From the light of the above subject, there are enough prospects to prove the fact that, attaining the height of carrying out a perfect research is a mere mirage and not a reality. This is so because research is a process of investigating collected information on any given topic or discipline.
Knowledge in varied subjects is far from an uncanny reality; therefore, there is still room for accommodation of new inventions and discoveries. Paradigms keep changing too in every discipline. These are all indicators that knowledge is not static but transient as it keeps on changing. A perfect treatise cannot be subject to the whims of newly found truths. Research is subject to translated human weaknesses such as biases. This affects the direct output of the results carried out in any research work, and research underpinned by human errors cannot thus be perfect per se. Research processes always have some given degree of errors, such as measurements carried out, methods used and excreta and this takes the research work off from accuracy.
Nature is packed with puzzles, mysteries and knowledge on it discovered through consistent attempts and trials, aimed at unraveling its miracles. In addition, its name shades light that there has to be errors, inaccuracies and inadequacies as a component of research. It is, therefore, imperfect in all its processes. The main essence of research is imperfection; then we cannot make it perfect but rather, only bolster or make its quality and quantity better. Moreover, theories develop again and again subject to rigorous tests striving to prove their relevance. Research is only a careful process of investigation or of carrying out an inquiry through a newly attained body of knowledge. Thus, cannot be perfect because human beings are undoubtedly limited.
For probability sampling research in social research, all aspects of samplings are inaccurate to a given degree. An excellent example is a simple random where the researcher picks his sample in a probable manner. If he assumes that the individual samples bear homogenous traits across the whole population, then he may fail in reflecting the true and the exact nature of the specimens under study. Another scenario is the stratified sampling that splits the population into homogeneous subgroups, followed by picking a random sample from each group. Another case is systematic, random sampling that takes counts of units in the population, then decides on the needed size of the samples for study. Moreover, there is the cluster random sampling that divides the population into different clusters. It then samples the clusters randomly and finally takes measurement of all sampled clusters. Finally, there is the multistage sampling that is a total combination of the above sample techniques to enhance the accuracy of the research findings. The inherent nature of imperfection and errors in any research process is shown by the above scenarios.
Similarly, this is reflected in basic BAT Research, where Gregory Mendel expanded knowledge in genetics and forms of heredity by studying pea plants. Later in the 20th century T.H Morgan, in his studies, incorporated higher forms of life. This led to the reintroduction of the Double Helix Structure of DNA in middle school classes, yet still up to 1950s DNA had not been well determined. It was James Watson and Frank Crick who later found the structure of DNA. Therefore, research has made proof of the truth that researchers are infallible and research work is far off perfection per se.
In conclusion, steps used in carrying out research have a distinct degree of flaws and researchers are subject to operational errors therefore doing a perfect research is a farce.
Deepti Korwar. “There is No Hope of Doing Perfect Research (Griffiths, 1998, P97). Do You Agree ?” scienceray.com. scienceray, n.p. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.
Sincerewriter. “Doing Perfect Research. Is This Possible.” Bukisa.com. Bukisa, n.p. Web. 16 Dec. 2010.