Comparing Biology and International Relations Disciplines
Biology and International Relations are two different disciplines, Biology discipline falls under the category of natural sciences while International Relations can be categorized under the social sciences. The research sources in the two disciplines differ greatly beginning with the definitions of primary and secondary sources in both disciplines. In Biology, primary resources are preferred as compared to the secondary sources because they include original research experiments and findings. The primary sources are referred to be the documents that are written by researchers and they must include details of the methodology, data, the results and the conclusions (Sudhakar, 2015). The secondary resources in Biology are referred to be those documents that compare, summarize and this mainly include literature reviews and they are mainly used when one is trying to find background information on a topic.
Secondary sources are the most preferred in International Relations discipline, because the scholars are forced to rely on historical documentaries fond in archives (Guillaume, 2017). International Relations is explored through paradigms that help to give theories a reference point in a wider conceptual framework. International Relations is explored through positivism and post-positivism paradigms and they help to inform on the kind of methodology to be used (Guillaume, 2017).
When it comes to research methods, International Relations uses qualitative research methods, though there are times when mixed methods are followed. Biology discipline on the other hand follows the quantitative research method and other times may follow the mixed method. Hypotheses in Biology disciplines are adjusted based on the experiments conducted, an element that does not happen in the International Relation discipline where the hypotheses is either supported or not supported after the data analysis (Sudhakar, 2015). Both disciplines utilize experimental research methodology, though it is much more common with the biological disciplines. The experimental research has two phases, the first phase is known as the exploratory phase and it is where the researcher decides on the research questions and the second phase is the evaluation phase and it is where the research questions are answered (Sudhakar, 2015).
The arguments that are made in International Relations are based on historical concepts and not much explanations or interpretations are required. Most of the concepts are explained using plain language that is easy for everyone to understand. On the other hand, Biology disciplines use analytical data that needs to be interpreted to make it easily understandable. Most of the scientific data uses formulas that are not familiar to every individual that is reading the articles, therefore an explanation need to be made in order for everyone to understand the research.
The analysis process used in International Relations is subjective in nature, in that the data is based on personal opinions and the point of view of the researchers. The fact that secondary resources are used means that the scholars have to rely on the point of view of the historical documents, they do not have a chance to conduct their own research and make their own observations (Sudhakar, 2015). On the other hand the analysis process used in Biology disciplines is objective in nature meaning that it is based on facts. The data that is acquired through observations is what helps to come up with the final verdict of a research (Sudhakar, 2015). A biology researcher needs to give clear facts derived from the study to prove his or her point in order for it to be valid.
References
Guillaume, X. (2017). Routledge handbook of International political sociology. London:
Routledge.
Sudhakar, Goparaju. (2015). Scientific Research Methodology Vs. Social Science Research
Methodology. MTC Global Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship. 3. 36-40.
