Thanks for sharing this chapter — I’ve carefully gone through the text you uploaded.
Below
is a detailed, heading-wise summary of the chapter, written in clear, simplified language
while retaining all key points and explanations. I’ve also structured it so you can easily
expand any section into a long-answer format for exams.
---
📖 Detailed, Heading-Wise Summary of the Chapter
---
📌 Introduction: Learning Economics through Research
The best way to understand economics is not by just reading or listening, but by actively
doing economic research.
Research helps students engage with the material in a deeper, more meaningful way than
other assignments.
Many faculty mistakenly assume students already know how to write discipline-specific
research papers, but this is often not the case.
---
📌 Why This Book Exists
The book aims to guide undergraduate economics students through the research process,
from selecting a question to writing a complete report.
Research is inherently difficult, messy, and unpredictable — progress often comes in spurts
and setbacks.
Even experienced researchers feel confused at times, but with persistence, one can
succeed.
---
📌 Difference Between Research Methods and Methodology
Research methods are tools used in research (like online search skills, statistical techniques,
critical reading and writing).
Research methodology is how those tools are combined logically and systematically to
produce valid and reliable research outcomes.
---
📌 Research as the Creation of Knowledge
A common but mistaken belief is that research simply means searching for knowledge, as if
facts were just waiting to be collected.
In reality:
Facts are data — raw information.
Knowledge is facts with meaning — created through expert interpretation.
Example: In a lab report, the experiment results are facts, but the discussion section (where
results are analyzed) is knowledge.
---
📌 Research as Argument Construction
Scholars create knowledge by constructing arguments, which are points of view supported
by reasons and evidence.
Knowledge in any discipline grows through a continuous dialogue between competing
arguments.
Example: The ongoing debate between Monetarists and Keynesians in macroeconomics.
Over time, weaker arguments get rejected while stronger ones are refined and improved.
---
📌 Can Undergraduates Do Original Research?
Many students think research must be groundbreaking to be valuable. This is a myth.
Most research offers modest, incremental contributions.
Even major breakthroughs build upon earlier work by lesser-known scholars.
Undergraduate research projects are valid and meaningful, especially when they:
Confirm existing theories using new data or situations.
Extend or test theories in different contexts.
---
📌 Types of Research: Discovery vs. Confirmation
Discovery Research: Creating new knowledge, ideas, or theories.
Confirmation Research: Testing the validity or applicability of existing knowledge/theories in
new conditions.
Undergraduate research often falls in the confirmation category, which is still valuable
because it broadens the applicability of existing knowledge.
---
📌 How Are Research Arguments Evaluated?
Good research depends on valid arguments.
An argument’s validity is judged by:
1. Logic — Does it make sense?
2. Evidence — Is it supported by facts and observations?
3. Assumptions — Are the assumptions reasonable or flawed?
4. Critical Thinking — Are competing arguments evaluated fairly and critically?
---
📌 Development of Critical Thinking
First-year students often think dualistically (only one correct answer).
As they advance, students realize multiple viewpoints can exist (multiplicity).
However, multiplicity doesn’t mean all viewpoints are equally correct. Some arguments are
better supported by evidence and logic.
---
📌 How Critical Thinking Works in Research
When evaluating an argument, scholars ask:
What are the reasons behind the argument?
Does it logically make sense?
Are the assumptions sound?
How critical are those assumptions?
Is there empirical evidence supporting the conclusion?
How persuasive is the argument in light of this reasoning and evidence?
Flawed arguments are rejected. Stronger ones remain provisionally accepted — meaning
they hold until better evidence or reasoning disproves them.
---
📌 Arguments Are Never Permanently Proven
Like in sports, a champion holds the title only until someone better comes along.
Similarly, arguments in research are never absolutely proven — they’re accepted until
disproved.
The strength of an argument builds up like a rope made of threads — each successful test
strengthens it, while each failure weakens it.
---
📌 What Happens When Multiple Strong Arguments Remain?
Scholars may choose between them using disciplinary norms such as:
Efficiency — Does it maximize overall benefit (e.g., free trade increasing GDP)?
Equity — Does it ensure fairness or protect vulnerable groups (e.g., using tariffs to save
domestic jobs)?
---
📌 Range of Economic Methodologies
Even within economics, there’s no single agreed-upon research methodology. There’s a
range of views:
1. Hausman (1989):
Believes real-world complexities make precise experiments in economics impossible.
Advocates using inductive reasoning to establish general economic laws (like utility
maximization).
Then, deducing specific implications for real-world situations.
2. Blaug (1992):
Argues for falsification — actively attempting to refute hypotheses rather than endlessly
refining them.
Believes in rigorous empirical testing and discarding theories that fail tests.
3. McCloskey (1998):
Claims economists rely on literary tools (like introspection, case studies, metaphors) as well
as formal logic and evidence.
Raises the question of whether purely non-scientific reasoning can still convince other
scholars.
---
📌 Conclusion
This chapter introduces students to the nature of research in economics as a dynamic, often
challenging, but rewarding process.
Research is about creating knowledge by building, testing, and refining arguments, not just
gathering facts.
Critical thinking, sound logic, and empirical evidence are essential for valid research.
There’s a diversity of views about economic methodology, reflecting the complexity of
studying human societies.
---
Would you like me to also draft long-answer exam-style questions and detailed model
answers based on this chapter, like we did before? I’d be happy to help!
Fantastic — let’s create a full set of detailed, long-answer exam questions and
comprehensive model answers based on this chapter’s summary. These answers will be
well-structured, thorough, and exam-ready, so you can revise and write confidently.
---
📖 Long-Answer Questions & Detailed Model Answers
---
Q1. Explain how research is considered the creation of knowledge. How does it differ from
the mere collection of facts? Illustrate with examples.
📌 Detailed Answer:
Research is much more than simply collecting facts or information. It is essentially the
creation of knowledge — a process where facts are interpreted, analyzed, and structured
into meaningful conclusions that advance understanding in a particular discipline.
Difference Between Facts and Knowledge:
Facts are raw data, observations, or events.
Knowledge is facts combined with interpretation — it’s what experts believe to be true based
on evidence and reasoning.
Example: In a chemistry experiment:
The numerical readings of temperature and volume are facts.
The researcher’s explanation of why a chemical reaction behaves in a certain way under
those conditions is knowledge.
In Economics: Simply collecting data on unemployment rates is factual. Interpreting trends,
identifying causes, and predicting future behavior based on theories and evidence creates
knowledge.
Research as Argument Construction:
Scholars create knowledge by constructing arguments — positions supported by reasons
and evidence.
Knowledge grows through a dialogue between competing arguments.
Over time, weak arguments are discarded, and stronger ones are refined, improving the
field’s understanding.
Conclusion: Thus, research is not about discovering knowledge as if it already exists like fruit
on a tree, but about creating knowledge through critical reasoning, evidence, and
argumentation.
---
Q2. Can undergraduate students contribute to original research? Discuss with reasoning and
examples.
📌 Detailed Answer:
A common misconception is that only experienced scholars can perform original research,
and undergraduates are limited to learning existing theories. However, this belief is
unfounded for several reasons:
1️⃣ Most Research is Incremental:
Significant breakthroughs like the theory of relativity are rare.
Most research involves modest, incremental advances.
Undergraduates can meaningfully test existing theories in new contexts, times, or with
different data.
2️⃣ Research Builds on Prior Work:
Even famous theories by economists like Alfred Marshall or Keynes were based on ideas
developed by earlier scholars.
Undergraduate projects often involve confirming existing theories or applying them to new
situations.
3️⃣ Institutional Support Exists:
Many undergraduate economics programs now require research projects.
Dedicated journals and conferences publish undergraduate research, attesting to its
legitimacy.
Example: An undergraduate might test the Phillips Curve (the relationship between inflation
and unemployment) using recent data from their country — a valid research contribution.
Conclusion: Undergraduates, with proper guidance, can indeed perform serious, legitimate
research that broadens the applicability of economic knowledge.
---
Q3. What are the types of research? Differentiate between discovery research and
confirmation research with examples.
📌 Detailed Answer:
According to Ethridge (1995), research can be categorized into two main types:
1️⃣ Discovery Research:
Involves formulating, finding, or creating new knowledge or information.
Often leads to the development of new theories or concepts.
Example:
A study developing a new model to explain consumer behavior in digital marketplaces.
2️⃣ Confirmation Research:
Tests the validity and reliability of existing knowledge or theories.
Involves applying established theories to new data or situations to see if they hold.
Example:
Using current economic data to test whether Keynesian fiscal policy tools still effectively
combat recessions.
Key Differences:
Conclusion: Both types are valuable — discovery advances knowledge frontiers, while
confirmation ensures existing knowledge remains relevant and reliable.
---
Q4. How are research arguments evaluated in economics? Explain the role of logic,
evidence, assumptions, and critical thinking.
📌 Detailed Answer:
Research arguments are judged by their validity — whether they logically and reliably
support their conclusions. This involves several criteria:
1️⃣ Logic:
The reasoning behind the argument must make sense.
Does the argument follow a coherent chain of thought?
2️⃣ Evidence:
Conclusions must be supported by facts, data, and observations.
Empirical evidence is used to confirm or refute the argument.
3️⃣ Assumptions:
Every argument is based on explicit or implicit assumptions.
These assumptions should be reasonable, relevant, and non-contradictory.
Scholars ask:
Are assumptions realistic?
Would different assumptions change the conclusion?
4️⃣ Critical Thinking:
Scholars critically examine arguments for flaws in reasoning, unsupported claims, or faulty
assumptions.
Good research involves comparing multiple arguments and judging them by evidence and
logic.
Example:
In a debate on free trade vs. protectionism:
Free trade is supported by arguments about efficiency and higher national output.
Protectionism is supported by arguments about fairness and protecting domestic industries.
Critical evaluation involves checking which side has stronger evidence and assumptions,
depending on what one prioritizes — efficiency or equity.
Conclusion: Arguments are provisionally accepted if they withstand scrutiny; they are
rejected when found flawed. No argument is ever proven permanently — it remains
accepted until better reasoning or evidence overturns it.
---
Q5. Discuss the range of methodological views in economics as presented by Hausman,
Blaug, and McCloskey.
📌 Detailed Answer:
Economists differ in their views about how economic research should be conducted,
reflecting the complexity of studying human behavior and economies.
1️⃣ Hausman (1989):
Argues that due to the social sciences' complexity and lack of controlled experiments,
empirical proof is often elusive.
Advocates inductive reasoning:
Identify basic psychological or technological laws (like utility maximization).
Deduce economic implications from these general laws for specific cases.
2️⃣ Blaug (1992):
Supports falsificationism:
Theories should be subjected to rigorous empirical testing.
Scholars should actively try to refute hypotheses rather than endlessly refining them.
Faulty theories should be rejected quickly to make room for better ones.
3️⃣ McCloskey (1998):
Argues that economists also rely heavily on literary and rhetorical tools like:
Introspection
Case studies
Metaphors
Questions whether economists can truly persuade others without relying on logic and
empirical evidence.
Comparison Table:
Conclusion: There’s no single “correct” methodology in economics. The discipline benefits
from a diverse range of methodological perspectives, reflecting the complexity of human
societies.
---
Would you like me to prepare short notes, quick revision tables, or possible case-study
questions based on this chapter as well? I’d be happy to draft those for you too.
