Course Introduction

    It is human nature to be curious about and therefore attempt to explain phenomenon that we observe around us -- a process in which people engaged in long before the physical or social sciences were formally developed.  In the most basic approach to understanding, we can use our “common sense” to help understand some of the more complex interactions that we encounter.  However, these everyday observations are haphazard, careless, unsystematic, and by current definitions – non-scientific.  On the other hand, scientific inquiry is very specific, objective (it tires to be), well focused, and systematic.  The main difference between our “common sense” and scientific approach methods in explaining phenomenon is that by using the latter, at least in theory, another researcher can reproduce the same results obtained in previous research. 

    So why should this replication of research results matter?  Think for a minute about the difference in these two approaches the next time you go to a doctor and are prescribed a specific medication to fix what ails you.  Would you feel comfortable knowing that the medicine being prescribed was researched, tested, and approved by folks who sat around and used their “common sense” understanding on how medication in general works in the human body?  Or, would you feel more assured in knowing that the specific medication was researched, tested, and approved under very controlled conditions that the results achieved in one test were replicated time and time again, and that the medication was found to be effective for a certain percentage of people? 

    Research decisions (e.g., adoption of a new method for reducing the diffusion of influenza) impact people, objects, and events.  Incomplete or even incorrect explanations can lead to poor if not disastrous results.  For this reason, the scientific method of testing is preferred.  Why?  In short, the scientific method prescribes a specific protocol of experimentation procedures that are conducted on the basis of controlled experimentation on a representative sample of a target population and the findings are extrapolated to a larger more general population. 

    While the field of geography does not usually have the same weighty life and death consequences as, for example in the medical community, there are important consequences for conducting proper research in geography.  For example, geographers are often employed to optimally locate a suitable site for a new fire station.  In this case, the location is an important life and death issue for those residents who would be served by that station.  On the other hand, geographers use quantitative techniques to model and subsequently predict how life threatening diseases will spread.  The nature of the diffusion of the disease can help health officials plan for prevention or respond to areas already inflicted in an efficient manner.  This course will introduce you to the foundations of quantitative and qualitative techniques, why they are important, and how to select the appropriate technique for a given application.