This write up is concerned with science and technology research with a bias on education. The following definition is that given by Haimatadlers (1970) the definition seems more enlightening because he said research as an “Activity of solving problems which leads to new knowledge using methods of inquiry which are currently accepted as adequate by scholars in the field”.
On the other, Johnson (1977) was concerned with experimental research and described it as “a systematic and objective analysis and recording of controlled observation that may lead to the development of generalization, principles or theories resulting in prediction and ultimately control of events”.
Obstacles to research include:
(i) Superstition (ii) Nature of the society (iii) Adverse personal factors (iv) Lack of equipment and material (v) Government policy (vi) Lack of publicity
But advantages of research are enormous as explained below, research is a key to cultural development (Best, 1970). It reduces man's ignorance and lead him to better ways of doing things. While these assertions are largely true in the Western World, the evidence available shows that research, particularly in science and technology education in Nigeria has had minimal impact on the economic, ideological and cultural life of the people. For the science teacher, whose primary research concern with the study of his student's idiosyncrasies and devising of suitable instructional materials and methods for improved lesson delivery, the number of research possibilities in science education is unlimited. In general, the very small number of research scientists and technologists in Nigeria and in Africa contrast sharply with the relative large numbers in Europe and America.
Technology in context is the science of industrial arts. It is the systematic application of various branches of knowledge to practical tasks. Science assumes greater practical value to mankind in technology. The complementarity of science and technology is well documented (Hurd, 1969; Ikoku, 1989 and Oraifo 1990). Hence the summary given by Mitchell (1977) of their application does not only underpin the complementarily concept that vividly highlights their profound importance to mankind. Science and technology have provided mankind with many benefits; improved health, longer lives and relief from pain; shorter working days under safer and easier condition. More and better food, clothes and housing greater opportunities for education, entertainment and travel (Mitchell 1977).
Science has as its object of study the natural world and scientists strive to explain the facts of nature. The next problem is to examine how the scientists goes about finding facts and establishing explanations of them. It is an approach which every scientist r researcher seeking to extend the bounds of knowledge (Scientia) or simply to improve the quality of a product or event tends to follow. This is the scientific method. It is an approach which has several approaches. It is flexible and adaptable to different situations and dispositions of the researcher. Thus scientific methodology appears to be a common path to investigations in science and technology today.
When a scientists is at work he is not likely to gather facts by casually observing the world around him. He may start by casual observation, but facts obtained in this manner rarely dhow the relationships necessary for powerful explanation. Such an explanation requires precise and reliable observations. Casual observations is likely to be contaminated by many extraneous factors.
Aristotle a great scientist, established many of his scientific laws on the basis of casual observation. One of his great laws was that heavy things fall faster than light ones. This generalization, which ad much observation to support it, was acceptable as a fact for almost 2000 years. Anyone knows that rocks are heavier than feathers and that they fall faster. Infact, feathers don't even fall; they float. One problem with Aristotle's law is that falling bodies are affected by many things. In a very famous demonstration Galileo went to the top of the Learning Tower of Pisa, and before a crowd simultaneously let a heavy and light ball fall. To everyone's (except Galileo's) surprise, the balls stayed next to each other during the fall and landed together. By setting up an artificial situation, Galileo provided data that allowed him to establish an important natural law.
A paradox within science is that artificial or controlled situations help scientist understand the natural world. In natural setting, many aspects of any two events differ form each other, the scientists set up an artificial situations to make different events similar to one another in many ways consider the example of falling bodies. Many events influence their fall - the impetus with which they start falling, the things that divert their fall, their shape, the amount of air they displace as well as possibly their weight.
Also, the difference in their rates of fall may be slight if two things fall at different times from different heights, an observer may not know which actually fall faster. Even if he does, he may not know whether the height form which they started to fall made any difference. Galileo contrived the time, place and condition of the fall, only by doing so could he discover certain laws. By dropping two balls of different weight form a great height at the same time, he controlled the height of fall, the time of the fall, the shape of the objects, and the materials of which they were made. By letting object fall along distance at the same time, he could determine even slight differences of speed. When they fall together, he could easily conclude that weight perse did not influence the speed of falling objects. Observations in natural, or uncontrolled, settings never led to this conclusion.
