Comparative Models of Inquiry

  • Mario Coccia
  • Igor Benati
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1199-1

Synonyms

Definition

Models of inquiry are methods of organized and systematic scientific process used by scholars for controlled investigations and experiments to logically and efficiently solve theoretical and practical problems, and generate whenever possible discoveries and/or science advances. Comparative is a concept that derives from the verb “to compare” (Latin comparare, derivation of par = equal, with prefix com-) and is a systematic comparison, in this case, of the models of inquiry.

Introduction

Methods of scientific inquiry are important patterns to understand scientific problems and explain causes of natural phenomena and social issues (cf., Coccia and Benati 2018; Coccia 2017a, b). They generally aim to obtain new knowledge in the form of testable explanations, conjectures, and generalizations that scientists can use to explain and predict phenomena in nature and society (Kaplan 2009). The main elements of the methods of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Benati I, Coccia M (2017) General trends and causes of high compensation of government managers in the OECD countries. Int J Public Adm.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1318399. ISSN: 1532-4265
  2. Chamberlin TC (1897) The method of multiple working hypotheses. J Geol 5(8):837–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coccia M (2017) A theory of general causes of violent crime: homicides, income inequality and deficiencies of the heat hypothesis and of the model of CLASH. Aggress Violent Behav 37:190–200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coccia M, Benati I (2018) Comparative studies, Chapter No. 1197-1. In: Farazmand A (ed) Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance –section bureaucracy. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1197–1. ISBN: 978-3-319-31816-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coccia M, Wang L (2016) Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(8):2057–2061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coccia M (2017a) Sources of technological innovation: Radical and incremental innovation problem-driven to support competitive advantage of firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 29(9):1048–1061.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2016.1268682
  7. Coccia M (2017b) The source and nature of general purpose technologies for supporting next K-waves: Global leadership and the case study of the U.S. Navy’s Mobile User Objective System. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 116(March): 331–339.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.05.019
  8. Collins J, Hall E, Paul L (2004) Causation and counterfactuals. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Dewey J (1938) Logic: the theory of inquiry. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanson NR (1958) Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Hempel CG (1965) Aspects of scientific explanation. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson JG (1990) Method of multiple working hypotheses: a chimera. Geology 18:44–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaplan A (2009) The conduct of inquiry. Methodology for behavioural science. Transaction publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis D (1973) Counterfactuals. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Oppenheimer R (1955) Analogy in science. Presented at the sixty-third annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 4 SeptGoogle Scholar
  16. Peirce CS (1992) The essential Peirce (two volumes edited by the Peirce edition project). Indiana University Press, Bloomington, pp 1992–1999Google Scholar
  17. Popper C (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Railsback LB (2004) T. C. Chamberlin’s “Method of multiple working hypotheses”: an encapsulation for modern students. Houston Geol Soc Bull 47(2):68–69Google Scholar
  19. Rothchild I (2006) Induction, deduction, and the scientific method, an eclectic overview of the practice of science. Society for the Study of Reproduction, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith JE (1978) Purpose and thought. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Thagard P (1988) Computational philosophy of science. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Watson J (2002) Strategy. An introduction to game theory. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. West Churchman C, Ackoff RL (1950) Methods of inquiry: an introduction to philosophy and scientific method. Educational Publishers, St. LouisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR – National Research Council of ItalyTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA