different temperature and observes if they still change the color?
Deduction: This phase helps the researcher to deduce a conclusion out of his experiment. This has to be based on logic and rationality to come up with specific unbiased results.For example: In the experiment, if the tagged flowers in a different temperature environment do not change the color then it can be concluded that temperature plays a role in changing the color of the bloom.
Testing: This phase involves the researcher to return to empirical methods to put his hypothesis to the test. The researcher now needs to make sense of his data and hence needs to use statistical analysis plans to determine the temperature and bloom color relationship. If the researcher finds out that most flowers bloom a different color when exposed to the certain temperature and the others do not when the temperature is different, he has found support to his hypothesis. Please note this not proof but just a support to his hypothesis.
Evaluation: This phase is generally forgotten by most but is an important one to keep gaining knowledge. During this phase the researcher puts forth the data he has collected, the support argument and his conclusion. The researcher also states the limitations for the experiment and his hypothesis and suggests tips for others to pick it up and continue a more in-depth research for others in the future. LEARN MORE: Population vs Sample

LEARN MORE: Population vs Sample

There is a reason why empirical research is one of the most widely used method. There are a few advantages associated with it. Following are a few of them.

It is used to authenticate traditional research through various experiments and observations.
This research methodology makes the research being conducted more competent and authentic.
It enables a researcher understand the dynamic changes that can happen and change his strategy accordingly.
The level of control in such a research is high so the researcher can control multiple variables.
It plays a vital role in increasing internal validity .

Even though empirical research makes the research more competent and authentic, it does have a few disadvantages. Following are a few of them.

Such a research needs patience as it can be very time consuming. The researcher has to collect data from multiple sources and the parameters involved are quite a few, which will lead to a time consuming research.
Most of the time, a researcher will need to conduct research at different locations or in different environments, this can lead to an expensive affair.
There are a few rules in which experiments can be performed and hence permissions are needed. Many a times, it is very difficult to get certain permissions to carry out different methods of this research.
Collection of data can be a problem sometimes, as it has to be collected from a variety of sources through different methods.

LEARN ABOUT: Social Communication Questionnaire

Empirical research is important in today’s world because most people believe in something only that they can see, hear or experience. It is used to validate multiple hypothesis and increase human knowledge and continue doing it to keep advancing in various fields.

For example: Pharmaceutical companies use empirical research to try out a specific drug on controlled groups or random groups to study the effect and cause. This way, they prove certain theories they had proposed for the specific drug. Such research is very important as sometimes it can lead to finding a cure for a disease that has existed for many years. It is useful in science and many other fields like history, social sciences, business, etc.

LEARN ABOUT: 12 Best Tools for Researchers

With the advancement in today’s world, empirical research has become critical and a norm in many fields to support their hypothesis and gain more knowledge. The methods mentioned above are very useful for carrying out such research. However, a number of new methods will keep coming up as the nature of new investigative questions keeps getting unique or changing.

Create a single source of real data with a built-for-insights platform. Store past data, add nuggets of insights, and import research data from various sources into a CRM for insights. Build on ever-growing research with a real-time dashboard in a unified research management platform to turn insights into knowledge.

LEARN MORE FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

May 7, 2024

Top 10 Employee Engagement Survey Tools

15 Best Customer Experience Software of 2024

May 2, 2024

What is Empirical Research? Definition, Methods, Examples

Appinio Research · 09.02.2024 · 36min read

Ever wondered how we gather the facts, unveil hidden truths, and make informed decisions in a world filled with questions? Empirical research holds the key.

In this guide, we'll delve deep into the art and science of empirical research, unraveling its methods, mysteries, and manifold applications. From defining the core principles to mastering data analysis and reporting findings, we're here to equip you with the knowledge and tools to navigate the empirical landscape.

What is Empirical Research?

Empirical research is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry, providing a systematic and structured approach to investigating the world around us. It is the process of gathering and analyzing empirical or observable data to test hypotheses, answer research questions, or gain insights into various phenomena. This form of research relies on evidence derived from direct observation or experimentation, allowing researchers to draw conclusions based on real-world data rather than purely theoretical or speculative reasoning.

Characteristics of Empirical Research

Empirical research is characterized by several key features:

Observation and Measurement : It involves the systematic observation or measurement of variables, events, or behaviors.
Data Collection : Researchers collect data through various methods, such as surveys, experiments, observations, or interviews.
Testable Hypotheses : Empirical research often starts with testable hypotheses that are evaluated using collected data.
Quantitative or Qualitative Data : Data can be quantitative (numerical) or qualitative (non-numerical), depending on the research design.
Statistical Analysis : Quantitative data often undergo statistical analysis to determine patterns , relationships, or significance.
Objectivity and Replicability : Empirical research strives for objectivity, minimizing researcher bias . It should be replicable, allowing other researchers to conduct the same study to verify results.
Conclusions and Generalizations : Empirical research generates findings based on data and aims to make generalizations about larger populations or phenomena.

Importance of Empirical Research

Empirical research plays a pivotal role in advancing knowledge across various disciplines. Its importance extends to academia, industry, and society as a whole. Here are several reasons why empirical research is essential:

Evidence-Based Knowledge : Empirical research provides a solid foundation of evidence-based knowledge. It enables us to test hypotheses, confirm or refute theories, and build a robust understanding of the world.
Scientific Progress : In the scientific community, empirical research fuels progress by expanding the boundaries of existing knowledge. It contributes to the development of theories and the formulation of new research questions.
Problem Solving : Empirical research is instrumental in addressing real-world problems and challenges. It offers insights and data-driven solutions to complex issues in fields like healthcare, economics, and environmental science.
Informed Decision-Making : In policymaking, business, and healthcare, empirical research informs decision-makers by providing data-driven insights. It guides strategies, investments, and policies for optimal outcomes.
Quality Assurance : Empirical research is essential for quality assurance and validation in various industries, including pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, and technology. It ensures that products and processes meet established standards.
Continuous Improvement : Businesses and organizations use empirical research to evaluate performance, customer satisfaction, and product effectiveness. This data-driven approach fosters continuous improvement and innovation.
Human Advancement : Empirical research in fields like medicine and psychology contributes to the betterment of human health and well-being. It leads to medical breakthroughs, improved therapies, and enhanced psychological interventions.
Critical Thinking and Problem Solving : Engaging in empirical research fosters critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and a deep appreciation for evidence-based decision-making.

Empirical research empowers us to explore, understand, and improve the world around us. It forms the bedrock of scientific inquiry and drives progress in countless domains, shaping our understanding of both the natural and social sciences.

How to Conduct Empirical Research?

So, you've decided to dive into the world of empirical research. Let's begin by exploring the crucial steps involved in getting started with your research project.

1. Select a Research Topic

Selecting the right research topic is the cornerstone of a successful empirical study. It's essential to choose a topic that not only piques your interest but also aligns with your research goals and objectives. Here's how to go about it:

Identify Your Interests : Start by reflecting on your passions and interests. What topics fascinate you the most? Your enthusiasm will be your driving force throughout the research process.
Brainstorm Ideas : Engage in brainstorming sessions to generate potential research topics. Consider the questions you've always wanted to answer or the issues that intrigue you.
Relevance and Significance : Assess the relevance and significance of your chosen topic. Does it contribute to existing knowledge? Is it a pressing issue in your field of study or the broader community?
Feasibility : Evaluate the feasibility of your research topic. Do you have access to the necessary resources, data, and participants (if applicable)?

2. Formulate Research Questions

Once you've narrowed down your research topic, the next step is to formulate clear and precise research questions . These questions will guide your entire research process and shape your study's direction. To create effective research questions:

Specificity : Ensure that your research questions are specific and focused. Vague or overly broad questions can lead to inconclusive results.
Relevance : Your research questions should directly relate to your chosen topic. They should address gaps in knowledge or contribute to solving a particular problem.
Testability : Ensure that your questions are testable through empirical methods. You should be able to gather data and analyze it to answer these questions.
Avoid Bias : Craft your questions in a way that avoids leading or biased language. Maintain neutrality to uphold the integrity of your research.

3. Review Existing Literature

Before you embark on your empirical research journey, it's essential to immerse yourself in the existing body of literature related to your chosen topic. This step, often referred to as a literature review, serves several purposes:

Contextualization : Understand the historical context and current state of research in your field. What have previous studies found, and what questions remain unanswered?
Identifying Gaps : Identify gaps or areas where existing research falls short. These gaps will help you formulate meaningful research questions and hypotheses.
Theory Development : If your study is theoretical, consider how existing theories apply to your topic. If it's empirical, understand how previous studies have approached data collection and analysis.
Methodological Insights : Learn from the methodologies employed in previous research. What methods were successful, and what challenges did researchers face?

4. Define Variables

Variables are fundamental components of empirical research. They are the factors or characteristics that can change or be manipulated during your study. Properly defining and categorizing variables is crucial for the clarity and validity of your research. Here's what you need to know:

Independent Variables : These are the variables that you, as the researcher, manipulate or control. They are the "cause" in cause-and-effect relationships.
Dependent Variables : Dependent variables are the outcomes or responses that you measure or observe. They are the "effect" influenced by changes in independent variables.
Operational Definitions : To ensure consistency and clarity, provide operational definitions for your variables. Specify how you will measure or manipulate each variable.
Control Variables : In some studies, controlling for other variables that may influence your dependent variable is essential. These are known as control variables.

Understanding these foundational aspects of empirical research will set a solid foundation for the rest of your journey. Now that you've grasped the essentials of getting started, let's delve deeper into the intricacies of research design.

Empirical Research Design

Now that you've selected your research topic, formulated research questions, and defined your variables, it's time to delve into the heart of your empirical research journey – research design . This pivotal step determines how you will collect data and what methods you'll employ to answer your research questions. Let's explore the various facets of research design in detail.

Types of Empirical Research

Empirical research can take on several forms, each with its own unique approach and methodologies. Understanding the different types of empirical research will help you choose the most suitable design for your study. Here are some common types:

Experimental Research : In this type, researchers manipulate one or more independent variables to observe their impact on dependent variables. It's highly controlled and often conducted in a laboratory setting.
Observational Research : Observational research involves the systematic observation of subjects or phenomena without intervention. Researchers are passive observers, documenting behaviors, events, or patterns.
Survey Research : Surveys are used to collect data through structured questionnaires or interviews. This method is efficient for gathering information from a large number of participants.
Case Study Research : Case studies focus on in-depth exploration of one or a few cases. Researchers gather detailed information through various sources such as interviews, documents, and observations.
Qualitative Research : Qualitative research aims to understand behaviors, experiences, and opinions in depth. It often involves open-ended questions, interviews, and thematic analysis.
Quantitative Research : Quantitative research collects numerical data and relies on statistical analysis to draw conclusions. It involves structured questionnaires, experiments, and surveys.

Your choice of research type should align with your research questions and objectives. Experimental research, for example, is ideal for testing cause-and-effect relationships, while qualitative research is more suitable for exploring complex phenomena.

Experimental Design

Experimental research is a systematic approach to studying causal relationships. It's characterized by the manipulation of one or more independent variables while controlling for other factors. Here are some key aspects of experimental design:

Control and Experimental Groups : Participants are randomly assigned to either a control group or an experimental group. The independent variable is manipulated for the experimental group but not for the control group.
Randomization : Randomization is crucial to eliminate bias in group assignment. It ensures that each participant has an equal chance of being in either group.
Hypothesis Testing : Experimental research often involves hypothesis testing. Researchers formulate hypotheses about the expected effects of the independent variable and use statistical analysis to test these hypotheses.

Observational Design

Observational research entails careful and systematic observation of subjects or phenomena. It's advantageous when you want to understand natural behaviors or events. Key aspects of observational design include:

Participant Observation : Researchers immerse themselves in the environment they are studying. They become part of the group being observed, allowing for a deep understanding of behaviors.
Non-Participant Observation : In non-participant observation, researchers remain separate from the subjects. They observe and document behaviors without direct involvement.
Data Collection Methods : Observational research can involve various data collection methods, such as field notes, video recordings, photographs, or coding of observed behaviors.

Survey Design

Surveys are a popular choice for collecting data from a large number of participants. Effective survey design is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of your data. Consider the following:

Questionnaire Design : Create clear and concise questions that are easy for participants to understand. Avoid leading or biased questions.
Sampling Methods : Decide on the appropriate sampling method for your study, whether it's random, stratified, or convenience sampling.
Data Collection Tools : Choose the right tools for data collection, whether it's paper surveys, online questionnaires, or face-to-face interviews.

Case Study Design

Case studies are an in-depth exploration of one or a few cases to gain a deep understanding of a particular phenomenon. Key aspects of case study design include:

Single Case vs. Multiple Case Studies : Decide whether you'll focus on a single case or multiple cases. Single case studies are intensive and allow for detailed examination, while multiple case studies provide comparative insights.
Data Collection Methods : Gather data through interviews, observations, document analysis, or a combination of these methods.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research

In empirical research, you'll often encounter the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research . Here's a closer look at these two approaches:

Qualitative Research : Qualitative research seeks an in-depth understanding of human behavior, experiences, and perspectives. It involves open-ended questions, interviews, and the analysis of textual or narrative data. Qualitative research is exploratory and often used when the research question is complex and requires a nuanced understanding.
Quantitative Research : Quantitative research collects numerical data and employs statistical analysis to draw conclusions. It involves structured questionnaires, experiments, and surveys. Quantitative research is ideal for testing hypotheses and establishing cause-and-effect relationships.

Understanding the various research design options is crucial in determining the most appropriate approach for your study. Your choice should align with your research questions, objectives, and the nature of the phenomenon you're investigating.

Data Collection for Empirical Research

Now that you've established your research design, it's time to roll up your sleeves and collect the data that will fuel your empirical research. Effective data collection is essential for obtaining accurate and reliable results.

Sampling Methods

Sampling methods are critical in empirical research, as they determine the subset of individuals or elements from your target population that you will study. Here are some standard sampling methods:

Random Sampling : Random sampling ensures that every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. It minimizes bias and is often used in quantitative research.
Stratified Sampling : Stratified sampling involves dividing the population into subgroups or strata based on specific characteristics (e.g., age, gender, location). Samples are then randomly selected from each stratum, ensuring representation of all subgroups.
Convenience Sampling : Convenience sampling involves selecting participants who are readily available or easily accessible. While it's convenient, it may introduce bias and limit the generalizability of results.
Snowball Sampling : Snowball sampling is instrumental when studying hard-to-reach or hidden populations. One participant leads you to another, creating a "snowball" effect. This method is common in qualitative research.
Purposive Sampling : In purposive sampling, researchers deliberately select participants who meet specific criteria relevant to their research questions. It's often used in qualitative studies to gather in-depth information.

The choice of sampling method depends on the nature of your research, available resources, and the degree of precision required. It's crucial to carefully consider your sampling strategy to ensure that your sample accurately represents your target population.

Data Collection Instruments

Data collection instruments are the tools you use to gather information from your participants or sources. These instruments should be designed to capture the data you need accurately. Here are some popular data collection instruments:

Questionnaires : Questionnaires consist of structured questions with predefined response options. When designing questionnaires, consider the clarity of questions, the order of questions, and the response format (e.g., Likert scale , multiple-choice).
Interviews : Interviews involve direct communication between the researcher and participants. They can be structured (with predetermined questions) or unstructured (open-ended). Effective interviews require active listening and probing for deeper insights.
Observations : Observations entail systematically and objectively recording behaviors, events, or phenomena. Researchers must establish clear criteria for what to observe, how to record observations, and when to observe.
Surveys : Surveys are a common data collection instrument for quantitative research. They can be administered through various means, including online surveys, paper surveys, and telephone surveys.
Documents and Archives : In some cases, data may be collected from existing documents, records, or archives. Ensure that the sources are reliable, relevant, and properly documented.

To streamline your process and gather insights with precision and efficiency, consider leveraging innovative tools like Appinio . With Appinio's intuitive platform, you can harness the power of real-time consumer data to inform your research decisions effectively. Whether you're conducting surveys, interviews, or observations, Appinio empowers you to define your target audience, collect data from diverse demographics, and analyze results seamlessly.

By incorporating Appinio into your data collection toolkit, you can unlock a world of possibilities and elevate the impact of your empirical research. Ready to revolutionize your approach to data collection?

Book a Demo

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection procedures outline the step-by-step process for gathering data. These procedures should be meticulously planned and executed to maintain the integrity of your research.

Training : If you have a research team, ensure that they are trained in data collection methods and protocols. Consistency in data collection is crucial.
Pilot Testing : Before launching your data collection, conduct a pilot test with a small group to identify any potential problems with your instruments or procedures. Make necessary adjustments based on feedback.
Data Recording : Establish a systematic method for recording data. This may include timestamps, codes, or identifiers for each data point.
Data Security : Safeguard the confidentiality and security of collected data. Ensure that only authorized individuals have access to the data.
Data Storage : Properly organize and store your data in a secure location, whether in physical or digital form. Back up data to prevent loss.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are paramount in empirical research, as they ensure the well-being and rights of participants are protected.

Informed Consent : Obtain informed consent from participants, providing clear information about the research purpose, procedures, risks, and their right to withdraw at any time.
Privacy and Confidentiality : Protect the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Ensure that data is anonymized and sensitive information is kept confidential.
Beneficence : Ensure that your research benefits participants and society while minimizing harm. Consider the potential risks and benefits of your study.
Honesty and Integrity : Conduct research with honesty and integrity. Report findings accurately and transparently, even if they are not what you expected.
Respect for Participants : Treat participants with respect, dignity, and sensitivity to cultural differences. Avoid any form of coercion or manipulation.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) : If required, seek approval from an IRB or ethics committee before conducting your research, particularly when working with human participants.

Adhering to ethical guidelines is not only essential for the ethical conduct of research but also crucial for the credibility and validity of your study. Ethical research practices build trust between researchers and participants and contribute to the advancement of knowledge with integrity.

With a solid understanding of data collection, including sampling methods, instruments, procedures, and ethical considerations, you are now well-equipped to gather the data needed to answer your research questions.

Empirical Research Data Analysis

Now comes the exciting phase of data analysis, where the raw data you've diligently collected starts to yield insights and answers to your research questions. We will explore the various aspects of data analysis, from preparing your data to drawing meaningful conclusions through statistics and visualization.

Data Preparation

Data preparation is the crucial first step in data analysis. It involves cleaning, organizing, and transforming your raw data into a format that is ready for analysis. Effective data preparation ensures the accuracy and reliability of your results.

Data Cleaning : Identify and rectify errors, missing values, and inconsistencies in your dataset. This may involve correcting typos, removing outliers, and imputing missing data.
Data Coding : Assign numerical values or codes to categorical variables to make them suitable for statistical analysis. For example, converting "Yes" and "No" to 1 and 0.
Data Transformation : Transform variables as needed to meet the assumptions of the statistical tests you plan to use. Common transformations include logarithmic or square root transformations.
Data Integration : If your data comes from multiple sources, integrate it into a unified dataset, ensuring that variables match and align.
Data Documentation : Maintain clear documentation of all data preparation steps, as well as the rationale behind each decision. This transparency is essential for replicability.

Effective data preparation lays the foundation for accurate and meaningful analysis. It allows you to trust the results that will follow in the subsequent stages.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics help you summarize and make sense of your data by providing a clear overview of its key characteristics. These statistics are essential for understanding the central tendencies, variability, and distribution of your variables. Descriptive statistics include:

Measures of Central Tendency : These include the mean (average), median (middle value), and mode (most frequent value). They help you understand the typical or central value of your data.
Measures of Dispersion : Measures like the range, variance, and standard deviation provide insights into the spread or variability of your data points.
Frequency Distributions : Creating frequency distributions or histograms allows you to visualize the distribution of your data across different values or categories.

Descriptive statistics provide the initial insights needed to understand your data's basic characteristics, which can inform further analysis.

Inferential Statistics

Inferential statistics take your analysis to the next level by allowing you to make inferences or predictions about a larger population based on your sample data. These methods help you test hypotheses and draw meaningful conclusions. Key concepts in inferential statistics include:

Hypothesis Testing : Hypothesis tests (e.g., t-tests, chi-squared tests) help you determine whether observed differences or associations in your data are statistically significant or occurred by chance.
Confidence Intervals : Confidence intervals provide a range within which population parameters (e.g., population mean) are likely to fall based on your sample data.
Regression Analysis : Regression models (linear, logistic, etc.) help you explore relationships between variables and make predictions.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) : ANOVA tests are used to compare means between multiple groups, allowing you to assess whether differences are statistically significant.

Inferential statistics are powerful tools for drawing conclusions from your data and assessing the generalizability of your findings to the broader population.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis is employed when working with non-numerical data, such as text, interviews, or open-ended survey responses. It focuses on understanding the underlying themes, patterns, and meanings within qualitative data. Qualitative analysis techniques include:

Thematic Analysis : Identifying and analyzing recurring themes or patterns within textual data.
Content Analysis : Categorizing and coding qualitative data to extract meaningful insights.
Grounded Theory : Developing theories or frameworks based on emergent themes from the data.
Narrative Analysis : Examining the structure and content of narratives to uncover meaning.

Qualitative data analysis provides a rich and nuanced understanding of complex phenomena and human experiences.

Data Visualization

Data visualization is the art of representing data graphically to make complex information more understandable and accessible. Effective data visualization can reveal patterns, trends, and outliers in your data. Common types of data visualization include:

Bar Charts and Histograms : Used to display the distribution of categorical data or discrete data .
Line Charts : Ideal for showing trends and changes in data over time.
Scatter Plots : Visualize relationships and correlations between two variables.
Pie Charts : Display the composition of a whole in terms of its parts.
Heatmaps : Depict patterns and relationships in multidimensional data through color-coding.
Box Plots : Provide a summary of the data distribution, including outliers.
Interactive Dashboards : Create dynamic visualizations that allow users to explore data interactively.

Data visualization not only enhances your understanding of the data but also serves as a powerful communication tool to convey your findings to others.

As you embark on the data analysis phase of your empirical research, remember that the specific methods and techniques you choose will depend on your research questions, data type, and objectives. Effective data analysis transforms raw data into valuable insights, bringing you closer to the answers you seek.

How to Report Empirical Research Results?

At this stage, you get to share your empirical research findings with the world. Effective reporting and presentation of your results are crucial for communicating your research's impact and insights.

1. Write the Research Paper

Writing a research paper is the culmination of your empirical research journey. It's where you synthesize your findings, provide context, and contribute to the body of knowledge in your field.

Title and Abstract : Craft a clear and concise title that reflects your research's essence. The abstract should provide a brief summary of your research objectives, methods, findings, and implications.
Introduction : In the introduction, introduce your research topic, state your research questions or hypotheses, and explain the significance of your study. Provide context by discussing relevant literature.
Methods : Describe your research design, data collection methods, and sampling procedures. Be precise and transparent, allowing readers to understand how you conducted your study.
Results : Present your findings in a clear and organized manner. Use tables, graphs, and statistical analyses to support your results. Avoid interpreting your findings in this section; focus on the presentation of raw data.
Discussion : Interpret your findings and discuss their implications. Relate your results to your research questions and the existing literature. Address any limitations of your study and suggest avenues for future research.
Conclusion : Summarize the key points of your research and its significance. Restate your main findings and their implications.
References : Cite all sources used in your research following a specific citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). Ensure accuracy and consistency in your citations.
Appendices : Include any supplementary material, such as questionnaires, data coding sheets, or additional analyses, in the appendices.

Writing a research paper is a skill that improves with practice. Ensure clarity, coherence, and conciseness in your writing to make your research accessible to a broader audience.

2. Create Visuals and Tables

Visuals and tables are powerful tools for presenting complex data in an accessible and understandable manner.

Clarity : Ensure that your visuals and tables are clear and easy to interpret. Use descriptive titles and labels.
Consistency : Maintain consistency in formatting, such as font size and style, across all visuals and tables.
Appropriateness : Choose the most suitable visual representation for your data. Bar charts, line graphs, and scatter plots work well for different types of data.
Simplicity : Avoid clutter and unnecessary details. Focus on conveying the main points.
Accessibility : Make sure your visuals and tables are accessible to a broad audience, including those with visual impairments.
Captions : Include informative captions that explain the significance of each visual or table.

Compelling visuals and tables enhance the reader's understanding of your research and can be the key to conveying complex information efficiently.

3. Interpret Findings

Interpreting your findings is where you bridge the gap between data and meaning. It's your opportunity to provide context, discuss implications, and offer insights. When interpreting your findings:

Relate to Research Questions : Discuss how your findings directly address your research questions or hypotheses.
Compare with Literature : Analyze how your results align with or deviate from previous research in your field. What insights can you draw from these comparisons?
Discuss Limitations : Be transparent about the limitations of your study. Address any constraints, biases, or potential sources of error.
Practical Implications : Explore the real-world implications of your findings. How can they be applied or inform decision-making?
Future Research Directions : Suggest areas for future research based on the gaps or unanswered questions that emerged from your study.

Interpreting findings goes beyond simply presenting data; it's about weaving a narrative that helps readers grasp the significance of your research in the broader context.

With your research paper written, structured, and enriched with visuals, and your findings expertly interpreted, you are now prepared to communicate your research effectively. Sharing your insights and contributing to the body of knowledge in your field is a significant accomplishment in empirical research.

Examples of Empirical Research

To solidify your understanding of empirical research, let's delve into some real-world examples across different fields. These examples will illustrate how empirical research is applied to gather data, analyze findings, and draw conclusions.

Social Sciences

In the realm of social sciences, consider a sociological study exploring the impact of socioeconomic status on educational attainment. Researchers gather data from a diverse group of individuals, including their family backgrounds, income levels, and academic achievements.

Through statistical analysis, they can identify correlations and trends, revealing whether individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to attain higher levels of education. This empirical research helps shed light on societal inequalities and informs policymakers on potential interventions to address disparities in educational access.

Environmental Science

Environmental scientists often employ empirical research to assess the effects of environmental changes. For instance, researchers studying the impact of climate change on wildlife might collect data on animal populations, weather patterns, and habitat conditions over an extended period.

By analyzing this empirical data, they can identify correlations between climate fluctuations and changes in wildlife behavior, migration patterns, or population sizes. This empirical research is crucial for understanding the ecological consequences of climate change and informing conservation efforts.

Business and Economics

In the business world, empirical research is essential for making data-driven decisions. Consider a market research study conducted by a business seeking to launch a new product. They collect data through surveys , focus groups , and consumer behavior analysis.

By examining this empirical data, the company can gauge consumer preferences, demand, and potential market size. Empirical research in business helps guide product development, pricing strategies, and marketing campaigns, increasing the likelihood of a successful product launch.

Psychological studies frequently rely on empirical research to understand human behavior and cognition. For instance, a psychologist interested in examining the impact of stress on memory might design an experiment. Participants are exposed to stress-inducing situations, and their memory performance is assessed through various tasks.

By analyzing the data collected, the psychologist can determine whether stress has a significant effect on memory recall. This empirical research contributes to our understanding of the complex interplay between psychological factors and cognitive processes.

These examples highlight the versatility and applicability of empirical research across diverse fields. Whether in medicine, social sciences, environmental science, business, or psychology, empirical research serves as a fundamental tool for gaining insights, testing hypotheses, and driving advancements in knowledge and practice.

Conclusion for Empirical Research

Empirical research is a powerful tool for gaining insights, testing hypotheses, and making informed decisions. By following the steps outlined in this guide, you've learned how to select research topics, collect data, analyze findings, and effectively communicate your research to the world. Remember, empirical research is a journey of discovery, and each step you take brings you closer to a deeper understanding of the world around you. Whether you're a scientist, a student, or someone curious about the process, the principles of empirical research empower you to explore, learn, and contribute to the ever-expanding realm of knowledge.

How to Collect Data for Empirical Research?

Introducing Appinio , the real-time market research platform revolutionizing how companies gather consumer insights for their empirical research endeavors. With Appinio, you can conduct your own market research in minutes, gaining valuable data to fuel your data-driven decisions.

Appinio is more than just a market research platform; it's a catalyst for transforming the way you approach empirical research, making it exciting, intuitive, and seamlessly integrated into your decision-making process.

Here's why Appinio is the go-to solution for empirical research:

From Questions to Insights in Minutes : With Appinio's streamlined process, you can go from formulating your research questions to obtaining actionable insights in a matter of minutes, saving you time and effort.
Intuitive Platform for Everyone : No need for a PhD in research; Appinio's platform is designed to be intuitive and user-friendly, ensuring that anyone can navigate and utilize it effectively.
Rapid Response Times : With an average field time of under 23 minutes for 1,000 respondents, Appinio delivers rapid results, allowing you to gather data swiftly and efficiently.
Global Reach with Targeted Precision : With access to over 90 countries and the ability to define target groups based on 1200+ characteristics, Appinio empowers you to reach your desired audience with precision and ease.

Get free access to the platform!

Join the loop 💌

Be the first to hear about new updates, product news, and data insights. We'll send it all straight to your inbox.

Get the latest market research news straight to your inbox! 💌

Wait, there's more

07.05.2024 | 28min read

Interval Scale: Definition, Characteristics, Examples

03.05.2024 | 29min read

What is Qualitative Observation? Definition, Types, Examples

02.05.2024 | 32min read

What is a Perceptual Map and How to Make One? (+ Template)

Empirical evidence: A definition

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation.

The scientific method

Types of empirical research, identifying empirical evidence, empirical law vs. scientific law, empirical, anecdotal and logical evidence, additional resources and reading, bibliography.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is a central part of the scientific method , leading to the proving or disproving of a hypothesis and our better understanding of the world as a result.

Empirical evidence might be obtained through experiments that seek to provide a measurable or observable reaction, trials that repeat an experiment to test its efficacy (such as a drug trial, for instance) or other forms of data gathering against which a hypothesis can be tested and reliably measured.

"If a statement is about something that is itself observable, then the empirical testing can be direct. We just have a look to see if it is true. For example, the statement, 'The litmus paper is pink', is subject to direct empirical testing," wrote Peter Kosso in " A Summary of Scientific Method " (Springer, 2011).

"Science is most interesting and most useful to us when it is describing the unobservable things like atoms , germs , black holes , gravity , the process of evolution as it happened in the past, and so on," wrote Kosso. Scientific theories , meaning theories about nature that are unobservable, cannot be proven by direct empirical testing, but they can be tested indirectly, according to Kosso. "The nature of this indirect evidence, and the logical relation between evidence and theory, are the crux of scientific method," wrote Kosso.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses , and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. "Empirical" means "based on observation or experience," according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary . Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.

Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative data in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory.

This methodology mostly applies to the natural sciences. "The role of empirical experimentation and observation is negligible in mathematics compared to natural sciences such as psychology, biology or physics," wrote Mark Chang, an adjunct professor at Boston University, in " Principles of Scientific Methods " (Chapman and Hall, 2017).

"Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College in Vermont. There are two research methods used to gather empirical measurements and data: qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) . It involves data that can be found using the human senses. This type of research is often done in the beginning of an experiment. "When combined with quantitative measures, qualitative study can give a better understanding of health related issues," wrote Dr. Sanjay Kalra for NCBI.

Quantitative research involves methods that are used to collect numerical data and analyze it using statistical methods, ."Quantitative research methods emphasize objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data collected through polls, questionnaires, and surveys, or by manipulating pre-existing statistical data using computational techniques," according to the LeTourneau University . This type of research is often used at the end of an experiment to refine and test the previous research.

Identifying empirical evidence in another researcher's experiments can sometimes be difficult. According to the Pennsylvania State University Libraries , there are some things one can look for when determining if evidence is empirical:

Can the experiment be recreated and tested?
Does the experiment have a statement about the methodology, tools and controls used?
Is there a definition of the group or phenomena being studied?

The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible.

However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the Study of Language and Information .

— Amazing Black scientists

— Marie Curie: Facts and biography

— What is multiverse theory?

"Missing observations or incomplete data can also cause bias in data analysis, especially when the missing mechanism is not random," wrote Chang.

Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which could skew the results.

The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science, according to the University of California .

Empirical laws and scientific laws are often the same thing. "Laws are descriptions — often mathematical descriptions — of natural phenomenon," Peter Coppinger, associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, told Live Science.

Empirical laws are scientific laws that can be proven or disproved using observations or experiments, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary . So, as long as a scientific law can be tested using experiments or observations, it is considered an empirical law.

Empirical, anecdotal and logical evidence should not be confused. They are separate types of evidence that can be used to try to prove or disprove and idea or claim.

Logical evidence is used proven or disprove an idea using logic. Deductive reasoning may be used to come to a conclusion to provide logical evidence. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal."

Anecdotal evidence consists of stories that have been experienced by a person that are told to prove or disprove a point. For example, many people have told stories about their alien abductions to prove that aliens exist. Often, a person's anecdotal evidence cannot be proven or disproven.

There are some things in nature that science is still working to build evidence for, such as the hunt to explain consciousness .

Meanwhile, in other scientific fields, efforts are still being made to improve research methods, such as the plan by some psychologists to fix the science of psychology .

" A Summary of Scientific Method " by Peter Kosso (Springer, 2011)

"Empirical" Merriam-Webster Dictionary

" Principles of Scientific Methods " by Mark Chang (Chapman and Hall, 2017)

"Qualitative research" by Dr. Sanjay Kalra National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

"Quantitative Research and Analysis: Quantitative Methods Overview" LeTourneau University

"Empirical Research in the Social Sciences and Education" Pennsylvania State University Libraries

"Thomas Kuhn" Center for the Study of Language and Information

"Misconceptions about science" University of California

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

'We're meeting people where they are': Graphic novels can help boost diversity in STEM, says MIT's Ritu Raman

Why do people feel like they're being watched, even when no one is there?

T. rex was as smart as a crocodile, not an ape, according to study debunking controversial intelligence findings

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Theory and Observation in Science

Scientists obtain a great deal of the evidence they use by collecting and producing empirical results. Much of the standard philosophical literature on this subject comes from 20 th century logical empiricists, their followers, and critics who embraced their issues while objecting to some of their aims and assumptions. Discussions about empirical evidence have tended to focus on epistemological questions regarding its role in theory testing. This entry follows that precedent, even though empirical evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery, the development of experimental tools and techniques, and the application of scientific theories to practical problems.

The logical empiricists and their followers devoted much of their attention to the distinction between observables and unobservables, the form and content of observation reports, and the epistemic bearing of observational evidence on theories it is used to evaluate. Philosophical work in this tradition was characterized by the aim of conceptually separating theory and observation, so that observation could serve as the pure basis of theory appraisal. More recently, the focus of the philosophical literature has shifted away from these issues, and their close association to the languages and logics of science, to investigations of how empirical data are generated, analyzed, and used in practice. With this shift, we also see philosophers largely setting aside the aspiration of a pure observational basis for scientific knowledge and instead embracing a view of science in which the theoretical and empirical are usefully intertwined. This entry discusses these topics under the following headings:

1. Introduction

2.1 traditional empiricism, 2.2 the irrelevance of observation per se, 2.3 data and phenomena, 3.1 perception, 3.2 assuming the theory to be tested, 3.3 semantics, 4.1 confirmation, 4.2 saving the phenomena, 4.3 empirical adequacy, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

Philosophers of science have traditionally recognized a special role for observations in the epistemology of science. Observations are the conduit through which the ‘tribunal of experience’ delivers its verdicts on scientific hypotheses and theories. The evidential value of an observation has been assumed to depend on how sensitive it is to whatever it is used to study. But this in turn depends on the adequacy of any theoretical claims its sensitivity may depend on. For example, we can challenge the use of a particular thermometer reading to support a prediction of a patient’s temperature by challenging theoretical claims having to do with whether a reading from a thermometer like this one, applied in the same way under similar conditions, should indicate the patient’s temperature well enough to count in favor of or against the prediction. At least some of those theoretical claims will be such that regardless of whether an investigator explicitly endorses, or is even aware of them, her use of the thermometer reading would be undermined by their falsity. All observations and uses of observational evidence are theory laden in this sense (cf. Chang 2005, Azzouni 2004). As the example of the thermometer illustrates, analogues of Norwood Hanson’s claim that seeing is a theory laden undertaking apply just as well to equipment generated observations (Hanson 1958, 19). But if all observations and empirical data are theory laden, how can they provide reality-based, objective epistemic constraints on scientific reasoning?

Recent scholarship has turned this question on its head. Why think that theory ladenness of empirical results would be problematic in the first place? If the theoretical assumptions with which the results are imbued are correct, what is the harm of it? After all, it is in virtue of those assumptions that the fruits of empirical investigation can be ‘put in touch’ with theorizing at all. A number scribbled in a lab notebook can do a scientist little epistemic good unless she can recruit the relevant background assumptions to even recognize it as a reading of the patient’s temperature. But philosophers have embraced an entangled picture of the theoretical and empirical that goes much deeper than this. Lloyd (2012) advocates for what she calls “complex empiricism” in which there is “no pristine separation of model and data” (397). Bogen (2016) points out that “impure empirical evidence” (i.e. evidence that incorporates the judgements of scientists) “often tells us more about the world that it could have if it were pure” (784). Indeed, Longino (2020) has urged that “[t]he naïve fantasy that data have an immediate relation to phenomena of the world, that they are ‘objective’ in some strong, ontological sense of that term, that they are the facts of the world directly speaking to us, should be finally laid to rest” and that “even the primary, original, state of data is not free from researchers’ value- and theory-laden selection and organization” (391).

There is not widespread agreement among philosophers of science about how to characterize the nature of scientific theories. What is a theory? According to the traditional syntactic view, theories are considered to be collections of sentences couched in logical language, which must then be supplemented with correspondence rules in order to be interpreted. Construed in this way, theories include maximally general explanatory and predictive laws (Coulomb’s law of electrical attraction and repulsion, and Maxwellian electromagnetism equations for example), along with lesser generalizations that describe more limited natural and experimental phenomena (e.g., the ideal gas equations describing relations between temperatures and pressures of enclosed gasses, and general descriptions of positional astronomical regularities). In contrast, the semantic view casts theories as the space of states possible according to the theory, or the set of mathematical models permissible according to the theory (see Suppe 1977). However, there are also significantly more ecumenical interpretations of what it means to be a scientific theory, which include elements of diverse kinds. To take just one illustrative example, Borrelli (2012) characterizes the Standard Model of particle physics as a theoretical framework involving what she calls “theoretical cores” that are composed of mathematical structures, verbal stories, and analogies with empirical references mixed together (196). This entry aims to accommodate all of these views about the nature of scientific theories.

In this entry, we trace the contours of traditional philosophical engagement with questions surrounding theory and observation in science that attempted to segregate the theoretical from the observational, and to cleanly delineate between the observable and the unobservable. We also discuss the more recent scholarship that supplants the primacy of observation by human sensory perception with an instrument-inclusive conception of data production and that embraces the intertwining of theoretical and empirical in the production of useful scientific results. Although theory testing dominates much of the standard philosophical literature on observation, much of what this entry says about the role of observation in theory testing applies also to its role in inventing, and modifying theories, and applying them to tasks in engineering, medicine, and other practical enterprises.

2. Observation and data

Reasoning from observations has been important to scientific practice at least since the time of Aristotle, who mentions a number of sources of observational evidence including animal dissection (Aristotle(a), 763a/30–b/15; Aristotle(b), 511b/20–25). Francis Bacon argued long ago that the best way to discover things about nature is to use experiences (his term for observations as well as experimental results) to develop and improve scientific theories (Bacon 1620, 49ff). The role of observational evidence in scientific discovery was an important topic for Whewell (1858) and Mill (1872) among others in the 19th century. But philosophers didn’t talk about observation as extensively, in as much detail, or in the way we have become accustomed to, until the 20 th century when logical empiricists transformed philosophical thinking about it.

One important transformation, characteristic of the linguistic turn in philosophy, was to concentrate on the logic of observation reports rather than on objects or phenomena observed. This focus made sense on the assumption that a scientific theory is a system of sentences or sentence-like structures (propositions, statements, claims, and so on) to be tested by comparison to observational evidence. It was assumed that the comparisons must be understood in terms of inferential relations. If inferential relations hold only between sentence-like structures, it follows that theories must be tested, not against observations or things observed, but against sentences, propositions, etc. used to report observations (Hempel 1935, 50–51; Schlick 1935). Theory testing was treated as a matter of comparing observation sentences describing observations made in natural or laboratory settings to observation sentences that should be true according to the theory to be tested. This was to be accomplished by using laws or lawlike generalizations along with descriptions of initial conditions, correspondence rules, and auxiliary hypotheses to derive observation sentences describing the sensory deliverances of interest. This makes it imperative to ask what observation sentences report.

According to what Hempel called the phenomenalist account , observation reports describe the observer’s subjective perceptual experiences.

… Such experiential data might be conceived of as being sensations, perceptions, and similar phenomena of immediate experience. (Hempel 1952, 674)

This view is motivated by the assumption that the epistemic value of an observation report depends upon its truth or accuracy, and that with regard to perception, the only thing observers can know with certainty to be true or accurate is how things appear to them. This means that we cannot be confident that observation reports are true or accurate if they describe anything beyond the observer’s own perceptual experience. Presumably one’s confidence in a conclusion should not exceed one’s confidence in one’s best reasons to believe it. For the phenomenalist, it follows that reports of subjective experience can provide better reasons to believe claims they support than reports of other kinds of evidence.

However, given the expressive limitations of the language available for reporting subjective experiences, we cannot expect phenomenalistic reports to be precise and unambiguous enough to test theoretical claims whose evaluation requires accurate, fine-grained perceptual discriminations. Worse yet, if experiences are directly available only to those who have them, there is room to doubt whether different people can understand the same observation sentence in the same way. Suppose you had to evaluate a claim on the basis of someone else’s subjective report of how a litmus solution looked to her when she dripped a liquid of unknown acidity into it. How could you decide whether her visual experience was the same as the one you would use her words to report?

Such considerations led Hempel to propose, contrary to the phenomenalists, that observation sentences report ‘directly observable’, ‘intersubjectively ascertainable’ facts about physical objects

… such as the coincidence of the pointer of an instrument with a numbered mark on a dial; a change of color in a test substance or in the skin of a patient; the clicking of an amplifier connected with a Geiger counter; etc. (ibid.)

That the facts expressed in observation reports be intersubjectively ascertainable was critical for the aims of the logical empiricists. They hoped to articulate and explain the authoritativeness widely conceded to the best natural, social, and behavioral scientific theories in contrast to propaganda and pseudoscience. Some pronouncements from astrologers and medical quacks gain wide acceptance, as do those of religious leaders who rest their cases on faith or personal revelation, and leaders who use their political power to secure assent. But such claims do not enjoy the kind of credibility that scientific theories can attain. The logical empiricists tried to account for the genuine credibility of scientific theories by appeal to the objectivity and accessibility of observation reports, and the logic of theory testing. Part of what they meant by calling observational evidence objective was that cultural and ethnic factors have no bearing on what can validly be inferred about the merits of a theory from observation reports. So conceived, objectivity was important to the logical empiricists’ criticism of the Nazi idea that Jews and Aryans have fundamentally different thought processes such that physical theories suitable for Einstein and his kind should not be inflicted on German students. In response to this rationale for ethnic and cultural purging of the German educational system, the logical empiricists argued that because of its objectivity, observational evidence (rather than ethnic and cultural factors) should be used to evaluate scientific theories (Galison 1990). In this way of thinking, observational evidence and its subsequent bearing on scientific theories are objective also in virtue of being free of non-epistemic values.

Ensuing generations of philosophers of science have found the logical empiricist focus on expressing the content of observations in a rarefied and basic observation language too narrow. Search for a suitably universal language as required by the logical empiricist program has come up empty-handed and most philosophers of science have given up its pursuit. Moreover, as we will discuss in the following section, the centrality of observation itself (and pointer readings) to the aims of empiricism in philosophy of science has also come under scrutiny. However, leaving the search for a universal pure observation language behind does not automatically undercut the norm of objectivity as it relates to the social, political, and cultural contexts of scientific research. Pristine logical foundations aside, the objectivity of ‘neutral’ observations in the face of noxious political propaganda was appealing because it could serve as shared ground available for intersubjective appraisal. This appeal remains alive and well today, particularly as pernicious misinformation campaigns are again formidable in public discourse (see O’Connor and Weatherall 2019). If individuals can genuinely appraise the significance of empirical evidence and come to well-justified agreement about how the evidence bears on theorizing, then they can protect their epistemic deliberations from the undue influence of fascists and other nefarious manipulators. However, this aspiration must face subtleties arising from the social epistemology of science and from the nature of empirical results themselves. In practice, the appraisal of scientific results can often require expertise that is not readily accessible to members of the public without the relevant specialized training. Additionally, precisely because empirical results are not pure observation reports, their appraisal across communities of inquirers operating with different background assumptions can require significant epistemic work.

The logical empiricists paid little attention to the distinction between observing and experimenting and its epistemic implications. For some philosophers, to experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It had been customary to think of observing as noticing and attending to interesting details of things perceived under more or less natural conditions, or by extension, things perceived during the course of an experiment. To look at a berry on a vine and attend to its color and shape would be to observe it. To extract its juice and apply reagents to test for the presence of copper compounds would be to perform an experiment. By now, many philosophers have argued that contrivance and manipulation influence epistemically significant features of observable experimental results to such an extent that epistemologists ignore them at their peril. Robert Boyle (1661), John Herschell (1830), Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar (1979), Ian Hacking (1983), Harry Collins (1985) Allan Franklin (1986), Peter Galison (1987), Jim Bogen and Jim Woodward (1988), and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (1997), are some of the philosophers and philosophically-minded scientists, historians, and sociologists of science who gave serious consideration to the distinction between observing and experimenting. The logical empiricists tended to ignore it. Interestingly, the contemporary vantage point that attends to modeling, data processing, and empirical results may suggest a re-unification of observation and intervention under the same epistemological framework. When one no longer thinks of scientific observation as pure or direct, and recognizes the power of good modeling to account for confounds without physically intervening on the target system, the purported epistemic distinction between observation and intervention loses its bite.

Observers use magnifying glasses, microscopes, or telescopes to see things that are too small or far away to be seen, or seen clearly enough, without them. Similarly, amplification devices are used to hear faint sounds. But if to observe something is to perceive it, not every use of instruments to augment the senses qualifies as observational.

Philosophers generally agree that you can observe the moons of Jupiter with a telescope, or a heartbeat with a stethoscope. The van Fraassen of The Scientific Image is a notable exception, for whom to be ‘observable’ meant to be something that, were it present to a creature like us, would be observed. Thus, for van Fraassen, the moons of Jupiter are observable “since astronauts will no doubt be able to see them as well from close up” (1980, 16). In contrast, microscopic entities are not observable on van Fraassen’s account because creatures like us cannot strategically maneuver ourselves to see them, present before us, with our unaided senses.

Many philosophers have criticized van Fraassen’s view as overly restrictive. Nevertheless, philosophers differ in their willingness to draw the line between what counts as observable and what does not along the spectrum of increasingly complicated instrumentation. Many philosophers who don’t mind telescopes and microscopes still find it unnatural to say that high energy physicists ‘observe’ particles or particle interactions when they look at bubble chamber photographs—let alone digital visualizations of energy depositions left in calorimeters that are not themselves inspected. Their intuitions come from the plausible assumption that one can observe only what one can see by looking, hear by listening, feel by touching, and so on. Investigators can neither look at (direct their gazes toward and attend to) nor visually experience charged particles moving through a detector. Instead they can look at and see tracks in the chamber, in bubble chamber photographs, calorimeter data visualizations, etc.

In more contentious examples, some philosophers have moved to speaking of instrument-augmented empirical research as more like tool use than sensing. Hacking (1981) argues that we do not see through a microscope, but rather with it. Daston and Galison (2007) highlight the inherent interactivity of a scanning tunneling microscope, in which scientists image and manipulate atoms by exchanging electrons between the sharp tip of the microscope and the surface to be imaged (397). Others have opted to stretch the meaning of observation to accommodate what we might otherwise be tempted to call instrument-aided detections. For instance, Shapere (1982) argues that while it may initially strike philosophers as counter-intuitive, it makes perfect sense to call the detection of neutrinos from the interior of the sun “direct observation.”

The variety of views on the observable/unobservable distinction hint that empiricists may have been barking up the wrong philosophical tree. Many of the things scientists investigate do not interact with human perceptual systems as required to produce perceptual experiences of them. The methods investigators use to study such things argue against the idea—however plausible it may once have seemed—that scientists do or should rely exclusively on their perceptual systems to obtain the evidence they need. Thus Feyerabend proposed as a thought experiment that if measuring equipment was rigged up to register the magnitude of a quantity of interest, a theory could be tested just as well against its outputs as against records of human perceptions (Feyerabend 1969, 132–137). Feyerabend could have made his point with historical examples instead of thought experiments. A century earlier Helmholtz estimated the speed of excitatory impulses traveling through a motor nerve. To initiate impulses whose speed could be estimated, he implanted an electrode into one end of a nerve fiber and ran a current into it from a coil. The other end was attached to a bit of muscle whose contraction signaled the arrival of the impulse. To find out how long it took the impulse to reach the muscle he had to know when the stimulating current reached the nerve. But

[o]ur senses are not capable of directly perceiving an individual moment of time with such small duration …

and so Helmholtz had to resort to what he called ‘artificial methods of observation’ (Olesko and Holmes 1994, 84). This meant arranging things so that current from the coil could deflect a galvanometer needle. Assuming that the magnitude of the deflection is proportional to the duration of current passing from the coil, Helmholtz could use the deflection to estimate the duration he could not see (ibid). This sense of ‘artificial observation’ is not to be confused e.g., with using magnifying glasses or telescopes to see tiny or distant objects. Such devices enable the observer to scrutinize visible objects. The minuscule duration of the current flow is not a visible object. Helmholtz studied it by cleverly concocting circumstances so that the deflection of the needle would meaningfully convey the information he needed. Hooke (1705, 16–17) argued for and designed instruments to execute the same kind of strategy in the 17 th century.

It is of interest that records of perceptual observation are not always epistemically superior to data collected via experimental equipment. Indeed, it is not unusual for investigators to use non-perceptual evidence to evaluate perceptual data and correct for its errors. For example, Rutherford and Pettersson conducted similar experiments to find out if certain elements disintegrated to emit charged particles under radioactive bombardment. To detect emissions, observers watched a scintillation screen for faint flashes produced by particle strikes. Pettersson’s assistants reported seeing flashes from silicon and certain other elements. Rutherford’s did not. Rutherford’s colleague, James Chadwick, visited Pettersson’s laboratory to evaluate his data. Instead of watching the screen and checking Pettersson’s data against what he saw, Chadwick arranged to have Pettersson’s assistants watch the screen while unbeknownst to them he manipulated the equipment, alternating normal operating conditions with a condition in which particles, if any, could not hit the screen. Pettersson’s data were discredited by the fact that his assistants reported flashes at close to the same rate in both conditions (Stuewer 1985, 284–288).

When the process of producing data is relatively convoluted, it is even easier to see that human sense perception is not the ultimate epistemic engine. Consider functional magnetic resonance images (fMRI) of the brain decorated with colors to indicate magnitudes of electrical activity in different regions during the performance of a cognitive task. To produce these images, brief magnetic pulses are applied to the subject’s brain. The magnetic force coordinates the precessions of protons in hemoglobin and other bodily stuffs to make them emit radio signals strong enough for the equipment to respond to. When the magnetic force is relaxed, the signals from protons in highly oxygenated hemoglobin deteriorate at a detectably different rate than signals from blood that carries less oxygen. Elaborate algorithms are applied to radio signal records to estimate blood oxygen levels at the places from which the signals are calculated to have originated. There is good reason to believe that blood flowing just downstream from spiking neurons carries appreciably more oxygen than blood in the vicinity of resting neurons. Assumptions about the relevant spatial and temporal relations are used to estimate levels of electrical activity in small regions of the brain corresponding to pixels in the finished image. The results of all of these computations are used to assign the appropriate colors to pixels in a computer generated image of the brain. In view of all of this, functional brain imaging differs, e.g., from looking and seeing, photographing, and measuring with a thermometer or a galvanometer in ways that make it uninformative to call it observation. And similarly for many other methods scientists use to produce non-perceptual evidence.

The role of the senses in fMRI data production is limited to such things as monitoring the equipment and keeping an eye on the subject. Their epistemic role is limited to discriminating the colors in the finished image, reading tables of numbers the computer used to assign them, and so on. While it is true that researchers typically use their sense of sight to take in visualizations of processed fMRI data—or numbers on a page or screen for that matter—this is not the primary locus of epistemic action. Researchers learn about brain processes through fMRI data, to the extent that they do, primarily in virtue of the suitability of the causal connection between the target processes and the data records, and of the transformations those data undergo when they are processed into the maps or other results that scientists want to use. The interesting questions are not about observability, i.e. whether neuronal activity, blood oxygen levels, proton precessions, radio signals, and so on, are properly understood as observable by creatures like us. The epistemic significance of the fMRI data depends on their delivering us the right sort of access to the target, but observation is neither necessary nor sufficient for that access.

Following Shapere (1982), one could respond by adopting an extremely permissive view of what counts as an ‘observation’ so as to allow even highly processed data to count as observations. However, it is hard to reconcile the idea that highly processed data like fMRI images record observations with the traditional empiricist notion that calculations involving theoretical assumptions and background beliefs must not be allowed (on pain of loss of objectivity) to intrude into the process of data production. Observation garnered its special epistemic status in the first place because it seemed more direct, more immediate, and therefore less distorted and muddled than (say) detection or inference. The production of fMRI images requires extensive statistical manipulation based on theories about the radio signals, and a variety of factors having to do with their detection along with beliefs about relations between blood oxygen levels and neuronal activity, sources of systematic error, and more. Insofar as the use of the term ‘observation’ connotes this extra baggage of traditional empiricism, it may be better to replace observation-talk with terminology that is more obviously permissive, such as that of ‘empirical data’ and ‘empirical results.’

Deposing observation from its traditional perch in empiricist epistemologies of science need not estrange philosophers from scientific practice. Terms like ‘observation’ and ‘observation reports’ do not occur nearly as much in scientific as in philosophical writings. In their place, working scientists tend to talk about data . Philosophers who adopt this usage are free to think about standard examples of observation as members of a large, diverse, and growing family of data production methods. Instead of trying to decide which methods to classify as observational and which things qualify as observables, philosophers can then concentrate on the epistemic influence of the factors that differentiate members of the family. In particular, they can focus their attention on what questions data produced by a given method can be used to answer, what must be done to use that data fruitfully, and the credibility of the answers they afford (Bogen 2016).

Satisfactorily answering such questions warrants further philosophical work. As Bogen and Woodward (1988) have argued, there is often a long road between obtaining a particular dataset replete with idiosyncrasies born of unspecified causal nuances to any claim about the phenomenon ultimately of interest to the researchers. Empirical data are typically produced in ways that make it impossible to predict them from the generalizations they are used to test, or to derive instances of those generalizations from data and non ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses. Indeed, it is unusual for many members of a set of reasonably precise quantitative data to agree with one another, let alone with a quantitative prediction. That is because precise, publicly accessible data typically cannot be produced except through processes whose results reflect the influence of causal factors that are too numerous, too different in kind, and too irregular in behavior for any single theory to account for them. When Bernard Katz recorded electrical activity in nerve fiber preparations, the numerical values of his data were influenced by factors peculiar to the operation of his galvanometers and other pieces of equipment, variations among the positions of the stimulating and recording electrodes that had to be inserted into the nerve, the physiological effects of their insertion, and changes in the condition of the nerve as it deteriorated during the course of the experiment. There were variations in the investigators’ handling of the equipment. Vibrations shook the equipment in response to a variety of irregularly occurring causes ranging from random error sources to the heavy tread of Katz’s teacher, A.V. Hill, walking up and down the stairs outside of the laboratory. That’s a short list. To make matters worse, many of these factors influenced the data as parts of irregularly occurring, transient, and shifting assemblies of causal influences.

The effects of systematic and random sources of error are typically such that considerable analysis and interpretation are required to take investigators from data sets to conclusions that can be used to evaluate theoretical claims. Interestingly, this applies as much to clear cases of perceptual data as to machine produced records. When 19 th and early 20 th century astronomers looked through telescopes and pushed buttons to record the time at which they saw a star pass a crosshair, the values of their data points depended, not only upon light from that star, but also upon features of perceptual processes, reaction times, and other psychological factors that varied from observer to observer. No astronomical theory has the resources to take such things into account.

Instead of testing theoretical claims by direct comparison to the data initially collected, investigators use data to infer facts about phenomena, i.e., events, regularities, processes, etc. whose instances are uniform and uncomplicated enough to make them susceptible to systematic prediction and explanation (Bogen and Woodward 1988, 317). The fact that lead melts at temperatures at or close to 327.5 C is an example of a phenomenon, as are widespread regularities among electrical quantities involved in the action potential, the motions of astronomical bodies, etc. Theories that cannot be expected to predict or explain such things as individual temperature readings can nevertheless be evaluated on the basis of how useful they are in predicting or explaining phenomena. The same holds for the action potential as opposed to the electrical data from which its features are calculated, and the motions of astronomical bodies in contrast to the data of observational astronomy. It is reasonable to ask a genetic theory how probable it is (given similar upbringings in similar environments) that the offspring of a parent or parents diagnosed with alcohol use disorder will develop one or more symptoms the DSM classifies as indicative of alcohol use disorder. But it would be quite unreasonable to ask the genetic theory to predict or explain one patient’s numerical score on one trial of a particular diagnostic test, or why a diagnostician wrote a particular entry in her report of an interview with an offspring of one of such parents (see Bogen and Woodward, 1988, 319–326).

Leonelli has challenged Bogen and Woodward’s (1988) claim that data are, as she puts it, “unavoidably embedded in one experimental context” (2009, 738). She argues that when data are suitably packaged, they can travel to new epistemic contexts and retain epistemic utility—it is not just claims about the phenomena that can travel, data travel too. Preparing data for safe travel involves work, and by tracing data ‘journeys,’ philosophers can learn about how the careful labor of researchers, data archivists, and database curators can facilitate useful data mobility. While Leonelli’s own work has often focused on data in biology, Leonelli and Tempini (2020) contains many diverse case studies of data journeys from a variety of scientific disciplines that will be of value to philosophers interested in the methodology and epistemology of science in practice.

The fact that theories typically predict and explain features of phenomena rather than idiosyncratic data should not be interpreted as a failing. For many purposes, this is the more useful and illuminating capacity. Suppose you could choose between a theory that predicted or explained the way in which neurotransmitter release relates to neuronal spiking (e.g., the fact that on average, transmitters are released roughly once for every 10 spikes) and a theory which explained or predicted the numbers displayed on the relevant experimental equipment in one, or a few single cases. For most purposes, the former theory would be preferable to the latter at the very least because it applies to so many more cases. And similarly for theories that predict or explain something about the probability of alcohol use disorder conditional on some genetic factor or a theory that predicted or explained the probability of faulty diagnoses of alcohol use disorder conditional on facts about the training that psychiatrists receive. For most purposes, these would be preferable to a theory that predicted specific descriptions in a single particular case history.

However, there are circumstances in which scientists do want to explain data. In empirical research it is often crucial to getting a useful signal that scientists deal with sources of background noise and confounding signals. This is part of the long road from newly collected data to useful empirical results. An important step on the way to eliminating unwanted noise or confounds is to determine their sources. Different sources of noise can have different characteristics that can be derived from and explained by theory. Consider the difference between ‘shot noise’ and ‘thermal noise,’ two ubiquitous sources of noise in precision electronics (Schottky 1918; Nyquist 1928; Horowitz and Hill 2015). ‘Shot noise’ arises in virtue of the discrete nature of a signal. For instance, light collected by a detector does not arrive all at once or in perfectly continuous fashion. Photons rain onto a detector shot by shot on account of being quanta. Imagine building up an image one photon at a time—at first the structure of the image is barely recognizable, but after the arrival of many photons, the image eventually fills in. In fact, the contribution of noise of this type goes as the square root of the signal. By contrast, thermal noise is due to non-zero temperature—thermal fluctuations cause a small current to flow in any circuit. If you cool your instrument (which very many precision experiments in physics do) then you can decrease thermal noise. Cooling the detector is not going to change the quantum nature of photons though. Simply collecting more photons will improve the signal to noise ratio with respect to shot noise. Thus, determining what kind of noise is affecting one’s data, i.e. explaining features of the data themselves that are idiosyncratic to the particular instruments and conditions prevailing during a specific instance of data collection, can be critical to eventually generating a dataset that can be used to answer questions about phenomena of interest. In using data that require statistical analysis, it is particularly clear that “empirical assumptions about the factors influencing the measurement results may be used to motivate the assumption of a particular error distribution”, which can be crucial for justifying the application of methods of analysis (Woodward 2011, 173).

There are also circumstances in which scientists want to provide a substantive, detailed explanation for a particular idiosyncratic datum, and even circumstances in which procuring such explanations is epistemically imperative. Ignoring outliers without good epistemic reasons is just cherry-picking data, one of the canonical ‘questionable research practices.’ Allan Franklin has described Robert Millikan’s convenient exclusion of data he collected from observing the second oil drop in his experiments of April 16, 1912 (1986, 231). When Millikan initially recorded the data for this drop, his notebooks indicate that he was satisfied his apparatus was working properly and that the experiment was running well—he wrote “Publish” next to the data in his lab notebook. However, after he had later calculated the value for the fundamental electric charge that these data yielded, and found it aberrant with respect to the values he calculated using data collected from other good observing sessions, he changed his mind, writing “Won’t work” next to the calculation (ibid., see also Woodward 2010, 794). Millikan not only never published this result, he never published why he failed to publish it. When data are excluded from analysis, there ought to be some explanation justifying their omission over and above lack of agreement with the experimenters’ expectations. Precisely because they are outliers, some data require specific, detailed, idiosyncratic causal explanations. Indeed, it is often in virtue of those very explanations that outliers can be responsibly rejected. Some explanation of data rejected as ‘spurious’ is required. Otherwise, scientists risk biasing their own work.

Thus, while in transforming data as collected into something useful for learning about phenomena, scientists often account for features of the data such as different types of noise contributions, and sometimes even explain the odd outlying data point or artifact, they simply do not explain every individual teensy tiny causal contribution to the exact character of a data set or datum in full detail. This is because scientists can neither discover such causal minutia nor would their invocation be necessary for typical research questions. The fact that it may sometimes be important for scientists to provide detailed explanations of data, and not just claims about phenomena inferred from data, should not be confused with the dubious claim that scientists could ‘in principle’ detail every causal quirk that contributed to some data (Woodward 2010; 2011).

In view of all of this, together with the fact that a great many theoretical claims can only be tested directly against facts about phenomena, it behooves epistemologists to think about how data are used to answer questions about phenomena. Lacking space for a detailed discussion, the most this entry can do is to mention two main kinds of things investigators do in order to draw conclusions from data. The first is causal analysis carried out with or without the use of statistical techniques. The second is non-causal statistical analysis.

First, investigators must distinguish features of the data that are indicative of facts about the phenomenon of interest from those which can safely be ignored, and those which must be corrected for. Sometimes background knowledge makes this easy. Under normal circumstances investigators know that their thermometers are sensitive to temperature, and their pressure gauges, to pressure. An astronomer or a chemist who knows what spectrographic equipment does, and what she has applied it to will know what her data indicate. Sometimes it is less obvious. When Santiago Ramón y Cajal looked through his microscope at a thin slice of stained nerve tissue, he had to figure out which, if any, of the fibers he could see at one focal length connected to or extended from things he could see only at another focal length, or in another slice. Analogous considerations apply to quantitative data. It was easy for Katz to tell when his equipment was responding more to Hill’s footfalls on the stairs than to the electrical quantities it was set up to measure. It can be harder to tell whether an abrupt jump in the amplitude of a high frequency EEG oscillation was due to a feature of the subjects brain activity or an artifact of extraneous electrical activity in the laboratory or operating room where the measurements were made. The answers to questions about which features of numerical and non-numerical data are indicative of a phenomenon of interest typically depend at least in part on what is known about the causes that conspire to produce the data.

Statistical arguments are often used to deal with questions about the influence of epistemically relevant causal factors. For example, when it is known that similar data can be produced by factors that have nothing to do with the phenomenon of interest, Monte Carlo simulations, regression analyses of sample data, and a variety of other statistical techniques sometimes provide investigators with their best chance of deciding how seriously to take a putatively illuminating feature of their data.

But statistical techniques are also required for purposes other than causal analysis. To calculate the magnitude of a quantity like the melting point of lead from a scatter of numerical data, investigators throw out outliers, calculate the mean and the standard deviation, etc., and establish confidence and significance levels. Regression and other techniques are applied to the results to estimate how far from the mean the magnitude of interest can be expected to fall in the population of interest (e.g., the range of temperatures at which pure samples of lead can be expected to melt).

The fact that little can be learned from data without causal, statistical, and related argumentation has interesting consequences for received ideas about how the use of observational evidence distinguishes science from pseudoscience, religion, and other non-scientific cognitive endeavors. First, scientists are not the only ones who use observational evidence to support their claims; astrologers and medical quacks use them too. To find epistemically significant differences, one must carefully consider what sorts of data they use, where it comes from, and how it is employed. The virtues of scientific as opposed to non-scientific theory evaluations depend not only on its reliance on empirical data, but also on how the data are produced, analyzed and interpreted to draw conclusions against which theories can be evaluated. Secondly, it does not take many examples to refute the notion that adherence to a single, universally applicable ‘scientific method’ differentiates the sciences from the non-sciences. Data are produced, and used in far too many different ways to treat informatively as instances of any single method. Thirdly, it is usually, if not always, impossible for investigators to draw conclusions to test theories against observational data without explicit or implicit reliance on theoretical resources.

Bokulich (2020) has helpfully outlined a taxonomy of various ways in which data can be model-laden to increase their epistemic utility. She focuses on seven categories: data conversion, data correction, data interpolation, data scaling, data fusion, data assimilation, and synthetic data. Of these categories, conversion and correction are perhaps the most familiar. Bokulich reminds us that even in the case of reading a temperature from an ordinary mercury thermometer, we are ‘converting’ the data as measured, which in this case is the height of the column of mercury, to a temperature (ibid., 795). In more complicated cases, such as processing the arrival times of acoustic signals in seismic reflection measurements to yield values for subsurface depth, data conversion may involve models (ibid.). In this example, models of the composition and geometry of the subsurface are needed in order to account for differences in the speed of sound in different materials. Data ‘correction’ involves common practices we have already discussed like modeling and mathematically subtracting background noise contributions from one’s dataset (ibid., 796). Bokulich rightly points out that involving models in these ways routinely improves the epistemic uses to which data can be put. Data interpolation, scaling, and ‘fusion’ are also relatively widespread practices that deserve further philosophical analysis. Interpolation involves filling in missing data in a patchy data set, under the guidance of models. Data are scaled when they have been generated in a particular scale (temporal, spatial, energy) and modeling assumptions are recruited to transform them to apply at another scale. Data are ‘fused,’ in Bokulich’s terminology, when data collected in diverse contexts, using diverse methods are combined, or integrated together. For instance, when data from ice cores, tree rings, and the historical logbooks of sea captains are merged into a joint climate dataset. Scientists must take care in combining data of diverse provenance, and model new uncertainties arising from the very amalgamation of datasets (ibid., 800).

Bokulich contrasts ‘synthetic data’ with what she calls ‘real data’ (ibid., 801–802). Synthetic data are virtual, or simulated data, and are not produced by physical interaction with worldly research targets. Bokulich emphasizes the role that simulated data can usefully play in testing and troubleshooting aspects of data processing that are to eventually be deployed on empirical data (ibid., 802). It can be incredibly useful for developing and stress-testing a data processing pipeline to have fake datasets whose characteristics are already known in virtue of having been produced by the researchers, and being available for their inspection at will. When the characteristics of a dataset are known, or indeed can be tailored according to need, the effects of new processing methods can be more readily traced than without. In this way, researchers can familiarize themselves with the effects of a data processing pipeline, and make adjustments to that pipeline in light of what they learn by feeding fake data through it, before attempting to use that pipeline on actual science data. Such investigations can be critical to eventually arguing for the credibility of the final empirical results and their appropriate interpretation and use.

Data assimilation is perhaps a less widely appreciated aspect of model-based data processing among philosophers of science, excepting Parker (2016; 2017). Bokulich characterizes this method as “the optimal integration of data with dynamical model estimates to provide a more accurate ‘assimilation estimate’ of the quantity” (2020, 800). Thus, data assimilation involves balancing the contributions of empirical data and the output of models in an integrated estimate, according to the uncertainties associated with these contributions.

Bokulich argues that the involvement of models in these various aspects of data processing does not necessarily lead to better epistemic outcomes. Done wrong, integrating models and data can introduce artifacts and make the processed data unreliable for the purpose at hand (ibid., 804). Indeed, she notes that “[t]here is much work for methodologically reflective scientists and philosophers of science to do in string out cases in which model-data symbiosis may be problematic or circular” (ibid.)

3. Theory and value ladenness

Empirical results are laden with values and theoretical commitments. Philosophers have raised and appraised several possible kinds of epistemic problems that could be associated with theory and/or value-laden empirical results. They have worried about the extent to which human perception itself is distorted by our commitments. They have worried that drawing upon theoretical resources from the very theory to be appraised (or its competitors) in the generation of empirical results yields vicious circularity (or inconsistency). They have also worried that contingent conceptual and/or linguistic frameworks trap bits of evidence like bees in amber so that they cannot carry on their epistemic lives outside of the contexts of their origination, and that normative values necessarily corrupt the integrity of science. Do the theory and value-ladenness of empirical results render them hopelessly parochial? That is, when scientists leave theoretical commitments behind and adopt new ones, must they also relinquish the fruits of the empirical research imbued with their prior commitments too? In this section, we discuss these worries and responses that philosophers have offered to assuage them.

If you believe that observation by human sense perception is the objective basis of all scientific knowledge, then you ought to be particularly worried about the potential for human perception to be corrupted by theoretical assumptions, wishful thinking, framing effects, and so on. Daston and Galison recount the striking example of Arthur Worthington’s symmetrical milk drops (2007, 11–16). Working in 1875, Worthington investigated the hydrodynamics of falling fluid droplets and their evolution upon impacting a hard surface. At first, he had tried to carefully track the drop dynamics with a strobe light to burn a sequence of images into his own retinas. The images he drew to record what he saw were radially symmetric, with rays of the drop splashes emanating evenly from the center of the impact. However, when Worthington transitioned from using his eyes and capacity to draw from memory to using photography in 1894, he was shocked to find that the kind of splashes he had been observing were irregular splats (ibid., 13). Even curiouser, when Worthington returned to his drawings, he found that he had indeed recorded some unsymmetrical splashes. He had evidently dismissed them as uninformative accidents instead of regarding them as revelatory of the phenomenon he was intent on studying (ibid.) In attempting to document the ideal form of the splashes, a general and regular form, he had subconsciously down-played the irregularity of individual splashes. If theoretical commitments, like Worthington’s initial commitment to the perfect symmetry of the physics he was studying, pervasively and incorrigibly dictated the results of empirical inquiry, then the epistemic aims of science would be seriously undermined.

Perceptual psychologists, Bruner and Postman, found that subjects who were briefly shown anomalous playing cards, e.g., a black four of hearts, reported having seen their normal counterparts e.g., a red four of hearts. It took repeated exposures to get subjects to say the anomalous cards didn’t look right, and eventually, to describe them correctly (Kuhn 1962, 63). Kuhn took such studies to indicate that things don’t look the same to observers with different conceptual resources. (For a more up-to-date discussion of theory and conceptual perceptual loading see Lupyan 2015.) If so, black hearts didn’t look like black hearts until repeated exposures somehow allowed subjects to acquire the concept of a black heart. By analogy, Kuhn supposed, when observers working in conflicting paradigms look at the same thing, their conceptual limitations should keep them from having the same visual experiences (Kuhn 1962, 111, 113–114, 115, 120–1). This would mean, for example, that when Priestley and Lavoisier watched the same experiment, Lavoisier should have seen what accorded with his theory that combustion and respiration are oxidation processes, while Priestley’s visual experiences should have agreed with his theory that burning and respiration are processes of phlogiston release.

The example of Pettersson’s and Rutherford’s scintillation screen evidence (above) attests to the fact that observers working in different laboratories sometimes report seeing different things under similar conditions. It is plausible that their expectations influence their reports. It is plausible that their expectations are shaped by their training and by their supervisors’ and associates’ theory driven behavior. But as happens in other cases as well, all parties to the dispute agreed to reject Pettersson’s data by appealing to results that both laboratories could obtain and interpret in the same way without compromising their theoretical commitments. Indeed, it is possible for scientists to share empirical results, not just across diverse laboratory cultures, but even across serious differences in worldview. Much as they disagreed about the nature of respiration and combustion, Priestley and Lavoisier gave quantitatively similar reports of how long their mice stayed alive and their candles kept burning in closed bell jars. Priestley taught Lavoisier how to obtain what he took to be measurements of the phlogiston content of an unknown gas. A sample of the gas to be tested is run into a graduated tube filled with water and inverted over a water bath. After noting the height of the water remaining in the tube, the observer adds “nitrous air” (we call it nitric oxide) and checks the water level again. Priestley, who thought there was no such thing as oxygen, believed the change in water level indicated how much phlogiston the gas contained. Lavoisier reported observing the same water levels as Priestley even after he abandoned phlogiston theory and became convinced that changes in water level indicated free oxygen content (Conant 1957, 74–109).

A related issue is that of salience. Kuhn claimed that if Galileo and an Aristotelian physicist had watched the same pendulum experiment, they would not have looked at or attended to the same things. The Aristotelian’s paradigm would have required the experimenter to measure

… the weight of the stone, the vertical height to which it had been raised, and the time required for it to achieve rest (Kuhn 1962, 123)

and ignore radius, angular displacement, and time per swing (ibid., 124). These last were salient to Galileo because he treated pendulum swings as constrained circular motions. The Galilean quantities would be of no interest to an Aristotelian who treats the stone as falling under constraint toward the center of the earth (ibid., 123). Thus Galileo and the Aristotelian would not have collected the same data. (Absent records of Aristotelian pendulum experiments we can think of this as a thought experiment.)

Interests change, however. Scientists may eventually come to appreciate the significance of data that had not originally been salient to them in light of new presuppositions. The moral of these examples is that although paradigms or theoretical commitments sometimes have an epistemically significant influence on what observers perceive or what they attend to, it can be relatively easy to nullify or correct for their effects. When presuppositions cause epistemic damage, investigators are often able to eventually make corrections. Thus, paradigms and theoretical commitments actually do influence saliency, but their influence is neither inevitable nor irremediable.

Thomas Kuhn (1962), Norwood Hanson (1958), Paul Feyerabend (1959) and others cast suspicion on the objectivity of observational evidence in another way by arguing that one cannot use empirical evidence to test a theory without committing oneself to that very theory. This would be a problem if it leads to dogmatism but assuming the theory to be tested is often benign and even necessary.

For instance, Laymon (1988) demonstrates the manner in which the very theory that the Michelson-Morley experiments are considered to test is assumed in the experimental design, but that this does not engender deleterious epistemic effects (250). The Michelson-Morley apparatus consists of two interferometer arms at right angles to one another, which are rotated in the course of the experiment so that, on the original construal, the path length traversed by light in the apparatus would vary according to alignment with or against the Earth’s velocity (carrying the apparatus) with respect to the stationary aether. This difference in path length would show up as displacement in the interference fringes of light in the interferometer. Although Michelson’s intention had been to measure the velocity of the Earth with respect to the all-pervading aether, the experiments eventually came to be regarded as furnishing tests of the Fresnel aether theory itself. In particular, the null results of these experiments were taken as evidence against the existence of the aether. Naively, one might suppose that whatever assumptions were made in the calculation of the results of these experiments, it should not be the case that the theory under the gun was assumed nor that its negation was.

Before Michelson’s experiments, the Fresnel aether theory did not predict any sort of length contraction. Although Michelson assumed no contraction in the arms of the interferometer, Laymon argues that he could have assumed contraction, with no practical impact on the results of the experiments. The predicted fringe shift is calculated from the anticipated difference in the distance traveled by light in the two arms is the same, when higher order terms are neglected. Thus, in practice, the experimenters could assume either that the contraction thesis was true or that it was false when determining the length of the arms. Either way, the results of the experiment would be the same. After Michelson’s experiments returned no evidence of the anticipated aether effects, Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was postulated precisely to cancel out the expected (but not found) effects and save the aether theory. Morley and Miller then set out specifically to test the contraction thesis, and still assumed no contraction in determining the length of the arms of their interferometer (ibid., 253). Thus Laymon argues that the Michelson-Morley experiments speak against the tempting assumption that “appraisal of a theory is based on phenomena which can be detected and measured without using assumptions drawn from the theory under examination or from competitors to that theory ” (ibid., 246).

Epistemological hand-wringing about the use of the very theory to be tested in the generation of the evidence to be used for testing, seems to spring primarily from a concern about vicious circularity. How can we have a genuine trial, if the theory in question has been presumed innocent from the outset? While it is true that there would be a serious epistemic problem in a case where the use of the theory to be tested conspired to guarantee that the evidence would turn out to be confirmatory, this is not always the case when theories are invoked in their own testing. Woodward (2011) summarizes a tidy case:

For example, in Millikan’s oil drop experiment, the mere fact that theoretical assumptions (e.g., that the charge of the electron is quantized and that all electrons have the same charge) play a role in motivating his measurements or a vocabulary for describing his results does not by itself show that his design and data analysis were of such a character as to guarantee that he would obtain results supporting his theoretical assumptions. His experiment was such that he might well have obtained results showing that the charge of the electron was not quantized or that there was no single stable value for this quantity. (178)

For any given case, determining whether the theoretical assumptions being made are benign or straight-jacketing the results that it will be possible to obtain will require investigating the particular relationships between the assumptions and results in that case. When data production and analysis processes are complicated, this task can get difficult. But the point is that merely noting the involvement of the theory to be tested in the generation of empirical results does not by itself imply that those results cannot be objectively useful for deciding whether the theory to be tested should be accepted or rejected.

Kuhn argued that theoretical commitments exert a strong influence on observation descriptions, and what they are understood to mean (Kuhn 1962, 127ff; Longino 1979, 38–42). If so, proponents of a caloric account of heat won’t describe or understand descriptions of observed results of heat experiments in the same way as investigators who think of heat in terms of mean kinetic energy or radiation. They might all use the same words (e.g., ‘temperature’) to report an observation without understanding them in the same way. This poses a potential problem for communicating effectively across paradigms, and similarly, for attributing the appropriate significance to empirical results generated outside of one’s own linguistic framework.

It is important to bear in mind that observers do not always use declarative sentences to report observational and experimental results. Instead, they often draw, photograph, make audio recordings, etc. or set up their experimental devices to generate graphs, pictorial images, tables of numbers, and other non-sentential records. Obviously investigators’ conceptual resources and theoretical biases can exert epistemically significant influences on what they record (or set their equipment to record), which details they include or emphasize, and which forms of representation they choose (Daston and Galison 2007, 115–190, 309–361). But disagreements about the epistemic import of a graph, picture or other non-sentential bit of data often turn on causal rather than semantical considerations. Anatomists may have to decide whether a dark spot in a micrograph was caused by a staining artifact or by light reflected from an anatomically significant structure. Physicists may wonder whether a blip in a Geiger counter record reflects the causal influence of the radiation they wanted to monitor, or a surge in ambient radiation. Chemists may worry about the purity of samples used to obtain data. Such questions are not, and are not well represented as, semantic questions to which semantic theory loading is relevant. Late 20 th century philosophers may have ignored such cases and exaggerated the influence of semantic theory loading because they thought of theory testing in terms of inferential relations between observation and theoretical sentences.

Nevertheless, some empirical results are reported as declarative sentences. Looking at a patient with red spots and a fever, an investigator might report having seen the spots, or measles symptoms, or a patient with measles. Watching an unknown liquid dripping into a litmus solution an observer might report seeing a change in color, a liquid with a PH of less than 7, or an acid. The appropriateness of a description of a test outcome depends on how the relevant concepts are operationalized. What justifies an observer to report having observed a case of measles according to one operationalization might require her to say no more than that she had observed measles symptoms, or just red spots according to another.

In keeping with Percy Bridgman’s view that

… in general, we mean by a concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding sets of operations (Bridgman 1927, 5)

one might suppose that operationalizations are definitions or meaning rules such that it is analytically true, e.g., that every liquid that turns litmus red in a properly conducted test is acidic. But it is more faithful to actual scientific practice to think of operationalizations as defeasible rules for the application of a concept such that both the rules and their applications are subject to revision on the basis of new empirical or theoretical developments. So understood, to operationalize is to adopt verbal and related practices for the purpose of enabling scientists to do their work. Operationalizations are thus sensitive and subject to change on the basis of findings that influence their usefulness (Feest 2005).

Definitional or not, investigators in different research traditions may be trained to report their observations in conformity with conflicting operationalizations. Thus instead of training observers to describe what they see in a bubble chamber as a whitish streak or a trail, one might train them to say they see a particle track or even a particle. This may reflect what Kuhn meant by suggesting that some observers might be justified or even required to describe themselves as having seen oxygen, transparent and colorless though it is, or atoms, invisible though they are (Kuhn 1962, 127ff). To the contrary, one might object that what one sees should not be confused with what one is trained to say when one sees it, and therefore that talking about seeing a colorless gas or an invisible particle may be nothing more than a picturesque way of talking about what certain operationalizations entitle observers to say. Strictly speaking, the objection concludes, the term ‘observation report’ should be reserved for descriptions that are neutral with respect to conflicting operationalizations.

If observational data are just those utterances that meet Feyerabend’s decidability and agreeability conditions, the import of semantic theory loading depends upon how quickly, and for which sentences reasonably sophisticated language users who stand in different paradigms can non-inferentially reach the same decisions about what to assert or deny. Some would expect enough agreement to secure the objectivity of observational data. Others would not. Still others would try to supply different standards for objectivity.

With regard to sentential observation reports, the significance of semantic theory loading is less ubiquitous than one might expect. The interpretation of verbal reports often depends on ideas about causal structure rather than the meanings of signs. Rather than worrying about the meaning of words used to describe their observations, scientists are more likely to wonder whether the observers made up or withheld information, whether one or more details were artifacts of observation conditions, whether the specimens were atypical, and so on.

Note that the worry about semantic theory loading extends beyond observation reports of the sort that occupied the logical empiricists and their close intellectual descendents. Combining results of diverse methods for making proxy measurements of paleoclimate temperatures in an epistemically responsible way requires careful attention to the variety of operationalizations at play. Even if no ‘observation reports’ are involved, the sticky question about how to usefully merge results obtained in different ways in order to satisfy one’s epistemic aims remains. Happily, the remedy for the worry about semantic loading in this broader sense is likely to be the same—investigating the provenance of those results and comparing the variety of factors that have contributed to their causal production.

Kuhn placed too much emphasis on the discontinuity between evidence generated in different paradigms. Even if we accept a broadly Kuhnian picture, according to which paradigms are heterogeneous collections of experimental practices, theoretical principles, problems selected for investigation, approaches to their solution, etc., connections between components are loose enough to allow investigators who disagree profoundly over one or more theoretical claims to nevertheless agree about how to design, execute, and record the results of their experiments. That is why neuroscientists who disagreed about whether nerve impulses consisted of electrical currents could measure the same electrical quantities, and agree on the linguistic meaning and the accuracy of observation reports including such terms as ‘potential’, ‘resistance’, ‘voltage’ and ‘current’. As we discussed above, the success that scientists have in repurposing results generated by others for different purposes speaks against the confinement of evidence to its native paradigm. Even when scientists working with radically different core theoretical commitments cannot make the same measurements themselves, with enough contextual information about how each conducts research, it can be possible to construct bridges that span the theoretical divides.

One could worry that the intertwining of the theoretical and empirical would open the floodgates to bias in science. Human cognizing, both historical and present day, is replete with disturbing commitments including intolerance and narrow mindedness of many sorts. If such commitments are integral to a theoretical framework, or endemic to the reasoning of a scientist or scientific community, then they threaten to corrupt the epistemic utility of empirical results generated using their resources. The core impetus of the ‘value-free ideal’ is to maintain a safe distance between the appraisal of scientific theories according to the evidence on one hand, and the swarm of moral, political, social, and economic values on the other. While proponents of the value-free ideal might admit that the motivation to pursue a theory or the legal protection of human subjects in permissible experimental methods involve non-epistemic values, they would contend that such values ought not ought not enter into the constitution of empirical results themselves, nor the adjudication or justification of scientific theorizing in light of the evidence (see Intemann 2021, 202).

As a matter of fact, values do enter into science at a variety of stages. Above we saw that ‘theory-ladenness’ could refer to the involvement of theory in perception, in semantics, and in a kind of circularity that some have worried begets unfalsifiability and thereby dogmatism. Like theory-ladenness, values can and sometimes do affect judgments about the salience of certain evidence and the conceptual framing of data. Indeed, on a permissive construal of the nature of theories, values can simply be understood as part of a theoretical framework. Intemann (2021) highlights a striking example from medical research where key conceptual resources include notions like ‘harm,’ ‘risk,’ ‘health benefit,’ and ‘safety.’ She refers to research on the comparative safety of giving birth at home and giving birth at a hospital for low-risk parents in the United States. Studies reporting that home births are less safe typically attend to infant and birthing parent mortality rates—which are low for these subjects whether at home or in hospital—but leave out of consideration rates of c-section and episiotomy, which are both relatively high in hospital settings. Thus, a value-laden decision about whether a possible outcome counts as a harm worth considering can influence the outcome of the study—in this case tipping the balance towards the conclusion that hospital births are more safe (ibid., 206).

Note that the birth safety case differs from the sort of cases at issue in the philosophical debate about risk and thresholds for acceptance and rejection of hypotheses. In accepting an hypothesis, a person makes a judgement that the risk of being mistaken is sufficiently low (Rudner 1953). When the consequences of being wrong are deemed grave, the threshold for acceptance may be correspondingly high. Thus, in evaluating the epistemic status of an hypothesis in light of the evidence, a person may have to make a value-based judgement. However, in the birth safety case, the judgement comes into play at an earlier stage, well before the decision to accept or reject the hypothesis is to be made. The judgement occurs already in deciding what is to count as a ‘harm’ worth considering for the purposes of this research.

The fact that values do sometimes enter into scientific reasoning does not by itself settle the question of whether it would be better if they did not. In order to assess the normative proposal, philosophers of science have attempted to disambiguate the various ways in which values might be thought to enter into science, and the various referents that get crammed under the single heading of ‘values.’ Anderson (2004) articulates eight stages of scientific research where values (‘evaluative presuppositions’) might be employed in epistemically fruitful ways. In paraphrase: 1) orientation in a field, 2) framing a research question, 3) conceptualizing the target, 4) identifying relevant data, 5) data generation, 6) data analysis, 7) deciding when to cease data analysis, and 8) drawing conclusions (Anderson 2004, 11). Similarly, Intemann (2021) lays out five ways “that values play a role in scientific reasoning” with which feminist philosophers of science have engaged in particular:

(1) the framing [of] research problems, (2) observing phenomena and describing data, (3) reasoning about value-laden concepts and assessing risks, (4) adopting particular models, and (5) collecting and interpreting evidence. (208)

Ward (2021) presents a streamlined and general taxonomy of four ways in which values relate to choices: as reasons motivating or justifying choices, as causal effectors of choices, or as goods affected by choices. By investigating the role of values in these particular stages or aspects of research, philosophers of science can offer higher resolution insights than just the observation that values are involved in science at all and untangle crosstalk.

Similarly, fine points can be made about the nature of values involved in these various contexts. Such clarification is likely important for determining whether the contribution of certain values in a given context is deleterious or salutary, and in what sense. Douglas (2013) argues that the ‘value’ of internal consistency of a theory and of the empirical adequacy of a theory with respect to the available evidence are minimal criteria for any viable scientific theory (799–800). She contrasts these with the sort of values that Kuhn called ‘virtues,’ i.e. scope, simplicity, and explanatory power that are properties of theories themselves, and unification, novel prediction and precision, which are properties a theory has in relation to a body of evidence (800–801). These are the sort of values that may be relevant to explaining and justifying choices that scientists make to pursue/abandon or accept/reject particular theories. Moreover, Douglas (2000) argues that what she calls “non-epistemic values” (in particular, ethical value judgements) also enter into decisions at various stages “internal” to scientific reasoning, such as data collection and interpretation (565). Consider a laboratory toxicology study in which animals exposed to dioxins are compared to unexposed controls. Douglas discusses researchers who want to determine the threshold for safe exposure. Admitting false positives can be expected to lead to overregulation of the chemical industry, while false negatives yield underregulation and thus pose greater risk to public health. The decision about where to set the unsafe exposure threshold, that is, set the threshold for a statistically significant difference between experimental and control animal populations, involves balancing the acceptability of these two types of errors. According to Douglas, this balancing act will depend on “whether we are more concerned about protecting public health from dioxin pollution or whether we are more concerned about protecting industries that produce dioxins from increased regulation” (ibid., 568). That scientists do as a matter of fact sometimes make such decisions is clear. They judge, for instance, a specimen slide of a rat liver to be tumorous or not, and whether borderline cases should count as benign or malignant (ibid., 569–572). Moreover, in such cases, it is not clear that the responsibility of making such decisions could be offloaded to non-scientists.

Many philosophers accept that values can contribute to the generation of empirical results without spoiling their epistemic utility. Anderson’s (2004) diagnosis is as follows:

Deep down, what the objectors find worrisome about allowing value judgments to guide scientific inquiry is not that they have evaluative content, but that these judgments might be held dogmatically, so as to preclude the recognition of evidence that might undermine them. We need to ensure that value judgements do not operate to drive inquiry to a predetermined conclusion. This is our fundamental criterion for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate uses of values in science. (11)

Data production (including experimental design and execution) is heavily influenced by investigators’ background assumptions. Sometimes these include theoretical commitments that lead experimentalists to produce non-illuminating or misleading evidence. In other cases they may lead experimentalists to ignore, or even fail to produce useful evidence. For example, in order to obtain data on orgasms in female stumptail macaques, one researcher wired up females to produce radio records of orgasmic muscle contractions, heart rate increases, etc. But as Elisabeth Lloyd reports, “… the researcher … wired up the heart rate of the male macaques as the signal to start recording the female orgasms. When I pointed out that the vast majority of female stumptail orgasms occurred during sex among the females alone, he replied that yes he knew that, but he was only interested in important orgasms” (Lloyd 1993, 142). Although female stumptail orgasms occurring during sex with males are atypical, the experimental design was driven by the assumption that what makes features of female sexuality worth studying is their contribution to reproduction (ibid., 139). This assumption influenced experimental design in such a way as to preclude learning about the full range of female stumptail orgasms.

Anderson (2004) presents an influential analysis of the role of values in research on divorce. Researchers committed to an interpretive framework rooted in ‘traditional family values’ could conduct research on the assumption that divorce is mostly bad for spouses and any children that they have (ibid., 12). This background assumption, which is rooted in a normative appraisal of a certain model of good family life, could lead social science researchers to restrict the questions with which they survey their research subjects to ones about the negative impacts of divorce on their lives, thereby curtailing the possibility of discovering ways that divorce may have actually made the ex-spouses lives better (ibid., 13). This is an example of the influence that values can have on the nature of the results that research ultimately yields, which is epistemically detrimental. In this case, the values in play biased the research outcomes to preclude recognition of countervailing evidence. Anderson argues that the problematic influence of values comes when research “is rigged in advance” to confirm certain hypotheses—when the influence of values amounts to incorrigible dogmatism (ibid., 19). “Dogmatism” in her sense is unfalsifiability in practice, “their stubbornness in the face of any conceivable evidence”(ibid., 22).

Fortunately, such dogmatism is not ubiquitous and when it occurs it can often be corrected eventually. Above we noted that the mere involvement of the theory to be tested in the generation of an empirical result does not automatically yield vicious circularity—it depends on how the theory is involved. Furthermore, even if the assumptions initially made in the generation of empirical results are incorrect, future scientists will have opportunities to reassess those assumptions in light of new information and techniques. Thus, as long as scientists continue their work there need be no time at which the epistemic value of an empirical result can be established once and for all. This should come as no surprise to anyone who is aware that science is fallible, but it is no grounds for skepticism. It can be perfectly reasonable to trust the evidence available at present even though it is logically possible for epistemic troubles to arise in the future. A similar point can be made regarding values (although cf. Yap 2016).

Moreover, while the inclusion of values in the generation of an empirical result can sometimes be epistemically bad, values properly deployed can also be harmless, or even epistemically helpful. As in the cases of research on female stumptail macaque orgasms and the effects of divorce, certain values can sometimes serve to illuminate the way in which other epistemically problematic assumptions have hindered potential scientific insight. By valuing knowledge about female sexuality beyond its role in reproduction, scientists can recognize the narrowness of an approach that only conceives of female sexuality insofar as it relates to reproduction. By questioning the absolute value of one traditional ideal for flourishing families, researchers can garner evidence that might end up destabilizing the empirical foundation supporting that ideal.

Empirical results are most obviously put to epistemic work in their contexts of origin. Scientists conceive of empirical research, collect and analyze the relevant data, and then bring the results to bear on the theoretical issues that inspired the research in the first place. However, philosophers have also discussed ways in which empirical results are transferred out of their native contexts and applied in diverse and sometimes unexpected ways (see Leonelli and Tempini 2020). Cases of reuse, or repurposing of empirical results in different epistemic contexts raise several interesting issues for philosophers of science. For one, such cases challenge the assumption that theory (and value) ladenness confines the epistemic utility of empirical results to a particular conceptual framework. Ancient Babylonian eclipse records inscribed on cuneiform tablets have been used to generate constraints on contemporary geophysical theorizing about the causes of the lengthening of the day on Earth (Stephenson, Morrison, and Hohenkerk 2016). This is surprising since the ancient observations were originally recorded for the purpose of making astrological prognostications. Nevertheless, with enough background information, the records as inscribed can be translated, the layers of assumptions baked into their presentation peeled back, and the results repurposed using resources of the contemporary epistemic context, the likes of which the Babylonians could have hardly dreamed.

Furthermore, the potential for reuse and repurposing feeds back on the methodological norms of data production and handling. In light of the difficulty of reusing or repurposing data without sufficient background information about the original context, Goodman et al. (2014) note that “data reuse is most possible when: 1) data; 2) metadata (information describing the data); and 3) information about the process of generating those data, such as code, all all provided” (3). Indeed, they advocate for sharing data and code in addition to results customarily published in science. As we have seen, the loading of data with theory is usually necessary to putting that data to any serious epistemic use—theory-loading makes theory appraisal possible. Philosophers have begun to appreciate that this epistemic boon does not necessarily come at the cost of rendering data “tragically local” (Wylie 2020, 285, quoting Latour 1999). But it is important to note the useful travel of data between contexts is significantly aided by foresight, curation, and management for that aim.

In light of the mediated nature of empirical results, Boyd (2018) argues for an “enriched view of evidence,” in which the evidence that serves as the ‘tribunal of experience’ is understood to be “lines of evidence” composed of the products of data collection and all of the products of their transformation on the way to the generation of empirical results that are ultimately compared to theoretical predictions, considered together with metadata associated with their provenance. Such metadata includes information about theoretical assumptions that are made in data collection, processing, and the presentation of empirical results. Boyd argues that by appealing to metadata to ‘rewind’ the processing of assumption-imbued empirical results and then by re-processing them using new resources, the epistemic utility of empirical evidence can survive transitions to new contexts. Thus, the enriched view of evidence supports the idea that it is not despite the intertwining of the theoretical and empirical that scientists accomplish key epistemic aims, but often in virtue of it (ibid., 420). In addition, it makes the epistemic value of metadata encoding the various assumptions that have been made throughout the course of data collection and processing explicit.

The desirability of explicitly furnishing empirical data and results with auxiliary information that allow them to travel can be appreciated in light of the ‘objectivity’ norm, construed as accessibility to interpersonal scrutiny. When data are repurposed in novel contexts, they are not only shared between subjects, but can in some cases be shared across radically different paradigms with incompatible theoretical commitments.

4. The epistemic value of empirical evidence

One of the important applications of empirical evidence is its use in assessing the epistemic status of scientific theories. In this section we briefly discuss philosophical work on the role of empirical evidence in confirmation/falsification of scientific theories, ‘saving the phenomena,’ and in appraising the empirical adequacy of theories. However, further philosophical work ought to explore the variety of ways that empirical results bear on the epistemic status of theories and theorizing in scientific practice beyond these.

It is natural to think that computability, range of application, and other things being equal, true theories are better than false ones, good approximations are better than bad ones, and highly probable theoretical claims are better than less probable ones. One way to decide whether a theory or a theoretical claim is true, close to the truth, or acceptably probable is to derive predictions from it and use empirical data to evaluate them. Hypothetico-Deductive (HD) confirmation theorists proposed that empirical evidence argues for the truth of theories whose deductive consequences it verifies, and against those whose consequences it falsifies (Popper 1959, 32–34). But laws and theoretical generalization seldom if ever entail observational predictions unless they are conjoined with one or more auxiliary hypotheses taken from the theory they belong to. When the prediction turns out to be false, HD has trouble explaining which of the conjuncts is to blame. If a theory entails a true prediction, it will continue to do so in conjunction with arbitrarily selected irrelevant claims. HD has trouble explaining why the prediction does not confirm the irrelevancies along with the theory of interest.

Another approach to confirmation by empirical evidence is Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). The idea is roughly that an explanation of the evidence that exhibits certain desirable characteristics with respect to a family of candidate explanations is likely to be the true on (Lipton 1991). On this approach, it is in virtue of their successful explanation of the empirical evidence that theoretical claims are supported. Naturally, IBE advocates face the challenges of defending a suitable characterization of what counts as the ‘best’ and of justifying the limited pool of candidate explanations considered (Stanford 2006).

Bayesian approaches to scientific confirmation have garnered significant attention and are now widespread in philosophy of science. Bayesians hold that the evidential bearing of empirical evidence on a theoretical claim is to be understood in terms of likelihood or conditional probability. For example, whether empirical evidence argues for a theoretical claim might be thought to depend upon whether it is more probable (and if so how much more probable) than its denial conditional on a description of the evidence together with background beliefs, including theoretical commitments. But by Bayes’ Theorem, the posterior probability of the claim of interest (that is, its probability given the evidence) is proportional to that claim’s prior probability. How to justify the choice of these prior probability assignments is one of the most notorious points of contention arising for Bayesians. If one makes the assignment of priors a subjective matter decided by epistemic agents, then it is not clear that they can be justified. Once again, one’s use of evidence to evaluate a theory depends in part upon one’s theoretical commitments (Earman 1992, 33–86; Roush 2005, 149–186). If one instead appeals to chains of successive updating using Bayes’ Theorem based on past evidence, one has to invoke assumptions that generally do not obtain in actual scientific reasoning. For instance, to ‘wash out’ the influence of priors a limit theorem is invoked wherein we consider very many updating iterations, but much scientific reasoning of interest does not happen in the limit, and so in practice priors hold unjustified sway (Norton 2021, 33).

Rather than attempting to cast all instances of confirmation based on empirical evidence as belonging to a universal schema, a better approach may be to ‘go local’. Norton’s material theory of induction argues that inductive support arises from background knowledge, that is, from material facts that are domain specific. Norton argues that, for instance, the induction from “Some samples of the element bismuth melt at 271°C” to “all samples of the element bismuth melt at 271°C” is admissible not in virtue of some universal schema that carries us from ‘some’ to ‘all’ but matters of fact (Norton 2003). In this particular case, the fact that licenses the induction is a fact about elements: “their samples are generally uniform in their physical properties” (ibid., 650). This is a fact pertinent to chemical elements, but not to samples of material like wax (ibid.). Thus Norton repeatedly emphasizes that “all induction is local”.

Still, there are those who may be skeptical about the very possibility of confirmation or of successful induction. Insofar as the bearing of evidence on theory is never totally decisive, insofar there is no single trusty universal schema that captures empirical support, perhaps the relationship between empirical evidence and scientific theory is not really about support after all. Giving up on empirical support would not automatically mean abandoning any epistemic value for empirical evidence. Rather than confirm theory, the epistemic role of evidence could be to constrain, for example by furnishing phenomena for theory to systematize or to adequately model.

Theories are said to ‘save’ observable phenomena if they satisfactorily predict, describe, or systematize them. How well a theory performs any of these tasks need not depend upon the truth or accuracy of its basic principles. Thus according to Osiander’s preface to Copernicus’ On the Revolutions , a locus classicus, astronomers “… cannot in any way attain to true causes” of the regularities among observable astronomical events, and must content themselves with saving the phenomena in the sense of using

… whatever suppositions enable … [them] to be computed correctly from the principles of geometry for the future as well as the past … (Osiander 1543, XX)

Theorists are to use those assumptions as calculating tools without committing themselves to their truth. In particular, the assumption that the planets revolve around the sun must be evaluated solely in terms of how useful it is in calculating their observable relative positions to a satisfactory approximation. Pierre Duhem’s Aim and Structure of Physical Theory articulates a related conception. For Duhem a physical theory

… is a system of mathematical propositions, deduced from a small number of principles, which aim to represent as simply and completely, and exactly as possible, a set of experimental laws. (Duhem 1906, 19)

‘Experimental laws’ are general, mathematical descriptions of observable experimental results. Investigators produce them by performing measuring and other experimental operations and assigning symbols to perceptible results according to pre-established operational definitions (Duhem 1906, 19). For Duhem, the main function of a physical theory is to help us store and retrieve information about observables we would not otherwise be able to keep track of. If that is what a theory is supposed to accomplish, its main virtue should be intellectual economy. Theorists are to replace reports of individual observations with experimental laws and devise higher level laws (the fewer, the better) from which experimental laws (the more, the better) can be mathematically derived (Duhem 1906, 21ff).

A theory’s experimental laws can be tested for accuracy and comprehensiveness by comparing them to observational data. Let EL be one or more experimental laws that perform acceptably well on such tests. Higher level laws can then be evaluated on the basis of how well they integrate EL into the rest of the theory. Some data that don’t fit integrated experimental laws won’t be interesting enough to worry about. Other data may need to be accommodated by replacing or modifying one or more experimental laws or adding new ones. If the required additions, modifications or replacements deliver experimental laws that are harder to integrate, the data count against the theory. If the required changes are conducive to improved systematization the data count in favor of it. If the required changes make no difference, the data don’t argue for or against the theory.

On van Fraassen’s (1980) semantic account, a theory is empirically adequate when the empirical structure of at least one model of that theory is isomorphic to what he calls the “appearances” (45). In other words, when the theory “has at least one model that all the actual phenomena fit inside” (12). Thus, for van Fraassen, we continually check the empirical adequacy of our theories by seeing if they have the structural resources to accommodate new observations. We’ll never know that a given theory is totally empirically adequate, since for van Fraassen, empirical adequacy obtains with respect to all that is observable in principle to creatures like us, not all that has already been observed (69).

The primary appeal of dealing in empirical adequacy rather than confirmation is its appropriate epistemic humility. Instead of claiming that confirming evidence justifies belief (or boosted confidence) that a theory is true, one is restricted to saying that the theory continues to be consistent with the evidence as far as we can tell so far. However, if the epistemic utility of empirical results in appraising the status of theories is just to judge their empirical adequacy, then it may be difficult to account for the difference between adequate but unrealistic theories, and those equally adequate theories that ought to be taken seriously as representations. Appealing to extra-empirical virtues like parsimony may be a way out, but one that will not appeal to philosophers skeptical of the connection thereby supposed between such virtues and representational fidelity.

On an earlier way of thinking, observation was to serve as the unmediated foundation of science—direct access to the facts upon which the edifice of scientific knowledge could be built. When conflict arose between factions with different ideological commitments, observations could furnish the material for neutral arbitration and settle the matter objectively, in virtue of being independent of non-empirical commitments. According to this view, scientists working in different paradigms could at least appeal to the same observations, and propagandists could be held accountable to the publicly accessible content of theory and value-free observations. Despite their different theories, Priestley and Lavoisier could find shared ground in the observations. Anti-Semites would be compelled to admit the success of a theory authored by a Jewish physicist, in virtue of the unassailable facts revealed by observation.

This version of empiricism with respect to science does not accord well with the fact that observation per se plays a relatively small role in many actual scientific methodologies, and the fact that even the most ‘raw’ data is often already theoretically imbued. The strict contrast between theory and observation in science is more fruitfully supplanted by inquiry into the relationship between theorizing and empirical results.

Contemporary philosophers of science tend to embrace the theory ladenness of empirical results. Instead of seeing the integration of the theoretical and the empirical as an impediment to furthering scientific knowledge, they see it as necessary. A ‘view from nowhere’ would not bear on our particular theories. That is, it is impossible to put empirical results to use without recruiting some theoretical resources. In order to use an empirical result to constrain or test a theory it has to be processed into a form that can be compared to that theory. To get stellar spectrograms to bear on Newtonian or relativistic cosmology, they need to be processed—into galactic rotation curves, say. The spectrograms by themselves are just artifacts, pieces of paper. Scientists need theoretical resources in order to even identify that such artifacts bear information relevant for their purposes, and certainly to put them to any epistemic use in assessing theories.

This outlook does not render contemporary philosophers of science all constructivists, however. Theory mediates the connection between the target of inquiry and the scientific worldview, it does not sever it. Moreover, vigilance is still required to ensure that the particular ways in which theory is ‘involved’ in the production of empirical results are not epistemically detrimental. Theory can be deployed in experiment design, data processing, and presentation of results in unproductive ways, for instance, in determining whether the results will speak for or against a particular theory regardless of what the world is like. Critical appraisal of the roles of theory is thus important for genuine learning about nature through science. Indeed, it seems that extra-empirical values can sometimes assist such critical appraisal. Instead of viewing observation as the theory-free and for that reason furnishing the content with which to appraise theories, we might attend to the choices and mistakes that can be made in collecting and generating empirical results with the help of theoretical resources, and endeavor to make choices conducive to learning and correct mistakes as we discover them.

Recognizing the involvement of theory and values in the constitution and generation of empirical results does not undermine the special epistemic value of empirical science in contrast to propaganda and pseudoscience. In cases where the influence of cultural, political, and religious values hinder scientific inquiry, it is often the case that they do so by limiting or determining the nature of the empirical results. Yet, by working to make the assumptions that shape results explicit we can examine their suitability for our purposes and attempt to restructure inquiry as necessary. When disagreements arise, scientists can attempt to settle them by appealing to the causal connections between the research target and the empirical data. The tribunal of experience speaks through empirical results, but it only does so through via careful fashioning with theoretical resources.

Anderson, E., 2004, “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce,” Hypatia , 19(1): 1–24.
Aristotle(a), Generation of Animals in Complete Works of Aristotle (Volume 1), J. Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 774–993
Aristotle(b), History of Animals in Complete Works of Aristotle (Volume 1), J. Barnes (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 1111–1228.
Azzouni, J., 2004, “Theory, Observation, and Scientific Realism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 55(3): 371–92.
Bacon, Francis, 1620, Novum Organum with other parts of the Great Instauration , P. Urbach and J. Gibson (eds. and trans.), La Salle: Open Court, 1994.
Bogen, J., 2016, “Empiricism and After,”in P. Humphreys (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 779–795.
Bogen, J, and Woodward, J., 1988, “Saving the Phenomena,” Philosophical Review , XCVII (3): 303–352.
Bokulich, A., 2020, “Towards a Taxonomy of the Model-Ladenness of Data,” Philosophy of Science , 87(5): 793–806.
Borrelli, A., 2012, “The Case of the Composite Higgs: The Model as a ‘Rosetta Stone’ in Contemporary High-Energy Physics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics), 43(3): 195–214.
Boyd, N. M., 2018, “Evidence Enriched,” Philosophy of Science , 85(3): 403–21.
Boyle, R., 1661, The Sceptical Chymist , Montana: Kessinger (reprint of 1661 edition).
Bridgman, P., 1927, The Logic of Modern Physics , New York: Macmillan.
Chang, H., 2005, “A Case for Old-fashioned Observability, and a Reconstructive Empiricism,” Philosophy of Science , 72(5): 876–887.
Collins, H. M., 1985 Changing Order , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conant, J.B., 1957, (ed.) “The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775–1789,” in J.B.Conant and L.K. Nash (eds.), Harvard Studies in Experimental Science , Volume I, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 65–116).
Daston, L., and P. Galison, 2007, Objectivity , Brooklyn: Zone Books.
Douglas, H., 2000, “Inductive Risk and Values in Science,” Philosophy of Science , 67(4): 559–79.
–––, 2013, “The Value of Cognitive Values,” Philosophy of Science , 80(5): 796–806.
Duhem, P., 1906, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory , P. Wiener (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Earman, J., 1992, Bayes or Bust? , Cambridge: MIT Press.
Feest, U., 2005, “Operationism in psychology: what the debate is about, what the debate should be about,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 41(2): 131–149.
Feyerabend, P.K., 1969, “Science Without Experience,” in P.K. Feyerabend, Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method (Philosophical Papers I), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 132–136.
Franklin, A., 1986, The Neglect of Experiment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galison, P., 1987, How Experiments End , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1990, “Aufbau/Bauhaus: logical positivism and architectural modernism,” Critical Inquiry , 16 (4): 709–753.
Goodman, A., et al., 2014, “Ten Simple Rules for the Care and Feeding of Scientific Data,” PLoS Computational Biology , 10(4): e1003542.
Hacking, I., 1981, “Do We See Through a Microscope?,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 62(4): 305–322.
–––, 1983, Representing and Intervening , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanson, N.R., 1958, Patterns of Discovery , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hempel, C.G., 1952, “Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science,” in Foundations of the Unity of Science , Volume 2, O. Neurath, R. Carnap, C. Morris (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, pp. 651–746.
Herschel, J. F. W., 1830, Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy , New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1966.
Hooke, R., 1705, “The Method of Improving Natural Philosophy,” in R. Waller (ed.), The Posthumous Works of Robert Hooke , London: Frank Cass and Company, 1971.
Horowitz, P., and W. Hill, 2015, The Art of Electronics , third edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Intemann, K., 2021, “Feminist Perspectives on Values in Science,” in S. Crasnow and L. Intemann (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Feminist Philosophy of Science , New York: Routledge, pp. 201–15.
Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 1962, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, reprinted,1996.
Latour, B., 1999, “Circulating Reference: Sampling the Soil in the Amazon Forest,” in Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 24–79.
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S., 1979, Laboratory Life, The Construction of Scientific Facts , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Laymon, R., 1988, “The Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Appraisal of Theories,” in A. Donovan, L. Laudan, and R. Laudan (eds.), Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change , Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 245–266.
Leonelli, S., 2009, “On the Locality of Data and Claims about Phenomena,” Philosophy of Science , 76(5): 737–49.
Leonelli, S., and N. Tempini (eds.), 2020, Data Journeys in the Sciences , Cham: Springer.
Lipton, P., 1991, Inference to the Best Explanation , London: Routledge.
Lloyd, E.A., 1993, “Pre-theoretical Assumptions In Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality,” Philosophical Studies , 69: 139–153.
–––, 2012, “The Role of ‘Complex’ Empiricism in the Debates about Satellite Data and Climate Models,”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A), 43(2): 390–401.
Longino, H., 1979, “Evidence and Hypothesis: An Analysis of Evidential Relations,” Philosophy of Science , 46(1): 35–56.
–––, 2020, “Afterward:Data in Transit,” in S. Leonelli and N. Tempini (eds.), Data Journeys in the Sciences , Cham: Springer, pp. 391–400.
Lupyan, G., 2015, “Cognitive Penetrability of Perception in the Age of Prediction – Predictive Systems are Penetrable Systems,” Review of Philosophical Psychology , 6(4): 547–569. doi:10.1007/s13164-015-0253-4
Mill, J. S., 1872, System of Logic , London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.
Norton, J., 2003, “A Material Theory of Induction,” Philosophy of Science , 70(4): 647–70.
–––, 2021, The Material Theory of Induction , http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/material_theory/Material_Induction_March_14_2021.pdf .
Nyquist, H., 1928, “Thermal Agitation of Electric Charge in Conductors,” Physical Review , 32(1): 110–13.
O’Connor, C. and J. O. Weatherall, 2019, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread , New Haven: Yale University Press.
Olesko, K.M. and Holmes, F.L., 1994, “Experiment, Quantification and Discovery: Helmholtz’s Early Physiological Researches, 1843–50,” in D. Cahan, (ed.), Hermann Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth Century Science , Berkeley: UC Press, pp. 50–108.
Osiander, A., 1543, “To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work,” in N. Copernicus On the Revolutions , E. Rosen (tr., ed.), Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978, p. XX.
Parker, W. S., 2016, “Reanalysis and Observation: What’s the Difference?,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society , 97(9): 1565–72.
–––, 2017, “Computer Simulation, Measurement, and Data Assimilation,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 68(1): 273–304.
Popper, K.R.,1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery , K.R. Popper (tr.), New York: Basic Books.
Rheinberger, H. J., 1997, Towards a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Roush, S., 2005, Tracking Truth , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rudner, R., 1953, “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments,” Philosophy of Science , 20(1): 1–6.
Schlick, M., 1935, “Facts and Propositions,” in Philosophy and Analysis , M. Macdonald (ed.), New York: Philosophical Library, 1954, pp. 232–236.
Schottky, W. H., 1918, “Über spontane Stromschwankungen in verschiedenen Elektrizitätsleitern,” Annalen der Physik , 362(23): 541–67.
Shapere, D., 1982, “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy,” Philosophy of Science , 49(4): 485–525.
Stanford, K., 1991, Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stephenson, F. R., L. V. Morrison, and C. Y. Hohenkerk, 2016, “Measurement of the Earth’s Rotation: 720 BC to AD 2015,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 472: 20160404.
Stuewer, R.H., 1985, “Artificial Disintegration and the Cambridge-Vienna Controversy,” in P. Achinstein and O. Hannaway (eds.), Observation, Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 239–307.
Suppe, F., 1977, in F. Suppe (ed.) The Structure of Scientific Theories , Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Van Fraassen, B.C, 1980, The Scientific Image , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ward, Z. B., 2021, “On Value-Laden Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A , 85: 54–62.
Whewell, W., 1858, Novum Organon Renovatum , Book II, in William Whewell Theory of Scientific Method , R.E. Butts (ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989, pp. 103–249.
Woodward, J. F., 2010, “Data, Phenomena, Signal, and Noise,” Philosophy of Science , 77(5): 792–803.
–––, 2011, “Data and Phenomena: A Restatement and Defense,” Synthese , 182(1): 165–79.
Wylie, A., 2020, “Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology: Triangulation and Traceability,” in S. Leonelli and N. Tempini (eds.), Data Journeys in the Sciences , Cham: Springer, pp. 285–301.
Yap, A., 2016, “Feminist Radical Empiricism, Values, and Evidence,” Hypatia , 31(1): 58–73.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Confirmation , by Franz Huber, in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
Transcript of Katzmiller v. Dover Area School District (on the teaching of intelligent design).

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Ask a Librarian

Research: Overview & Approaches

Getting Started with Undergraduate Research
Planning & Getting Started
Building Your Knowledge Base
Locating Sources
Reading Scholarly Articles
Creating a Literature Review
Productivity & Organizing Research
Scholarly and Professional Relationships

Introduction to Empirical Research

Databases for finding empirical research, guided search, google scholar, examples of empirical research, sources and further reading.

Interpretive Research
Action-Based Research
Creative & Experimental Approaches

Your Librarian

Introductory Video This video covers what empirical research is, what kinds of questions and methods empirical researchers use, and some tips for finding empirical research articles in your discipline.

Guided Search: Finding Empirical Research Articles This is a hands-on tutorial that will allow you to use your own search terms to find resources.

Study on radiation transfer in human skin for cosmetics
Long-Term Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Vestibular Schwannoma: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study
Emissions Impacts and Benefits of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Vehicle-to-Grid Services
Review of design considerations and technological challenges for successful development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
Endocrine disrupters and human health: could oestrogenic chemicals in body care cosmetics adversely affect breast cancer incidence in women?

<< Previous: Scholarly and Professional Relationships
Next: Interpretive Research >>
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2024 4:11 PM
URL: https://guides.lib.purdue.edu/research_approaches

Penn State University Libraries

Empirical research in the social sciences and education.

What is Empirical Research and How to Read It
Finding Empirical Research in Library Databases
Designing Empirical Research
Ethics, Cultural Responsiveness, and Anti-Racism in Research
Citing, Writing, and Presenting Your Work

Contact the Librarian at your campus for more help!

Introduction: What is Empirical Research?

Empirical research is based on observed and measured phenomena and derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief.

How do you know if a study is empirical? Read the subheadings within the article, book, or report and look for a description of the research "methodology." Ask yourself: Could I recreate this study and test these results?

Key characteristics to look for:

Specific research questions to be answered
Definition of the population, behavior, or phenomena being studied
Description of the process used to study this population or phenomena, including selection criteria, controls, and testing instruments (such as surveys)

Another hint: some scholarly journals use a specific layout, called the "IMRaD" format, to communicate empirical research findings. Such articles typically have 4 components:

Introduction : sometimes called "literature review" -- what is currently known about the topic -- usually includes a theoretical framework and/or discussion of previous studies
Methodology: sometimes called "research design" -- how to recreate the study -- usually describes the population, research process, and analytical tools used in the present study
Results : sometimes called "findings" -- what was learned through the study -- usually appears as statistical data or as substantial quotations from research participants
Discussion : sometimes called "conclusion" or "implications" -- why the study is important -- usually describes how the research results influence professional practices or future studies

Reading and Evaluating Scholarly Materials

Reading research can be a challenge. However, the tutorials and videos below can help. They explain what scholarly articles look like, how to read them, and how to evaluate them:

CRAAP Checklist A frequently-used checklist that helps you examine the currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose of an information source.
IF I APPLY A newer model of evaluating sources which encourages you to think about your own biases as a reader, as well as concerns about the item you are reading.
Credo Video: How to Read Scholarly Materials (4 min.)
Credo Tutorial: How to Read Scholarly Materials
Credo Tutorial: Evaluating Information
Credo Video: Evaluating Statistics (4 min.)
Next: Finding Empirical Research in Library Databases >>
Last Updated: Feb 18, 2024 8:33 PM
URL: https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/emp

Get science-backed answers as you write with Paperpal's Research feature

Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics

Empirical research relies on gathering and studying real, observable data. The term ’empirical’ comes from the Greek word ’empeirikos,’ meaning ‘experienced’ or ‘based on experience.’ So, what is empirical research? Instead of using theories or opinions, empirical research depends on real data obtained through direct observation or experimentation.

Why Empirical Research?

Empirical research plays a key role in checking or improving current theories, providing a systematic way to grow knowledge across different areas. By focusing on objectivity, it makes research findings more trustworthy, which is critical in research fields like medicine, psychology, economics, and public policy. In the end, the strengths of empirical research lie in deepening our awareness of the world and improving our capacity to tackle problems wisely. 1,2

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

There are two main types of empirical research methods – qualitative and quantitative. 3,4 Qualitative research delves into intricate phenomena using non-numerical data, such as interviews or observations, to offer in-depth insights into human experiences. In contrast, quantitative research analyzes numerical data to spot patterns and relationships, aiming for objectivity and the ability to apply findings to a wider context.

Steps for Conducting Empirical Research

When it comes to conducting research, there are some simple steps that researchers can follow. 5,6

Create Research Hypothesis: Clearly state the specific question you want to answer or the hypothesis you want to explore in your study.
Examine Existing Research: Read and study existing research on your topic. Understand what’s already known, identify existing gaps in knowledge, and create a framework for your own study based on what you learn.
Plan Your Study: Decide how you’ll conduct your research—whether through qualitative methods, quantitative methods, or a mix of both. Choose suitable techniques like surveys, experiments, interviews, or observations based on your research question.
Develop Research Instruments: Create reliable research collection tools, such as surveys or questionnaires, to help you collate data. Ensure these tools are well-designed and effective.
Collect Data: Systematically gather the information you need for your research according to your study design and protocols using the chosen research methods.
Data Analysis: Analyze the collected data using suitable statistical or qualitative methods that align with your research question and objectives.
Interpret Results: Understand and explain the significance of your analysis results in the context of your research question or hypothesis.
Draw Conclusions: Summarize your findings and draw conclusions based on the evidence. Acknowledge any study limitations and propose areas for future research.

Advantages of Empirical Research

Empirical research is valuable because it stays objective by relying on observable data, lessening the impact of personal biases. This objectivity boosts the trustworthiness of research findings. Also, using precise quantitative methods helps in accurate measurement and statistical analysis. This precision ensures researchers can draw reliable conclusions from numerical data, strengthening our understanding of the studied phenomena. 4

Disadvantages of Empirical Research

While empirical research has notable strengths, researchers must also be aware of its limitations when deciding on the right research method for their study.4 One significant drawback of empirical research is the risk of oversimplifying complex phenomena, especially when relying solely on quantitative methods. These methods may struggle to capture the richness and nuances present in certain social, cultural, or psychological contexts. Another challenge is the potential for confounding variables or biases during data collection, impacting result accuracy.

Tips for Empirical Writing

In empirical research, the writing is usually done in research papers, articles, or reports. The empirical writing follows a set structure, and each section has a specific role. Here are some tips for your empirical writing. 7

Define Your Objectives: When you write about your research, start by making your goals clear. Explain what you want to find out or prove in a simple and direct way. This helps guide your research and lets others know what you have set out to achieve.
Be Specific in Your Literature Review: In the part where you talk about what others have studied before you, focus on research that directly relates to your research question. Keep it short and pick studies that help explain why your research is important. This part sets the stage for your work.
Explain Your Methods Clearly : When you talk about how you did your research (Methods), explain it in detail. Be clear about your research plan, who took part, and what you did; this helps others understand and trust your study. Also, be honest about any rules you follow to make sure your study is ethical and reproducible.
Share Your Results Clearly : After doing your empirical research, share what you found in a simple way. Use tables or graphs to make it easier for your audience to understand your research. Also, talk about any numbers you found and clearly state if they are important or not. Ensure that others can see why your research findings matter.
Talk About What Your Findings Mean: In the part where you discuss your research results, explain what they mean. Discuss why your findings are important and if they connect to what others have found before. Be honest about any problems with your study and suggest ideas for more research in the future.
Wrap It Up Clearly: Finally, end your empirical research paper by summarizing what you found and why it’s important. Remind everyone why your study matters. Keep your writing clear and fix any mistakes before you share it. Ask someone you trust to read it and give you feedback before you finish.

References:

Empirical Research in the Social Sciences and Education, Penn State University Libraries. Available online at https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/emp
How to conduct empirical research, Emerald Publishing. Available online at https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/research-methods/conduct-empirical-research
Empirical Research: Quantitative & Qualitative, Arrendale Library, Piedmont University. Available online at https://library.piedmont.edu/empirical-research
Bouchrika, I. What Is Empirical Research? Definition, Types & Samples in 2024. Research.com, January 2024. Available online at https://research.com/research/what-is-empirical-research
Quantitative and Empirical Research vs. Other Types of Research. California State University, April 2023. Available online at https://libguides.csusb.edu/quantitative
Empirical Research, Definitions, Methods, Types and Examples, Studocu.com website. Available online at https://www.studocu.com/row/document/uganda-christian-university/it-research-methods/emperical-research-definitions-methods-types-and-examples/55333816
Writing an Empirical Paper in APA Style. Psychology Writing Center, University of Washington. Available online at https://psych.uw.edu/storage/writing_center/APApaper.pdf

Paperpal is an AI writing assistant that help academics write better, faster with real-time suggestions for in-depth language and grammar correction. Trained on millions of research manuscripts enhanced by professional academic editors, Paperpal delivers human precision at machine speed.

Try it for free or upgrade to  Paperpal Prime , which unlocks unlimited access to premium features like academic translation, paraphrasing, contextual synonyms, consistency checks and more. It’s like always having a professional academic editor by your side! Go beyond limitations and experience the future of academic writing.  Get Paperpal Prime now at just US$19 a month!

Ethics in Science: Importance, Principles & Guidelines

Presenting research data effectively through tables and figures, you may also like, how to write a successful book chapter for..., academic editing: how to self-edit academic text with..., 4 ways paperpal encourages responsible writing with ai, what are scholarly sources and where can you..., how to write a hypothesis types and examples , measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, what is academic writing: tips for students, why traditional editorial process needs an upgrade, paperpal’s new ai research finder empowers authors to..., what is hedging in academic writing .

University of Memphis Libraries
Research Guides
Empirical Research: Defining, Identifying, & Finding

Introduction

Image attribution.

Defining Empirical Research
Database Tools
Search Terms
Image Descriptions

Get Help at McWherter Library

Ned R. McWherter Library 3785 Norriswood Ave., Memphis, TN 38152

Ask a Librarian

Hours / Events

Sometimes you may be asked to find and use empirical research. If you aren't sure what is and is not empirical research, this might seem scary. We are here to help.

Note: while this guide is designed to help you understand and find empirical research, you should always default to your instructor's definition if they provide one and direct any specific questions about whether a source fits that definition to your instructor.

Guide Overview

In this guide, you will learn:

The definition and characteristics of empirical research.
How to identify the characteristics of empirical research quickly when reading an article.
Ways to search more quickly for empirical research.

Photo by Pixabay from Pexels

Next: Defining Empirical Research >>
Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 11:25 AM
URL: https://libguides.memphis.edu/empirical-research

Foundations
Write Paper

Search form

Experiments
Anthropology
Self-Esteem
Social Anxiety

Empirical Research

Empirical research is the process of testing a hypothesis using experimentation, direct or indirect observation and experience.

This article is a part of the guide:

Definition of Research
Research Basics
What is Research?
Steps of the Scientific Method
Purpose of Research

Browse Full Outline

1 Research Basics
2.1 What is Research?
2.2 What is the Scientific Method?
2.3 Empirical Research
3.1 Definition of Research
3.2 Definition of the Scientific Method
3.3 Definition of Science
4 Steps of the Scientific Method
5 Scientific Elements
6 Aims of Research
7 Purpose of Research
8 Science Misconceptions

The word empirical describes any information gained by experience, observation, or experiment . One of the central tenets of the scientific method is that evidence must be empirical, i.e. based on evidence observable to the senses.

Philosophically, empiricism defines a way of gathering knowledge by direct observation and experience rather than through logic or reason alone (in other words, by rationality). In the scientific paradigm the term refers to the use of hypotheses that can be tested using observation and experiment. In other words, it is the practical application of experience via formalized experiments.

Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation, and can be either quantitative or qualitative.

Objectives of Empirical Research

Empirical research is informed by observation, but goes far beyond it. Observations alone are merely observations. What constitutes empirical research is the scientist’s ability to formally operationalize those observations using testable research questions.

In well-conducted research, observations about the natural world are cemented in a specific research question or hypothesis. The observer can make sense of this information by recording results quantitatively or qualitatively.

Techniques will vary according to the field, the context and the aim of the study. For example, qualitative methods are more appropriate for many social science questions and quantitative methods more appropriate for medicine or physics.

However, underlying all empirical research is the attempt to make observations and then answer well-defined questions via the acceptance or rejection of a hypothesis, according to those observations.

Empirical research can be thought of as a more structured way of asking a question – and testing it. Conjecture, opinion, rational argument or anything belonging to the metaphysical or abstract realm are also valid ways of finding knowledge. Empiricism, however, is grounded in the “real world” of the observations given by our senses.

Reasons for Using Empirical Research Methods

Science in general and empiricism specifically attempts to establish a body of knowledge about the natural world. The standards of empiricism exist to reduce any threats to the validity of results obtained by empirical experiments. For example, scientists take great care to remove bias, expectation and opinion from the matter in question and focus only on what can be empirically supported.

By continually grounding all enquiry in what can be repeatedly backed up with evidence, science advances human knowledge one testable hypothesis at a time. The standards of empirical research – falsifiability, reproducibility – mean that over time empirical research is self-correcting and cumulative.

Eventually, empirical evidence forms over-arching theories, which themselves can undergo change and refinement according to our questioning. Several types of designs have been used by researchers, depending on the phenomena they are interested in.

The Scientific Cycle

Empirical research is not the only way to obtain knowledge about the world, however. While many students of science believe that “empirical scientific methods” and “science” are basically the same thing, the truth is that empiricism is just one of many tools in a scientist’s inventory.

In practice, empirical methods are commonly used together with non-empirical methods, and qualitative and quantitative methods produce richer data when combined. The scientific method can be thought of as a cycle, consisting of the following stages:

Observation Observation involves collecting and organizing empirical data. For example, a biologist may notice that individual birds of the same species will not migrate some years, but will during other years. The biologist also notices that on the years they migrate, the birds appear to be bigger in size. He also knows that migration is physiologically very demanding on a bird.
Induction Induction is then used to form a hypothesis . It is the process of reaching a conclusion by considering whether a collection of broader premises supports a specific claim. For example, taking the above observations and what is already known in the field of migratory bird research, the biologist may ask a question: “is sufficiently high body weight associated with the choice to migrate each year?” He could assume that it is and stop there, but this is mere conjecture, and not science. Instead he finds a way to test his hypothesis. He devises an experiment where he tags and weighs a population of birds and watches to observe whether they migrate or not.
Deduction Deduct ion relies on logic and rationality to come to specific conclusions given general premises. Deduction allows a scientist to craft the internal logic of his experimental design. For example, the argument in the biologist’s experiment is: if high bird weight predicts migration, then I would expect to see those birds who I measure at higher weights to migrate, and those who do not to opt out of migration. If I don’t see that birds with higher weight migrate more often than those who don’t, I can conclude that bird weight and migration are not connected after all.”
Testing Test the hypothesis entails returning to empirical methods to put the hypothesis to the test. The biologist, after designing his experiment, conducting it and obtaining the results, now has to make sense of the data. Here, he can use statistical methods to determine the significance of any relationship he sees, and interpret his results. If he finds that almost every higher weight bird ends up migrating, he has found support (not proof) for his hypothesis that weight and migration are connected.
Evaluation An often-forgotten step of the research process is to reflect and appraise the process. Here, interpretations are offered and the results set within a broader context. Scientists are also encouraged to consider the limitations of their research and suggest avenues for others to pick up where they left off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

Psychology 101
Flags and Countries
Capitals and Countries

Explorable.com , Lyndsay T Wilson (Sep 21, 2009). Empirical Research. Retrieved May 08, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/empirical-research

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

What is the Scientific Method?

Empirical Evidence

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Identifying Empirical Research Articles

Identifying empirical articles.

Searching for Empirical Research Articles

What is Empirical Research?

An empirical research article reports the results of a study that uses data derived from actual observation or experimentation. Empirical research articles are examples of primary research. To learn more about the differences between primary and secondary research, see our related guide:

Primary and Secondary Sources

By the end of this guide, you will be able to:

Identify common elements of an empirical article
Use a variety of search strategies to search for empirical articles within the library collection

Look for the IMRaD layout in the article to help identify empirical research. Sometimes the sections will be labeled differently, but the content will be similar.

I ntroduction: why the article was written, research question or questions, hypothesis, literature review
M ethods: the overall research design and implementation, description of sample, instruments used, how the authors measured their experiment
R esults: output of the author's measurements, usually includes statistics of the author's findings
D iscussion: the author's interpretation and conclusions about the results, limitations of study, suggestions for further research

Parts of an Empirical Research Article

Parts of an empirical article.

The screenshots below identify the basic IMRaD structure of an empirical research article.

Introduction

The introduction contains a literature review and the study's research hypothesis.

The method section outlines the research design, participants, and measures used.

Results

The results section contains statistical data (charts, graphs, tables, etc.) and research participant quotes.

The discussion section includes impacts, limitations, future considerations, and research.

Learn the IMRaD Layout: How to Identify an Empirical Article

This short video overviews the IMRaD method for identifying empirical research.

Next: Searching for Empirical Research Articles >>
Last Updated: Nov 16, 2023 8:24 AM

CityU Home - CityU Catalog

Empirical Research: Introduction

Introduction
Find Empirical Articles
Business Research
General Studies Research
Safety & Emergency Services Research

Licensed under a Creative Commons License .

News & Events

Image with calendar to request a research appointment

Having trouble accessing library resources? Refer to our Tech Tips or contact CSU HelpDesk Support at 877-399-1063 or via chat in your myCSU Student Portal.

Empirical Research

Reports research based on experience, observation or experiment
Tests a hypothesis against real data
May use quantitative research methods that generate numerical data to establish causal relationships between variables
May use qualitative research methods that analyze behaviors, beliefs, feelings, or values

What does Empirical Research Look Like?

Empirical research studies will be found in peer reviewed , scholarly/academic journals. However, not all peer reviewed articles are empirical research studies.

Carefully look over articles to determine if they are empirical. This What Kind of Article Do I Need guide may prove helpful in clarifying the various types of articles available through the CSU Library. Below are other indications of an empirical article.

The abstract will mention a study, an observation, an analysis, or a number of participants or subjects.

Data is often collected through a methodology or method such as: from a survey or questionnaire, an assessment or system of measurement, or through participant interviews

As you search for empirical research studies, you will see most feature section headings like these:

Literature Review
Methodology

In addition, you will likely also see these types of articles feature more than one author and the article's length will be substantial, typically three or more pages.

Email and Telephone Availability:

Monday - Thursday: 8:00 am - 7:00 pm CST Friday: 8:00 am - 6:00 pm CST

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 1.877.268.8046
Live Chat Service is Available 24/7
Request a Research Appointment

Was this guide helpful?

Next: Find Empirical Articles >>
Last Updated: Apr 15, 2024 2:52 PM
URL: https://libguides.columbiasouthern.edu/empiricalresearch

Canvas | University | Ask a Librarian

Library Homepage
Arrendale Library

Empirical Research: Quantitative & Qualitative

Empirical Research

Introduction: What is Empirical Research?

Quantitative methods, qualitative methods.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative
Reference Works for Social Sciences Research
Contact Us!

Call us at 706-776-0111

Chat with a Librarian

Send Us Email

Library Hours

Empirical research is based on phenomena that can be observed and measured. Empirical research derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief.

Key characteristics of empirical research include:

Specific research questions to be answered;
Definitions of the population, behavior, or phenomena being studied;
Description of the methodology or research design used to study this population or phenomena, including selection criteria, controls, and testing instruments (such as surveys);
Two basic research processes or methods in empirical research: quantitative methods and qualitative methods (see the rest of the guide for more about these methods).

(based on the original from the Connelly LIbrary of LaSalle University)

Empirical Research: Qualitative vs. Quantitative

Learn about common types of journal articles that use APA Style, including empirical studies; meta-analyses; literature reviews; and replication, theoretical, and methodological articles.

Academic Writer

More about Academic Writer ...

Quantitative Research

A quantitative research project is characterized by having a population about which the researcher wants to draw conclusions, but it is not possible to collect data on the entire population.

For an observational study, it is necessary to select a proper, statistical random sample and to use methods of statistical inference to draw conclusions about the population.
For an experimental study, it is necessary to have a random assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups in order to use methods of statistical inference.

Statistical methods are used in all three stages of a quantitative research project.

For observational studies, the data are collected using statistical sampling theory. Then, the sample data are analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis. Finally, generalizations are made from the sample data to the entire population using statistical inference.

For experimental studies, the subjects are allocated to experimental and control group using randomizing methods. Then, the experimental data are analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis. Finally, just as for observational data, generalizations are made to a larger population.

Iversen, G. (2004). Quantitative research . In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social science research methods . (pp. 897-898). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Qualitative Research

What makes a work deserving of the label qualitative research is the demonstrable effort to produce richly and relevantly detailed descriptions and particularized interpretations of people and the social, linguistic, material, and other practices and events that shape and are shaped by them.

Qualitative research typically includes, but is not limited to, discerning the perspectives of these people, or what is often referred to as the actor’s point of view. Although both philosophically and methodologically a highly diverse entity, qualitative research is marked by certain defining imperatives that include its case (as opposed to its variable) orientation, sensitivity to cultural and historical context, and reflexivity.

In its many guises, qualitative research is a form of empirical inquiry that typically entails some form of purposive sampling for information-rich cases; in-depth interviews and open-ended interviews, lengthy participant/field observations, and/or document or artifact study; and techniques for analysis and interpretation of data that move beyond the data generated and their surface appearances.

Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative research . In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social science research methods . (pp. 893-894). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Next: Quantitative vs. Qualitative >>
Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 10:47 AM
URL: https://library.piedmont.edu/empirical-research
Ebooks & Online Video
New Materials
Renew Checkouts
Faculty Resources
Library Friends
Library Services
Our Mission
Library History
Ask a Librarian!
Making Citations
Working Online

Arrendale Library Piedmont University 706-776-0111

What is Empirical Research Study? [Examples & Method]

The bulk of human decisions relies on evidence, that is, what can be measured or proven as valid. In choosing between plausible alternatives, individuals are more likely to tilt towards the option that is proven to work, and this is the same approach adopted in empirical research.

In empirical research, the researcher arrives at outcomes by testing his or her empirical evidence using qualitative or quantitative methods of observation, as determined by the nature of the research. An empirical research study is set apart from other research approaches by its methodology and features hence; it is important for every researcher to know what constitutes this investigation method.

What is Empirical Research?

Empirical research is a type of research methodology that makes use of verifiable evidence in order to arrive at research outcomes. In other words, this type of research relies solely on evidence obtained through observation or scientific data collection methods.

Empirical research can be carried out using qualitative or quantitative observation methods , depending on the data sample, that is, quantifiable data or non-numerical data . Unlike theoretical research that depends on preconceived notions about the research variables, empirical research carries a scientific investigation to measure the experimental probability of the research variables

Characteristics of Empirical Research

Research Questions

An empirical research begins with a set of research questions that guide the investigation. In many cases, these research questions constitute the research hypothesis which is tested using qualitative and quantitative methods as dictated by the nature of the research.

In an empirical research study, the research questions are built around the core of the research, that is, the central issue which the research seeks to resolve. They also determine the course of the research by highlighting the specific objectives and aims of the systematic investigation.

Definition of the Research Variables

The research variables are clearly defined in terms of their population, types, characteristics, and behaviors. In other words, the data sample is clearly delimited and placed within the context of the research.

Description of the Research Methodology

An empirical research also clearly outlines the methods adopted in the systematic investigation. Here, the research process is described in detail including the selection criteria for the data sample, qualitative or quantitative research methods plus testing instruments.

An empirical research is usually divided into 4 parts which are the introduction, methodology, findings, and discussions. The introduction provides a background of the empirical study while the methodology describes the research design, processes, and tools for the systematic investigation.

The findings refer to the research outcomes and they can be outlined as statistical data or in the form of information obtained through the qualitative observation of research variables. The discussions highlight the significance of the study and its contributions to knowledge.

Uses of Empirical Research

Without any doubt, empirical research is one of the most useful methods of systematic investigation. It can be used for validating multiple research hypotheses in different fields including Law, Medicine, and Anthropology.

Empirical Research in Law : In Law, empirical research is used to study institutions, rules, procedures, and personnel of the law, with a view to understanding how they operate and what effects they have. It makes use of direct methods rather than secondary sources, and this helps you to arrive at more valid conclusions.
Empirical Research in Medicine : In medicine, empirical research is used to test and validate multiple hypotheses and increase human knowledge.
Empirical Research in Anthropology : In anthropology, empirical research is used as an evidence-based systematic method of inquiry into patterns of human behaviors and cultures. This helps to validate and advance human knowledge.

Discover how Extrapolation Powers statistical research: Definition, examples, types, and applications explained.

The Empirical Research Cycle

The empirical research cycle is a 5-phase cycle that outlines the systematic processes for conducting and empirical research. It was developed by Dutch psychologist, A.D. de Groot in the 1940s and it aligns 5 important stages that can be viewed as deductive approaches to empirical research.

In the empirical research methodological cycle, all processes are interconnected and none of the processes is more important than the other. This cycle clearly outlines the different phases involved in generating the research hypotheses and testing these hypotheses systematically using the empirical data.

Observation: This is the process of gathering empirical data for the research. At this stage, the researcher gathers relevant empirical data using qualitative or quantitative observation methods, and this goes ahead to inform the research hypotheses.
Induction: At this stage, the researcher makes use of inductive reasoning in order to arrive at a general probable research conclusion based on his or her observation. The researcher generates a general assumption that attempts to explain the empirical data and s/he goes on to observe the empirical data in line with this assumption.
Deduction: This is the deductive reasoning stage. This is where the researcher generates hypotheses by applying logic and rationality to his or her observation.
Testing: Here, the researcher puts the hypotheses to test using qualitative or quantitative research methods. In the testing stage, the researcher combines relevant instruments of systematic investigation with empirical methods in order to arrive at objective results that support or negate the research hypotheses.
Evaluation: The evaluation research is the final stage in an empirical research study. Here, the research outlines the empirical data, the research findings and the supporting arguments plus any challenges encountered during the research process.

This information is useful for further research.

Learn about qualitative data: uncover its types and examples here.

Examples of Empirical Research

An empirical research study can be carried out to determine if listening to happy music improves the mood of individuals. The researcher may need to conduct an experiment that involves exposing individuals to happy music to see if this improves their moods.

The findings from such an experiment will provide empirical evidence that confirms or refutes the hypotheses.

An empirical research study can also be carried out to determine the effects of a new drug on specific groups of people. The researcher may expose the research subjects to controlled quantities of the drug and observe research subjects to controlled quantities of the drug and observe the effects over a specific period of time to gather empirical data.
Another example of empirical research is measuring the levels of noise pollution found in an urban area to determine the average levels of sound exposure experienced by its inhabitants. Here, the researcher may have to administer questionnaires or carry out a survey in order to gather relevant data based on the experiences of the research subjects.
Empirical research can also be carried out to determine the relationship between seasonal migration and the body mass of flying birds. A researcher may need to observe the birds and carry out necessary observation and experimentation in order to arrive at objective outcomes that answer the research question.

Empirical Research Data Collection Methods

Empirical data can be gathered using qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Quantitative data collection methods are used for numerical data gathering while qualitative data collection processes are used to gather empirical data that cannot be quantified, that is, non-numerical data.

The following are common methods of gathering data in empirical research

Survey/ Questionnaire

A survey is a method of data gathering that is typically employed by researchers to gather large sets of data from a specific number of respondents with regards to a research subject. This method of data gathering is often used for quantitative data collection , although it can also be deployed during quantitative research.

A survey contains a set of questions that can range from close-ended to open-ended questions together with other question types that revolve around the research subject. A survey can be administered physically or with the use of online data-gathering platforms like Formplus.

Empirical data can also be collected by carrying out an experiment. An experiment is a controlled simulation in which one or more of the research variables is manipulated using a set of interconnected processes in order to confirm or refute the research hypotheses.

An experiment is a useful method of measuring causality; that is cause and effect between dependent and independent variables in a research environment. It is an integral data gathering method in an empirical research study because it involves testing calculated assumptions in order to arrive at the most valid data and research outcomes.

T he case study method is another common data gathering method in an empirical research study. It involves sifting through and analyzing relevant cases and real-life experiences about the research subject or research variables in order to discover in-depth information that can serve as empirical data.

Observation

The observational method is a method of qualitative data gathering that requires the researcher to study the behaviors of research variables in their natural environments in order to gather relevant information that can serve as empirical data.

How to collect Empirical Research Data with Questionnaire

With Formplus, you can create a survey or questionnaire for collecting empirical data from your research subjects. Formplus also offers multiple form sharing options so that you can share your empirical research survey to research subjects via a variety of methods.

Here is a step-by-step guide of how to collect empirical data using Formplus:

Sign in to Formplus

In the Formplus builder, you can easily create your empirical research survey by dragging and dropping preferred fields into your form. To access the Formplus builder, you will need to create an account on Formplus.

Once you do this, sign in to your account and click on “Create Form ” to begin.

Unlock the secrets of Quantitative Data: Click here to explore the types and examples.

Edit Form Title

Click on the field provided to input your form title, for example, “Empirical Research Survey”.

Edit Form

Click on the edit button to edit the form.
Add Fields: Drag and drop preferred form fields into your form in the Formplus builder inputs column. There are several field input options for survey forms in the Formplus builder.
Edit fields
Click on “Save”
Preview form.

Customize Form

Formplus allows you to add unique features to your empirical research survey form. You can personalize your survey using various customization options. Here, you can add background images, your organization’s logo, and use other styling options. You can also change the display theme of your form.

Share your Form Link with Respondents

Formplus offers multiple form sharing options which enables you to easily share your empirical research survey form with respondents. You can use the direct social media sharing buttons to share your form link to your organization’s social media pages.

You can send out your survey form as email invitations to your research subjects too. If you wish, you can share your form’s QR code or embed it on your organization’s website for easy access.

Empirical vs Non-Empirical Research

Empirical and non-empirical research are common methods of systematic investigation employed by researchers. Unlike empirical research that tests hypotheses in order to arrive at valid research outcomes, non-empirical research theorizes the logical assumptions of research variables.

Definition: Empirical research is a research approach that makes use of evidence-based data while non-empirical research is a research approach that makes use of theoretical data.

Method: In empirical research, the researcher arrives at valid outcomes by mainly observing research variables, creating a hypothesis and experimenting on research variables to confirm or refute the hypothesis. In non-empirical research, the researcher relies on inductive and deductive reasoning to theorize logical assumptions about the research subjects.

The major difference between the research methodology of empirical and non-empirical research is while the assumptions are tested in empirical research, they are entirely theorized in non-empirical research.

Data Sample: Empirical research makes use of empirical data while non-empirical research does not make use of empirical data. Empirical data refers to information that is gathered through experience or observation.

Unlike empirical research, theoretical or non-empirical research does not rely on data gathered through evidence. Rather, it works with logical assumptions and beliefs about the research subject.

Data Collection Methods : Empirical research makes use of quantitative and qualitative data gathering methods which may include surveys, experiments, and methods of observation. This helps the researcher to gather empirical data, that is, data backed by evidence.

Non-empirical research, on the other hand, does not make use of qualitative or quantitative methods of data collection . Instead, the researcher gathers relevant data through critical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Advantages of Empirical Research

Empirical research is flexible. In this type of systematic investigation, the researcher can adjust the research methodology including the data sample size, data gathering methods plus the data analysis methods as necessitated by the research process.
It helps the research to understand how the research outcomes can be influenced by different research environments.
Empirical research study helps the researcher to develop relevant analytical and observation skills that can be useful in dynamic research contexts.
This type of research approach allows the researcher to control multiple research variables in order to arrive at the most relevant research outcomes.
Empirical research is widely considered as one of the most authentic and competent research designs.
It improves the internal validity of traditional research using a variety of experiments and research observation methods.

Disadvantages of Empirical Research

An empirical research study is time-consuming because the researcher needs to gather the empirical data from multiple resources which typically takes a lot of time.
It is not a cost-effective research approach. Usually, this method of research incurs a lot of cost because of the monetary demands of the field research.
It may be difficult to gather the needed empirical data sample because of the multiple data gathering methods employed in an empirical research study.
It may be difficult to gain access to some communities and firms during the data gathering process and this can affect the validity of the research.
The report from an empirical research study is intensive and can be very lengthy in nature.

Conclusion

Empirical research is an important method of systematic investigation because it gives the researcher the opportunity to test the validity of different assumptions, in the form of hypotheses, before arriving at any findings. Hence, it is a more research approach.

There are different quantitative and qualitative methods of data gathering employed during an empirical research study based on the purpose of the research which include surveys, experiments, and various observatory methods. Surveys are one of the most common methods or empirical data collection and they can be administered online or physically.

You can use Formplus to create and administer your online empirical research survey. Formplus allows you to create survey forms that you can share with target respondents in order to obtain valuable feedback about your research context, question or subject.

In the form builder, you can add different fields to your survey form and you can also modify these form fields to suit your research process. Sign up to Formplus to access the form builder and start creating powerful online empirical research survey forms.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

advantage of empirical research
disadvantages of empirical resarch
empirical research characteristics
empirical research cycle
empirical research method
example of empirical research
uses of empirical research
busayo.longe

Research Questions: Definitions, Types + [Examples]

A comprehensive guide on the definition of research questions, types, importance, good and bad research question examples

Recall Bias: Definition, Types, Examples & Mitigation

This article will discuss the impact of recall bias in studies and the best ways to avoid them during research.

Extrapolation in Statistical Research: Definition, Examples, Types, Applications

In this article we’ll look at the different types and characteristics of extrapolation, plus how it contrasts to interpolation.

What is Pure or Basic Research? + [Examples & Method]

Simple guide on pure or basic research, its methods, characteristics, advantages, and examples in science, medicine, education and psychology

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Observational Studies: Empirical Evidence of Their Contributions to Comparative Effectiveness Reviews

Research White Papers

Investigators: Jennifer C Seida , MPH, Donna M Dryden , PhD, and Lisa Hartling , PhD.

Affiliations

Structured Abstract

Introduction:.

Although observational studies are increasingly being used to address gaps in the evidence from randomized controlled trials, the effect they have on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews is unclear. Our objectives were to evaluate: (1) how often observational studies are searched for and included in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs); (2) the rationale for including or excluding observational studies; (3) how data from observational studies are appraised, analyzed, and graded; and (4) the impact of observational studies on the strength of evidence (SOE) and overall conclusions.

In June 2013 we searched the Effective Health Care Program Web site for final reports of CERs. One reviewer screened titles, abstracts, and Key Questions for CERs that examined a therapeutic or preventive intervention provided at an individual patient level. We selected a 25 percent sample of the most recent eligible CERs. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. We extracted the number and type of study designs included and the approaches to quality assessment, presentation of results, and grading the SOE. We identified all comparisons for which both trials and observational studies provided data, and evaluated whether observational studies had an impact on the SOE and conclusions. We applied an RCT filter to the searches to determine the impact on search yield.

From 129 records we identified 88 eligible CERs. Our final sample included 23 CERs published since November 2012. EPCs searched for observational studies in 20 CERs, of which 18 included a median of 11 (interquartile range: 2, 31) studies. Sixteen CERs incorporated the observational studies in their SOE assessments. We identified 78 comparisons from 12 CERs for which both trials and observational studies provided evidence; observational studies had an impact on SOE and conclusions for 19 (24 percent) of the comparisons. There was considerable diversity across the CERs regarding decisions to include or exclude observational studies, the study designs considered, and the approaches used to appraise, synthesize, and grade the SOE. Applying an RCT filter reduced the search yield by 65 percent (range 39 to 92 percent).

Discussion:

Reporting guidelines and methods guidance relating to observational studies are needed in order to ensure clarity and consistency across Evidence-based Practice Centers. It was not always clear that the inclusion of observational studies added value in light of the additional resources needed to search for, select, appraise, and analyze such studies.

Collapse All
Introduction
Limitations
Summary and Conclusion
Appendix A Data Extraction Form
Appendix B Included Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
Appendix C Search Yields With and Without an RCT Filter

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1 , Contract No. 290-2013-00013-I. Prepared by: Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Suggested citation:

Seida JC, Dryden DM, Hartling L. Observational Studies: Empirical Evidence of Their Contributions to Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Methods White Paper (Prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2013-00013-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC002-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. December 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm .

This report is based on research conducted by the Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2013-00013-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www .ahrq.gov

Cite this Page Seida JC, Dryden DM, Hartling L. Observational Studies: Empirical Evidence of Their Contributions to Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Dec.
PDF version of this title (264K)

Other titles in these collections

AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care
Health Services/Technology Assessment Texts (HSTAT)

Related information

NLM Catalog Related NLM Catalog Entries

Recent Activity

Observational Studies: Empirical Evidence of Their Contributions to Comparative ... Observational Studies: Empirical Evidence of Their Contributions to Comparative Effectiveness Reviews

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

IMAGES

What Is Empirical Research?
What is empirical research: Methods, types & examples
Observational Research
Empirical Research: Definition and Examples
Empirical evidence: A definition
Definition, Types and Examples of Empirical Research

VIDEO

Empirical data Meaning
Qualitative Research & Observation Method by Prof. Raksha Singh, IGNTU, Amarkantak
Exploring Facts: A Brief Journey Through Knowledge #Empirical, #Historical #Scientific #Statistical
Exploring Facts: A Brief Journey Through Knowledge #Empirical, #Historical #Scientific #Statistical
Exploring Facts: A Brief Journey Through Knowledge #Empirical, #Historical #Scientific #Statistical
Exploring Facts: A Brief Journey Through Knowledge #Empirical, #Historical #Scientific #Statistical

COMMENTS

Empirical research
A scientist gathering data for her research. Empirical research is research using empirical evidence. It is also a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empiricism values some research more than other kinds. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed ...
Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples
Steps for conducting empirical research. Since empirical research is based on observation and capturing experiences, it is important to plan the steps to conduct the experiment and how to analyse it. This will enable the researcher to resolve problems or obstacles which can occur during the experiment. Step #1: Define the purpose of the research
Empirical evidence
Empirical evidence, information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation that may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person's belief in a given proposition. ... observation (informing ethnographic research design), textual analysis (involving the ...
What is Empirical Research? Definition, Methods, Examples
Empirical research is characterized by several key features: Observation and Measurement: It involves the systematic observation or measurement of variables, events, or behaviors. Data Collection: Researchers collect data through various methods, such as surveys, experiments, observations, or interviews.
Empirical evidence: A definition
"Empirical" means "based on observation or experience," according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the ...
Theory and Observation in Science
Additionally, precisely because empirical results are not pure observation reports, their appraisal across communities of inquirers operating with different background assumptions can require significant epistemic work. ... Scientists conceive of empirical research, collect and analyze the relevant data, and then bring the results to bear on ...
Empirical Research: Defining, Identifying, & Finding
Empirical research methodologies can be described as quantitative, qualitative, or a mix of both (usually called mixed-methods). Ruane (2016) (UofM login required) gets at the basic differences in approach between quantitative and qualitative research: Quantitative research -- an approach to documenting reality that relies heavily on numbers both for the measurement of variables and for data ...
Empirical Research
In empirical research, knowledge is developed from factual experience as opposed to theoretical assumption and usually involved the use of data sources like datasets or fieldwork, but can also be based on observations within a laboratory setting. Testing hypothesis or answering definite questions is a primary feature of empirical research.
Empirical Research
Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing is a particularly accessible approach to both qualitative and quantitative empirical research methods, helping novices appreciate the value of empirical research in writing while easing their fears about the research process. This comprehensive book covers research methods ranging from traditional ...
The Empirical Research Paper: A Guide
Empirical research employs rigorous methods to test out theories and hypotheses (expectations) using real data instead of hunches or anecdotal observations. This type of research is easily identifiable as it always consists of the following pieces of information: This Guide will serve to offer a basic understanding on how to approach empirical ...
Empirical Research in the Social Sciences and Education
Another hint: some scholarly journals use a specific layout, called the "IMRaD" format, to communicate empirical research findings. Such articles typically have 4 components: Introduction : sometimes called "literature review" -- what is currently known about the topic -- usually includes a theoretical framework and/or discussion of previous ...
Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics
Tips for Empirical Writing. In empirical research, the writing is usually done in research papers, articles, or reports. The empirical writing follows a set structure, and each section has a specific role. Here are some tips for your empirical writing. 7. Define Your Objectives: When you write about your research, start by making your goals clear.
Empirical Research: Defining, Identifying, & Finding
If you aren't sure what is and is not empirical research, this might seem scary. We are here to help. Note: while this guide is designed to help you understand and find empirical research, you should always default to your instructor's definition if they provide one and direct any specific questions about whether a source fits that definition ...
Empirical Research
Empirical Research. Empirical research is the process of testing a hypothesis using experimentation, direct or indirect observation and experience. The word empirical describes any information gained by experience, observation, or experiment. One of the central tenets of the scientific method is that evidence must be empirical, i.e. based on ...
What Is Empirical Research? Definition, Types & Samples in 2024
These are the five phases of the empirical research cycle: 1. Observation. During this initial phase, an idea is triggered for presenting a hypothesis. It involves the use of observation to gather empirical data. For example: 2. Induction. Inductive reasoning is then conducted to frame a general conclusion from the data gathered through ...
Conduct empirical research
Share this content. Empirical research is research that is based on observation and measurement of phenomena, as directly experienced by the researcher. The data thus gathered may be compared against a theory or hypothesis, but the results are still based on real life experience. The data gathered is all primary data, although secondary data ...
City University of Seattle Library: Identifying Empirical Research
An empirical research article reports the results of a study that uses data derived from actual observation or experimentation. Empirical research articles are examples of primary research. ... Look for the IMRaD layout in the article to help identify empirical research. Sometimes the sections will be labeled differently, but the content will ...
Empirical Research: Introduction
Empirical Research. Reports research based on experience, observation or experiment. Tests a hypothesis against real data. May use quantitative research methods that generate numerical data to establish causal relationships between variables. May use qualitative research methods that analyze behaviors, beliefs, feelings, or values.
Empirical Research: Quantitative & Qualitative
Empirical research is based on phenomena that can be observed and measured. Empirical research derives knowledge from actual experience rather than from theory or belief. ... For an observational study, it is necessary to select a proper, statistical random sample and to use methods of statistical inference to draw conclusions about the population.
Empirical evidence
Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.. There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be ...
What is Empirical Research Study? [Examples & Method]
Empirical research is a type of research methodology that makes use of verifiable evidence in order to arrive at research outcomes. In other words, this type of research relies solely on evidence obtained through observation or scientific data collection methods. Empirical research can be carried out using qualitative or quantitative ...
Observational Studies: Empirical Evidence of Their Contributions to
Although observational studies are increasingly being used to address gaps in the evidence from randomized controlled trials, the effect they have on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews is unclear. Our objectives were to evaluate: (1) how often observational studies are searched for and included in comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs); (2) the rationale for including or ...
Scientific method
The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation.Scientific inquiry includes creating a hypothesis through inductive reasoning ...

Empirical Research: Definition, Methods, Types and Examples

Empirical research: Definition

Types and methodologies of empirical research

MORE LIKE THIS

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

Top 10 Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Top 20 Employee Engagement Software Solutions

15 Best Customer Experience Software of 2024

Other categories

What is Empirical Research? Definition, Methods, Examples

What is Empirical Research?

Characteristics of Empirical Research

Importance of Empirical Research

How to Conduct Empirical Research?

1. Select a Research Topic

2. Formulate Research Questions

3. Review Existing Literature

4. Define Variables

Empirical Research Design

Types of Empirical Research

Experimental Design

Observational Design

Survey Design

Case Study Design

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research

Data Collection for Empirical Research

Sampling Methods

Data Collection Instruments

Data Collection Procedures

Ethical Considerations

Empirical Research Data Analysis

Data Preparation

Descriptive Statistics

Inferential Statistics

Qualitative Data Analysis

Data Visualization

How to Report Empirical Research Results?

1. Write the Research Paper

2. Create Visuals and Tables

3. Interpret Findings

Examples of Empirical Research

Social Sciences

Environmental Science

Business and Economics

Conclusion for Empirical Research

How to Collect Data for Empirical Research?

Wait, there's more

Empirical evidence: A definition

The scientific method

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Most Popular

Bibliography

Theory and Observation in Science

1. Introduction

2. Observation and data

3. Theory and value ladenness

4. The epistemic value of empirical evidence

Support SEP

Research: Overview & Approaches

Introduction to Empirical Research

Your Librarian

Penn State University Libraries

Contact the Librarian at your campus for more help!

Introduction: What is Empirical Research?

Reading and Evaluating Scholarly Materials

Empirical Research: A Comprehensive Guide for Academics

Why Empirical Research?

Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Steps for Conducting Empirical Research

Advantages of Empirical Research

Disadvantages of Empirical Research

Tips for Empirical Writing

Related Reads:

Ethics in Science: Importance, Principles & Guidelines

Introduction

Get Help at McWherter Library

Guide Overview

Search form

Empirical Research

This article is a part of the guide: