Since the dawn of civilization, people knew reality. Many methods have been developed over time for this purpose, among which observation and experiment occupy a special place.

How do they differ, how to use them and what are they used for?

Observation

Only observation provided primary data about the object or subject under study. These were facts collected by observers at different times. Observation could be spontaneous, or it could be purposeful.

There were no hypotheses, scientific assumptions that needed to be confirmed. Observation is used only to collect information, which is sometimes collected bit by bit. Facts are always distinguished by reliability, simplicity of presentation.

Thus it is created the original characteristics of the subject, describes its reactions to interaction with the environment in natural conditions.

Experiment

This method is used when it is necessary to prove or disprove a hypothesis. It is divided into theoretical and practical parts. During the experiment, the subject, object, subject under study is removed from the environment of habitual habitat and subjected to various influences.

Conditions may change, but they are always manageable. The object's reactions are seriously studied and recorded.

• the relevance of your topic;
• research problem;
• object of study;
• goal;
• tasks;
• implementation of the results;
• hypothesis;
• significance.

The experiment is always divided into several stages. It is carried out in the form of a scientific project.

Preparation for the experiment

Since this is a large and lengthy scientific event, it is advisable to hold preparatory stage, which includes:

1. Organization and implementation of the project.
2. Identification of the algorithm for organizing and implementing the project, following it (drawing up a “passport”, where the name of the experiment, data about the leader, researchers, research topic, methods, hypothesis, terms are entered).
3. Description of conclusions.

Start

Work begins from the study of scientific papers on the chosen topic. Diagnostics, scientific intelligence is being carried out, which will help determine how disclosed this topic at the current moment in time.

Works where the chosen object of research is mentioned are determined. The volume of disclosure of the chosen topic is investigated, as far as it is covered in science and literature.

Theory

Before the experiment topic, hypothesis, confirmation and refutation are fixed hypotheses by other scientific researchers. Concepts are described, definitions are given, assumptions are made.

The theoretical part is very important, as it is the necessary base. When the topic in the theory is revealed, the hypothesis is made, the experiments begin.

Experience

This is practical component experiment. A series of experiments is carried out, which is a purposeful action. When the experiment is realized, the hypothesis is confirmed or refuted. Sometimes special equipment is required.

Experiments are the creation of certain, controlled conditions for the test object, the study of its reactions.

Experience is designed to confirm the hypothesis in practice, and the experiment reinforces it.

Differences between observation and experiment

Observation is considered a method of cognition when an object is examined in vivo without affecting it. An experiment is a method of cognition when the subject under test is immersed in a specially created environment where its reactions are controlled. This makes it possible to confirm or disprove a scientific assumption.

Observation may be a component experiment, its part, especially at the initial stage. But the experiment will never be part of the observation, since the zone of its influence is much wider.

In addition, observation does not require conclusions, it merely states the facts. At the end of the experiment, conclusions are necessarily formulated, which are based on the results of the experiments.

Differences between observation and experiment are quite significant:

• When interacting with the environment, the observer avoids interference, the experimenter actively interacts with it, modifies it.
• The conditions for conducting observations are always natural, and artificially created during experiments.
• Special equipment is needed for experiments, but not for the observer.
• Purpose differences. Observation produces new information, experiments confirm or refute the hypothesis put forward speculatively.
• The environment during observations is always open, natural, and during experiments it is closed, artificial.

The experiment appeared much later than the observation.

What is the difference between experiment and observation? and got the best answer

Answer from Denis Odessa[active]
It differs from observation by active interaction with the object under study. Usually, an experiment is carried out as part of a scientific study and serves to test a hypothesis, establish causal relationships between phenomena.

Answer from Vasily Khaminov[guru]
when experimenting, you subject an object to some kind of test)) And observations are just observing it in natural conditions))

Answer from Daria Shevchuk[active]
observation is a passive way of knowing, and experience is an active way.

Answer from Vinera Ovechkin[newbie]
Observation is the perception of natural objects, and experiment is observation in specially created and controlled conditions. That is, the difference is that Observation all depends on nature, while Experiment there everything needs to be done by yourself

Answer from Dima Kuznetsov[guru]
you can watch the experiment O_O

Answer from _BE`Z analoga_ I`[newbie]
Scientific observation (N.) is the perception of objects and phenomena of reality, carried out with the aim of their knowledge. In N.'s act, one can single out:
1) object;
2) subject;
3) funds;
4) conditions;
5) a system of knowledge, on the basis of which the goal of N. is set and its results are interpreted.
All these components should be taken into account when reporting N.'s results so that any other observer can repeat it. The most important requirement for scientific N. is the observance of intersubjectivity. It implies that N. can be repeated by each observer with the same result. Only in this case the result of N. will be included in science. Therefore, eg. , observations of UFOs or various parapsychic phenomena that do not satisfy the requirement of intersubjectivity still remain outside of science.
N. are subdivided into direct and indirect. With direct N., the scientist observes the chosen object itself. However, this is not always possible. Eg. , objects of quantum mechanics or many objects of astronomy cannot be observed directly. We can judge the properties of such objects only on the basis of their interaction with other objects. This kind of N. is called indirect, it is based on the assumption of a certain regular connection between the properties of objects that are not directly observed and the observed manifestations of these properties and contains inference about the properties of an unobservable object based on the observed effect of its action. It should be noted that a sharp boundary cannot be drawn between direct and indirect N.. In modern science, indirect N. are becoming more widespread as the number and sophistication of the instruments used in N. increases, and the scope of scientific research expands. The observed object affects the device, and the scientist directly observes only the result of the interaction of the object with the device.
Experiment (E.) is a direct material impact on a real object or the conditions surrounding it, produced with the aim of knowing this object.
The following elements are usually distinguished in E.:
1) purpose;
2) the object of experimentation;
3) the conditions in which the object is located or in which it is placed;
4) E. means;
5) material impact on the object.
Each of these elements can be used as the basis for the classification of electrons; they can be divided into physical, chemical, biological, etc., depending on the differences in the objects of experimentation. One of the simplest classifications is based on differences in the goals of E.: for example. , establishment of k.-l. patterns or discovery of facts. E., conducted for this purpose, are called "search". The result of search E. is new information about the area under study. However, most often the experiment is carried out in order to test some hypothesis or theory. Such E. is called "verification". It is clear that it is impossible to draw a sharp line between these two types of E. The same E. can be used to test a hypothesis and at the same time provide unexpected information about the objects under study. In the same way, the result of search E. can force us to abandon the accepted hypothesis or, on the contrary, give an empirical justification to our theoretical reasoning. In modern science, the same E. more and more often serves different purposes.
E. is always called upon to answer a particular question. But for a question to be meaningful and allow a definite answer, it must be based on prior knowledge of the area under study. It is theory that provides this knowledge, and it is the theory that raises the question for the sake of answering which E. is posed. Therefore, E. cannot bring the correct result without theory. Initially, the question is formulated in the language of theory, that is, in theoretical terms denoting abstract, idealized objects. In order for E. to answer the question of theory, this question must be reformulated in empirical terms, the meanings of which are sensually perceived objects. It should, however, be emphasized that, by implementing N. and E., we go beyond purely

Answer from Vladimir Sudin[guru]
Well, you know, HELLO!
Experiment - when you participate, and observation - NOTHING depends on you ....

Answer from hungry ghost[guru]
experiment - they make experiments, observation - they just observe, look (for example, how quickly a plant grows under the influence of some kind of fertilizer) ... experiment - practice, observation - theory

Scientific progress cannot be stopped, and the methods of study environment always improved and became more complex. Observations and experiments have been known for centuries, they are not only compared, but also identified. At the same time, there is a colossal difference between these concepts, which reflects the dynamics of the development of scientific thought.

Observations are studies in which the scientist maintains visual control over the object, allowing events to develop naturally and noting any changes. The result of the work is recorded on the storage medium for further analysis. Observations can be carried out without equipment, as well as with the use of special equipment.

Experiences- these are studies in which objects are placed in an artificially created or natural environment, and the scientist enters into active interaction with the object under study. In the process of experiments, the hypothesis built on the basis of the available theoretical data is confirmed or refuted.

Thus, observations do not involve active interaction with the object. The researcher distances himself from them, fixing the data obtained. This is the main goal - the collection of information, which will then be analyzed. During the experiment, the scientist enters into active interaction with the object. The purpose of this action is to test the hypothesis by confirming it an unlimited number of times.

Experience always has a plan; observation does not. To conduct an experiment, the researcher needs to recreate certain conditions. Observation is carried out in a natural environment, because interference in the life of the objects under study will mean the beginning of the experience. Both the first and the second methods of research are extremely useful for science; they do not contradict, but mutually complement each other.

1. Influence on the object. Observations do not involve active interaction with the object under study, while experiments are based on such intervention.
2. Use of special equipment. The study can be carried out with the naked eye; for the experiment, instruments and other scientific and technical means are always required.
3. Having a plan. Observation is carried out in the same way, the experiment is carried out according to a predetermined scenario.
4. Wednesday. Observation takes place in a natural environment, experience - in an artificial one.
5. Target. Observations are carried out to collect information for subsequent analysis, experiments - to confirm the hypothesis.

Definition of " experimental method' in the broad and narrow sense.

Experimental method in the broad sense of the word, on TV. Kornilova, is a change in any conditions when studying patterns in a particular area of ​​empirical reality.

Experimental method in the narrow sense of the word, on TV. Kornilova, is a test of scientific hypotheses of a causal (causal) nature based on the application of the standards of the experimental method.

The material of subsequent lectures will be devoted to answering the questions:

How do causal or causal hypotheses differ from other types of scientific hypotheses?

What characterizes an experiment as a system of norms for testing hypotheses?

1. The first method, which is usually introduced to students, is observation. In a number of sciences, this is the only empirical method. The classical observational science is astronomy. All its achievements are connected with the improvement of observation techniques. Observation is no less important in the behavioral sciences. The main results in ethology (the science of animal behavior) were obtained by observing the activity of animals in natural conditions. Observation is of great importance in physics, chemistry, and biology. Associated with observation is the so-called idiographic approach to the study of reality. Followers of this approach consider it the only possible one in the sciences that study unique objects, their behavior and history.

The idiographic approach requires observation and recording of single phenomena and events. It is widely used in historical disciplines. It is also important in psychology. Suffice it to recall such studies as the work of A.R. Luria "A Little Book of Great Memory" or Z. Freud's monograph "Leonardo da Vinci".

The idiographic approach is opposed nomothetic approach- a study that reveals the general laws of development, existence and interaction of objects.

Observation is a method on the basis of which one can implement either a nomothetic or an idiographic approach to the cognition of reality.

Observation is called purposeful, organized and fixed in a certain way the perception of the object under study. The results of fixing the observation data are called the description of the object's behavior.

Observation can be carried out directly or using technical means and methods of data recording (photo, audio and video equipment, observation cards, etc.). However, with the help of observation, one can detect only phenomena that occur in ordinary, "normal" conditions, and in order to know the essential properties of an object, it is necessary to create special conditions that are different from "normal". In addition, observation does not allow the researcher to purposefully vary the conditions of observation in accordance with the plan. The researcher cannot influence the object in order to know its characteristics hidden from direct perception.

The experiment allows you to identify causal relationships and answer the question: "What caused the change in behavior?". Surveillance is used when it is either impossible or inadmissible to interfere with the natural course of the process.

The main features of the observation method are:

Direct connection between the observer and the observed object;

Partiality (emotional coloring) of observation;

Difficulty (sometimes - impossibility) of repeated observation. In the natural sciences, the observer, as a rule, does not influence the process (phenomenon) being studied. In psychology, there is a problem of interaction between the observer and the observed. The presence of the researcher, if the subject knows that he is being observed, influences his behavior.

The limitations of the method of observation gave rise to other, more "perfect" methods. empirical research: experiment and measurement. Experiment and measurement make it possible to objectify the process, because they are carried out using special equipment and methods for objectively recording results in a quantitative form.

In contrast to observation and measurement, the experiment makes it possible to reproduce the phenomena of reality under specially created conditions and thereby reveal the cause-and-effect relationships between the phenomenon and the features of external conditions.

2. Measurement carried out both in natural and artificially created conditions. The difference between measurement and experiment is that the researcher does not seek to influence the object, but registers its characteristics as they are " objectively", regardless of the researcher and measurement technique(the latter is impossible for a number of sciences).

Unlike observation, measurement is carried out in the course of device-mediated interaction between the object and the measuring tool: the natural "behavior" of the object is not modified, but is controlled and recorded by the device. When measuring, it is impossible to identify cause-and-effect relationships, but it is possible to establish relationships between the levels of different parameters of objects. So the measurement turns into a correlation study.

Measurement is usually defined as some operation by which numbers are attributed to things. From a mathematical point of view, this "attribution" requires establishing a correspondence between the properties of numbers and the properties of things. From a methodological point of view, measurement is the registration of the state of an object (objects) using the states of another object (device). In this case, a function must be defined that links the states of the object and the device. The operation of assigning numbers to an object is secondary: we consider the numerical values ​​on the scale of the device not as indicators of the device, but as quantitative characteristics of the state of the object. Specialists in measurement theory have always paid more attention to the second procedure - interpretation of indicators, and not the first - a description of the interaction between the device and the object. Ideally, the interpretation operation should accurately describe the process of interaction between the object and the device, namely, the influence of the characteristics of the object on its readings.

So, measurement can be defined as an empirical method for identifying the properties or states of an object by organizing the interaction of an object with a measuring device, the state changes of which depend on the change in the state of the object . The device can be not only an object external to the researcher. For example, a ruler is a device for measuring length. The researcher himself can be a measuring instrument: "man is the measure of all things." Indeed, the foot, finger, forearm served as primary measures of length (foot, inch, elbow, etc.). It is the same with the "measurement" of human behavior: the behavior of another researcher can be assessed directly - then he turns into an expert. This kind of measurement is similar to observation. But there is an instrumental measurement, when a psychologist uses some kind of measuring technique, such as an intelligence test. Features of the measurement method in psychology will be considered later. Here we only note that in psychology, measurement is understood as two completely different processes.

1. A psychological measurement is an assessment of the magnitude of certain parameters of reality or an assessment of the similarities and differences of objects of reality, which is produced by the subject. Based on these assessments, the researcher "measures" the features of the subjective reality of the subject. In this sense, the "psychological dimension" is the task given to the subject.

2. Psychological measurement in the second meaning, which we will talk about in the future, is carried out by the researcher to assess the characteristics of the behavior of the subject. This is the task of the psychologist, not the subject.

Observation can conditionally be attributed to "passive" research methods. Indeed, by observing people's behavior or measuring the parameters of behavior, we are dealing with what nature provides us with "here-and-now". We cannot repeat the observation at a convenient time for us and reproduce the process at will. When measuring, we register only "external" properties;

often, in order to reveal "hidden" properties, it is necessary to "provoke" a change in an object or its behavior by constructing other external conditions.

3. To establish cause-and-effect relationships between phenomena and processes, experiment. The researcher tries to change the external conditions in such a way as to influence the object under study. In this case, the external impact on the object is considered a cause, and a change in the state (behavior) of the object is considered a consequence.

Experiment is an "active" method of studying reality. The researcher not only asks questions to nature, but also "forces" her to answer them. Observation and measurement allow answering the questions: "How? When? How?", and the experiment answers the question "Why?".

The experiment is called conducting research in specially created, controlled conditions in order to test the experimental hypothesis of a causal relationship. During the experiment, the researcher always observes the behavior of the object and measures its state. Observation and measurement procedures are part of the experiment process. In addition, the researcher influences the object in a planned and purposeful manner in order to measure its state. This operation is called experimental impact. The experiment is the main method of modern natural science and natural science-oriented psychology. In the scientific literature, the term "experiment" is used both for a holistic experimental study - a series of experimental samples carried out according to a single plan, and for a single experimental sample - experience.

Summing up, we note that observation is a direct, "passive" method of research. Measurement is a passive but indirect method. An experiment is an active and indirect method of studying reality.

Experiment is one of the main methods of scientific research. In general scientific terms experiment is defined as a special research method aimed at testing scientific and applied hypotheses, requiring strict logic of proof and based on reliable facts. In an experiment, some artificial (experimental) situation is always created, the causes of the phenomena being studied are singled out, the consequences of the actions of these causes are strictly controlled and evaluated, and the connections between the phenomena under study are clarified.

An experiment as a method of psychological research corresponds to the above definition, but has some specifics. Many authors, as V.N. Druzhinin, the “subjectivity of the object” of the study is singled out as a key feature of a psychological experiment. A person as an object of cognition has activity, consciousness, and thus can influence both the process of his study and its result. Therefore, special ethical requirements are imposed on the situation of an experiment in psychology, and the experiment itself can be considered as a process of communication between the experimenter and the subject.

The task of a psychological experiment is to make an internal mental phenomenon accessible to objective observation. At the same time, the phenomenon under study should be adequately and unambiguously manifested in external behavior, which is achieved through purposeful control of the conditions for its occurrence and course. S.L. Rubinstein wrote:

“The main task of a psychological experiment is to make available to objective external observation the essential features of the internal mental process. To do this, it is necessary, by varying the conditions for the flow of external activity, to find a situation in which the external flow of the act would adequately reflect its internal mental content. The task of experimental variation of conditions in a psychological experiment is, first of all, to reveal the correctness of a single psychological interpretation of an action or deed, excluding the possibility of all the others.

V.V. Nikandrov points out that the achievement main goal experiment - the maximum possible unambiguity in understanding the connections between the phenomena of internal mental life and their external manifestations - is achieved due to the following main characteristics of the experiment:

1) the initiative of the experimenter in the manifestation of psychological facts of interest to him;

2) the possibility of varying the conditions for the emergence and development of mental phenomena;

3) strict control and fixation of the conditions and the process of their occurrence;

4) isolation of some and emphasis on other factors that determine the studied phenomena, which makes it possible to identify the patterns of their existence;

5) the possibility of repeating the conditions of the experiment for multiple verification of the obtained scientific data and their accumulation;

6) variation of conditions for quantitative assessments of the revealed regularities.

Thus, a psychological experiment can be defined as a method in which the researcher himself causes phenomena of interest to him and changes the conditions for their occurrence in order to establish the causes of these phenomena and the patterns of their development. In addition, the obtained scientific facts can be repeatedly reproduced due to the controllability and strict control of conditions, which makes it possible to verify them, as well as the accumulation of quantitative data, on the basis of which one can judge the typicality or randomness of the studied phenomena.

A characteristic feature of the experiment as a special empirical research method is that it provides the possibility of active practical influence on the phenomena and processes under study. The researcher here is not limited to passive observation of phenomena, but consciously intervenes in the natural course of their course. He can do this either by isolating the phenomena under investigation from some external factors, or by changing the marginal conditions under which they occur. In both cases, the test results are accurately recorded and controlled.

Thus, the addition of a simple observation with an active influence on the process under study turns the experiment into a very effective method empirical research. This is facilitated primarily by a closer connection between experiment and theory. “Experimentation,” write I. Prigogine and I. Stengers, “means not only reliable observation of true facts, not only the search for empirical relationships between phenomena, but also implies a systematic interaction between theoretical concepts and observation” 1 .

The idea of ​​an experiment, the plan for conducting it, and the interpretation of the results depend much more on theory than the search for and interpretation of observational data.

At present, the experimental method is used not only in those experimental sciences that are traditionally referred to as exact natural sciences (mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc.), but also in the sciences that study wildlife, especially in those that use modern physical sciences. and chemical research methods (genetics, molecular biology, physiology, etc.).

In the science of modern times, the experimental method was first systematically applied, as we already know, by Galileo, although individual attempts to use it can be found even in antiquity and especially in the Middle Ages.

Galileo began his research by studying the simplest natural phenomena - the mechanical movement of bodies in space over time (the fall of bodies, the movement of bodies along an inclined plane and the trajectories of cannonballs). Despite the apparent simplicity of these phenomena, he faced a number of difficulties, both scientific and ideological. The latter were connected mainly with the tradition of a purely natural-philosophical, speculative approach to the study of natural phenomena, dating back to antiquity. Thus, in Aristotelian physics, it was recognized that motion occurs only when a force is applied to the body. This position was considered universally recognized in medieval science. Galileo first questioned it and suggested that the body will be at rest or in uniform and rectilinear motion until external forces act on it. Since the time of Newton, this statement has been formulated as the first law of mechanics.

It is noteworthy that to justify the principle of inertia, Galileo was the first to use mental an experiment that later found wide application as a heuristic research tool in various branches of modern natural science. Its essence lies in the analysis of the sequence of real observations and in the transition from them to some limiting situation in which the action of certain forces or factors is mentally excluded. For example, when observing mechanical motion, one can gradually reduce the effect of various forces on the body - friction, air resistance, etc. - and make sure that the path traveled by the body will increase accordingly. In the limit, one can exclude all such forces and come to the conclusion that the body under such ideal conditions will move indefinitely uniformly and rectilinearly, or remain at rest.

The greatest achievements of Galileo are connected, however, with the setting of real experiments and the mathematical processing of their results. He achieved outstanding results in the experimental study of the free fall of bodies. In his wonderful book "Conversations and Mathematical Proofs ..." Galileo describes in detail how he came to his discovery of the law of constant acceleration of freely falling bodies. At first, he, like his predecessors - Leonardo da Vinci, Benedetti and others, believed that the speed of a body falling is proportional to the distance traveled. However, later Galileo abandoned this assumption, since it leads to consequences that are not confirmed by experiment 1 . Therefore, he decided to test another hypothesis: the speed of a freely falling body is proportional to the time of fall. It followed the consequence that the path traveled by the body is proportional to half the square of the fall time, which was confirmed in a specially constructed experiment. Since at that time there were serious difficulties with measuring time, Galileo decided to slow down the process of falling. To do this, he rolled a bronze ball along an inclined chute with well-polished walls. By measuring the time it took for the ball to pass through various segments of the path, he was able to verify the correctness of his assumption about the constancy of the acceleration of freely falling bodies.

Modern science owes its enormous achievements to the experiment, since with its help it was possible to organically connect thought and experience, theory and practice. In fact, the experiment is a question addressed to nature. Scientists are convinced that nature answers the questions they correctly pose. Therefore, since the time of Galileo, the experiment has become the most important means of dialogue between man and nature, a way to penetrate into its deep secrets and a means of discovering the laws that govern the phenomena observed in the experiment.

• Prigozhy I., Stengers I. Order out of chaos. - M., 1986. - S. 44.
• Some famous historians of science, including P. Duhem, A. Crombie, D. Randall, argue that the emergence of experimental science occurred back in the Middle Ages. To confirm their thesis, they refer to the fact that such experiments were carried out in the XIII-XIV centuries. in Paris, and in the XVI century. in Padua.
• Galileo G. Selected works: In 2 vols. T 1. - M .: Nauka, 1964. - S. 241-242.
• See: Lipson G. Great experiments in physics. - M., 1972. - S. 12.

Federal Agency for Education

Federal State Educational Institution

Higher professional education

Saint Petersburg State University

Faculty of Journalism

Coursework on the topic

"The main differences between the method of observation and experiment"

Discipline: Basics creative activity journalist

Completed: student of the 2nd year, 7th group of the full-time department, specialty "Journalism" Tsuman A.P.

Supervisor: political candidate. Sciences

Baychik A.V.

St. Petersburg

Introduction 4

Chapter 1. Characteristics of methods 6

1.1 Observation method 6

1.2 Experiment 11

Chapter 2. Analysis of publications 16

Conclusion 20

References 22

Apps 23

Introduction

In the most general sense, a method is a way or a way to achieve a goal, an activity ordered in a certain way. It is also a system of non-material means of cognition and transformation of reality; a way of cognition and practical activity, which is a sequence of certain operations. Method also means a special system for processing and analyzing the content of the phenomenon under study. Today, the method is understood as a way of cognition, research of natural phenomena and social life.

Some researchers believe that journalism does not have its own methods, it borrows them from other sciences of sociology, psychology, the logic of literary criticism, economics 1 . There is still no unequivocal answer to the question of whether it is worth highlighting the specifics of journalism as a science and comparing its methods with other areas of scientific activity. However, in this work we will try not to touch on such "pitfalls".

A journalist in his creative work uses various ways of interpreting situations and phenomena that he witnesses, explains or comments on the facts he encounters. He deals with various forms of knowledge - scientific, non-scientific, thus empirically mastering reality and knowing the world around him. Ideally, the main goal of a journalist's knowledge is to find the truth and accurately convey this truth to the reader, so the question of the reliability of the facts presented cannot but arise. In many ways, the objectivity and truth of what is written by a journalist depends on the degree of mastery of the methods of mastering reality. Vivid representatives of such methods are observation and experiment. Both of these methods belong to the group of rational-cognitive methods, and more specifically, to the empirical level of knowledge 1 , and their result appears in journalism as a stream of information publications 2 .

So, finding differences between the method of observation and experiment is of interest and topical for research because:

First of all, today there is a tendency towards complementarity and interpenetration of methods, which increases the level of culture of journalistic work.

Secondly However, it is still important to understand the limits of application of methods and techniques and not allow the possibility of their overlap.

aim work is to analyze and find the main differences between the two methods of journalism - the method of observation and experiment.

The goal is revealed through the following tasks:

explore each method separately;

analyze examples of the use of these methods in journalistic work;

to find distinctive features each method;

draw conclusions from the study.

Chapter 1. Characteristics of methods

1.1 Method of observation

Observation is one of the methods of collecting sociological information that allows you to study the object in many ways, so it is distinguished from traditional methods first of all. The use of this method is associated with obtaining preliminary material about a social object and for obtaining primary information on any problem. As G. V. Lazutina writes, the key link here is “a person's ability to perceive the object-sensory concreteness of the world in the process of audiovisual contacts with it” 1 . Journalistic observation can act both as the main and as an additional method and, unlike the ordinary one, it always has a goal and a clearly defined character. “It is the deliberateness of perception and awareness of tasks that allows you to look - and see” 2 . It is no coincidence that this is one of the very first methods that is explained to students.

The subject of journalistic observation is the person himself, his appearance, character, how and what he says, his behavior, as well as his reaction to what is happening, including various aspects of the relationship and interaction between the individual and the team. Attention is paid to the nature of communication, and the level of culture of the individual, and the means of communication (such as gestures, facial expressions, words, speech), and even the surrounding material environment. Therefore, the method of observation is very often used in the work of a reporter, for which there are many more reasons: a journalist, getting involved in a certain event, has the opportunity to trace its dynamics. The material creates an atmosphere of belonging to what is happening in front of the reporter. The journalist can identify some of the most significant characteristics of the event and determine the factors under the influence of which the characteristics of the objects observed in the event change. Also, direct observation of people's behavior allows you to see inconspicuous, at first glance, details, characteristic personality traits 1 .

There are several types of journalistic observation. They are classified based on different criteria, for example, methods of organization, subject, nature of the information of interest.

On the basis of the first basis, observation is divided into hidden and open. A distinctive feature of open observation is that a journalist, having arrived to perform a task, let's say, in any organization, declares his goal, editorial task, what kind of help he may need from the employees of this organization. So, the people with whom he will communicate know that among them there is a journalist collecting material for publication, they can imagine the nature of this speech (positive or negative) and behave accordingly.

In contrast to open covert surveillance, a journalist does not inform the people whose actions he observes for a certain time that he is a journalist and collects the information he needs, as well as about what kind of information he is interested in. Moreover, they may never know that a journalist was among them. Covert surveillance is most often used in the study of any conflict situations in individual groups or in the course of investigative journalism. Before the investigation, the journalist has a fragment of the information picture, checks it, reconstructs the picture anew. Often a journalist conducting an investigation becomes a participant in an event, influencing its course and shaping the outcome.

Depending on the conditions of studying the subject to which the attention of a journalist is directed, observation can be classified as direct and indirect. In the first case, the author observes the object directly, in the second (because of its remoteness, concealment or other conditions) - using indirect data, that is, indirectly.

Observations are also subdivided according to the temporal criterion: short-term and long. If the publication needs to be prepared as soon as possible, short-term observation is used. Long-term observation is used when it is necessary to study the subject thoroughly and in detail. Long-term observation is not necessarily one-time: a journalist can repeatedly return to the life of a team, observe the changes taking place for several years. This type of observation is widely used when working in analytical genres.

AT structured observation a journalist captures events according to a clearly defined plan, or, more precisely, a procedure, and in unstructured - conducts observation in a free search, focusing only on general ideas about the situation. But still, the journalist should adhere to the indicative plan for conducting the observation. Such a plan helps to correctly determine the aspect of observation, its order and conditions.

field observation involves working in natural conditions, and laboratory- in some situations constructed by a journalist.

Systematic observation implies the journalist's focus on a particular situation at certain periods of time, and unsystematic– spontaneity in the choice of the observed phenomenon. one

Features of journalistic observation can also be predetermined by such a factor as the degree of participation of a journalist in the event he is observing. On this basis, observations can be divided into included and not included. How did A.A. Tertychny, “in the first case, a journalist becomes, for example, a member of the crew of a fishing trawler and works on board along with other fishermen. Non-participant observation is the study of some activity from the outside, while preparing, for example, a report on a volcanic eruption, about sports, etc. 1 Indeed, in the second case, the correspondent tries not to interfere in the course of what is happening, quite consciously taking a neutral position. He, as a rule, is outside the situation and does not contact the participants in the event. This type of observation is most often used to better describe the social atmosphere, for example, around elections, public actions, reforms. Included observation involves the participation of a journalist in the situation itself. He does this consciously, changing, for example, his profession or infiltrating a certain social group in order to recognize the object from the inside. "Change of profession" is possible in cases where the reporter is sure that by his unprofessional or unskilled actions he will not cause either physical or moral damage to people. For example, it is contraindicated for media workers to introduce themselves as doctors, lawyers, judges, and public service employees. Such prohibitions are stipulated both by the relevant norms of journalistic ethics and by certain articles of the legislation. The well-known journalist N. Nikitin gives novice journalists specific practical advice: “…the main principle is to be who you say you are” 2 . Thus, the journalist seeks to identify and show the reader some of the situations that are typical for the implementation environment. He sets himself a reporter's task - to take part in the action along with his heroes or experience some kind of difficulties. A report made using the method of participant observation can be a winning form of presenting the material. However, this should not be a simple act, a game of "dressing up". It is important that a journalist has a professional goal - to positively influence a situation or find ways to solve a problem.

Speaking of participant observation, it is important to pay attention to some of the difficulties associated both with this type and with the entire method of observation as a whole. First, it is important to understand that most often we are dealing with some kind of private and unique situations that cannot always be “lost” again. The main problem is the irreversibility of certain phenomena of social life. A journalist has to deal with human emotions, sometimes complex and even conflicting interpersonal relationships. Secondly, the quality of primary information can also be affected by people's subjective assessments, their value orientations, established ideas, stereotypes and interests. “The reaction of people to the presence of an observer is not always unambiguous. But in most cases, people react negatively to the presence of strangers (especially journalists) who are watching them closely. People can change their tactics if they feel or that they are being watched.” one

That is why the information and impressions received by a journalist are in dire need of mandatory rechecking in order to once again be convinced not so much of their reliability, but of their objectivity. Sociologist V. A. Yadov suggests the following rules that should be followed to increase the degree of validity and stability of data:

Classify the elements of events to be observed as detailed as possible, using clear indicators;

If the main observation is carried out by several persons, they compare their impressions and agree on assessments, interpretation of events using a single recording technique, thereby increasing the stability of the observation data;

The same object should be observed in different situations (normal and stressful, standard and conflict), which allows you to see it from different angles;

It is necessary to clearly distinguish and record the content, forms of manifestation of observed events and their quantitative characteristics (intensity, regularity, periodicity, frequency);

It is important to ensure that the description of events is not confused with their interpretation, therefore, the protocol should have special columns for recording factual data and for their interpretation;

In the inclusion or non-participation observation performed by one of the researchers, it is especially important to monitor the validity of the interpretation of the data, striving to cross-check your impressions with the help of various possible interpretations 1 .

So, based on these features of observation, we can say that as an independent method, observation is best used in studies that do not require representative data, as well as in cases where information cannot be obtained by any other methods.

1.2 Experiment

In its general meaning, an experiment is a set of actions performed to test the truth or falsity of a hypothesis or the scientific study of causal relationships between phenomena. The researcher tries to change the external conditions in such a way as to influence the object under study. In this case, an external impact on an object is considered a cause, and a change in the state or behavior of an object is considered a consequence.

Translated from Latin, the word "experiment" means "test" or "experience". In general, the experiment is a complex method that combines various methods of collecting material. 1 With its help, the reaction of the object under study to the experimental factor is established, under the influence of which this or that activity of the object under study is manifested. The experiment is divided into the following stages:

Collection of information.

observation of the phenomenon.

Developing a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

Development of a theory that explains the phenomenon based on assumptions in a broader sense. 2

The experimental factor can be introduced from the outside, or it can be contained in objects and become such under the control and control of the experimenter. The experiment itself can take place both in a natural environment and in an artificial one. The latter is called "laboratory experiment", and helps to achieve greater accuracy, controllability and persistence of its conditions. The regularity of the manifestation of certain events can be identified by comparing the facts, their systematization.

For a journalistic experiment, the object of which is various human relations, as in other social sciences, the abundance and complexity of factors that influence the state of the object are characteristic. A journalistic experiment has nothing to do with an action that has already taken place and can be carried out on any occasion. It often carries a certain intrigue. It arises because not all participants in the experiment know that they are participating in it.

The method of experiment in journalism is often identified with the method of participant observation, and there are reasons for this:

As in participant observation, the experimental journalist maintains a direct relationship with the object of study.

The experiment, like observation, can be carried out covertly.

The experiment refers to the visual means of studying social reality.

However, despite the fact that the main features are common, the experiment has its own special features and characteristics. “An experiment is understood as a method of research based on controlling the behavior of an object with the help of a number of factors affecting it, the control over the action of which is in the hands of the researcher” 1 . I would also like to point out that the experiment is an "active" method of studying reality. That is, if observation allows you to answer the questions "How?", "When?" and “How?”, the experiment answers one question “Why?”.

In the experiment, the object is a means for creating an artificial situation. This is done so that the journalist can test his hypotheses in practice, "lose" some everyday circumstances that would allow him to better know the object under study. In addition, any experiment contains not only the cognitive interest of a research journalist, but also managerial. If in the included observation the correspondent is rather a registrar of events, then by participating in the experiment he has the right to intervene in the situation, influencing its participants, managing them and making some decisions.

According to V.P. Talov, “The impact on the observed objects in the course of his / experiment / is not only permissible, but is just expected. Correspondents resorting to experimentation do not wait for people, certain officials, entire services to reveal themselves spontaneously, i.e. random, natural. This disclosure is deliberately caused, purposefully "organized" by them themselves... An experiment is an observation accompanied by the observer's intervention in the processes and phenomena being studied, under certain conditions - an artificial challenge, a conscious "provocation" of these latter" 1 .

Thus, the experiment is connected with the creation of an artificial impulse, designed to reveal certain aspects of the object under study. A journalist has the opportunity to conduct an experiment on himself, infiltrating the social group he needs, that is, to become something like a “dummy figure”. At the same time, he not only influences the situation, but also seeks to involve all persons of interest to him in the experiment.

Experiments can vary in their degree of complexity. Often a journalist will limit himself to the simplest task and accordingly apply an elementary form of experiment. However, when a journalist sets himself a much more difficult task, it is rather problematic to conduct an experimental verification of the initial assumption at the required level, therefore, when planning and conducting an experiment, the following points should be taken into account:

Determine its goals and objectives even before the start of the experiment (study the situation well, collect preliminary information about likely participants, work through available documents and other sources, and outline the subject of study, which will be of particular interest in the object of study).

Determine the site of action (whether the experiment will be carried out in natural or laboratory conditions).

Prepare both yourself (the journalist) and other participants in the operation.

After the journalist has determined the conditions under which the action will take place, he should form working hypotheses and choose an indicator of impact on the experimental situation. And only after that it is decided by what methods to fix and control the research process. In the structure of the experimental situation, L. V. Kashinskaya distinguishes the following elements:

initial state of the object influencing factor final state of the object

“The initial state of an object is usually fixed by a journalist, that is, there is a certain starting information. But the same information also contains those motivating motives that necessitate the creation of an experimental situation:

The insufficiency of the information necessary for the journalist to test or clarify his hypothesis.

The inability to obtain such information by conventional methods.

The need to obtain psychologically reliable arguments” 1 .

I would also like to draw attention to the fact that conducting an experiment requires special qualifications and mastery of special tools, and this is often possible only with the participation of an experienced consultant.

When the description of the course of the conducted experiment becomes the main content of the publication, the experimental method can act as the dominant genre-forming feature. Therefore, referring the publication to the genre of experiment, it should be emphasized that it is about an artificial, specially organized subject-practical situation by the journalist himself 2 .

AT recent times experiment is increasingly used in journalism, especially electronic. The method of recreating an artificial situation in which unsuspecting people find themselves can be found in various television programs (for example, "Town" and "Joke"). These experiments are carried out in order to identify any behavioral reactions of people to extraordinary situations. Publications in the genre of experiment are advantageous for a journalist in that they usually allow you to create texts that have dynamic features, a “lively” visual presentation of the material. They allow you to combine the beginnings of analytics and reporting. In other words, the author of the experiment not only analyzes some phenomenon, but also uses the detailed description of the created situation inherent in the reportage. But nevertheless, it is advisable to conduct an experiment in journalistic practice only in individual cases when the task is to penetrate deeper into life. At the same time, it is necessary to control all stages of preparation for it as carefully as possible.

Chapter 2. Analysis of Publications

So, in order to more clearly identify the differences between the method of observation and experiment, we will compare two publications: “How much does politeness cost? Or wrap me a kilogram of peaches in separate bags” (see Appendix 1), published on the website http://www.myjulia.ru and “Komi-Voyagers”, published under the heading “Trends” in No. 43 (073) of the magazine “Russian reporter” (see Appendix 2).

Speaking about the first publication, it is safe to say that it falls under the definition of an experiment. Firstly, the author deliberately intrudes into a social group, acts as a "dummy figure", namely, he appears in the form of an ordinary consumer. Secondly, the journalist himself determines the factor of influence on the object of research (sellers), deliberately provoking them, for example, offering to hang exactly 143 grams of kvass or one candy of each type. And the characters of trade workers are revealed in the most natural way: “Is that so? Can I chop it up smaller? or “Girl, what are you? Not! Nooooo!!! My job is going to be like this. I will not weigh. It's all on the calculator should be considered. No. I do not want".

The author clearly defined the purpose of his study - to show the attitude of sellers to an ordinary buyer and understand the reasons for such an attitude. His task is to penetrate deeply into a seemingly ordinary situation (a holiday shopping trip). Naturally, at the end of the study, the conclusion follows: “They were ready to cut, hang, wrap and do anything with the products I bought, which was in the power of the sellers. Only those in which laziness prevailed over other human qualities were refused. And I also realized that you should not be afraid to ask the seller to help you.

The genre of this publication can be defined as a journalistic experiment, because the subject-practical situation here was created artificially and specially organized by the journalist himself, who most likely could not use any other methods and needed reliable psychological arguments. Thus, the creation of an experimental situation is fully motivated.

Now consider the second publication called "Komi Voyagers". Here the author shows us one of the most acute problems of Russia and, especially, the Nenets autonomous region- The problem of transportation. The journalist did not have enough indirect information to fully cover this problem, so he goes on a journey with truckers-"stalkers" along "the worst road in Russia."

So we see the method of observation in action. He, in our opinion, acts here as the main method. The publication itself is written in the reportage genre (as mentioned earlier, observation is one of the key methods in the work of a reporter). The journalist pays a lot of attention to describing the characters of the people he encounters. He accurately notices the peculiarities of everyone’s speech, gives examples of “stalker jargon”: “nyasha”, “serpentine”, “washboard”, etc.

The speech of the author as a whole has a narrative and descriptive character. Details of the road, such as an overturned truck and its drunk driver, pulling out a truck stuck in the mud, as well as an abundance of dialogue make the reader involved in this trip, the dynamics of the event are very well traced.

The journalist gives us only a subjective vision of the situation, and not even his own, but the heroes of the story. Whether they can be trusted or not, the reader does not know.

By nature, the observation is open (truckers most likely know that there is a journalist among them), structured (the journalist records events according to a clearly defined plan), conducted in the field and included (the author does not observe the situation from the outside, but he, together with the truckers, commits A 70-kilometer off-road raid, that is, his task is to experience all the difficulties for himself, and also shows the reader situations typical of the environment in which he has infiltrated: mutual assistance of drivers, struggle for a place on the ferry).

Summing up the analysis of publications, one can immediately identify the main difference between observation and experiment from each other. In the first case, the journalist himself creates the situation in which he works, and his task is to confirm the hypothesis and the corresponding conclusion. In the case of observation, the situation is different - the author is included in a natural event that he cannot control in any way. The main task here is to highlight the event or problem, as well as to accurately and easily convey informative details to the reader.

Conclusion

So, after analyzing the scientific works of many authors and comparing in detail two recent publications in the media, we can say with confidence that the method of observation and experiment, despite their external similarity, have a number of rather significant differences, namely:

during the observation, the journalist deals with events that are often impossible to repeat, to lose again; in the experiment, the journalist himself creates the situation that he needs to investigate;

the purpose of the experiment is to test the hypothesis set by the journalist at the beginning of the study, and the purpose of the observation is to describe and accurately convey the details of the situation under study;

when observing, a journalist cannot interfere in the course of research, being only a registrar of an event or phenomenon, while during an experiment, on the contrary, he uses a set of tools that provoke the object of study to certain actions, thus managing him and making decisions;

the result of the observation may be based on the subjective view of the journalist about the event and require additional verification, while the result of the experiment is actually objective and is a confirmation or refutation of the hypothesis proposed by the journalist;

works written using the method of observation are informative and descriptive, in contrast to works written using the experiment, which are representatives of analytical genres.

Summing up the study, it is still worth noting that both methods are important tools in the arsenal of a professional journalist, as well as the main ways of researching and understanding the reality around us. Their use in publications brings a sense of belonging, empathy to the situations described in them, and from some of them the reader can derive specific practical benefits. But we must not forget that they require special training and the presence of a fixed, if not strict, plan of action. It is also necessary to be careful when working in the field of human relations, because one of the fundamental principles of the work of a journalist is “do no harm”.

Bibliography

Kashinskaya L.V. Experiment as a method of journalistic activity // Vestn. Moscow university Ser. 10. Journalism, 1986. No. 6.

Kim M.N . Technology of creating a journalistic work. SPb., 2001.

Lazutina G.V. Technology and methods of journalistic creativity. M., 1988.

Melnik G.S., Kim M.N. methods of journalism. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of Mikhailov V.A., 2006.

Nikitin N. Work option - unspoken // Journalist. 1997. No. 2.

Smirnov V.A. Levels and stages of the process of cognition // Problems of the logic of scientific knowledge. M., 1964.

Talov V.P. The work of a journalist: Methods and techniques of journalistic communication. L., 1983.

Tertychny A.A. Genres of periodicals. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2000.

Yadov V.A. Sociological research: methodology, program, methods. Samara, 1995.

Applications

1 Melnik G.S., Kim M.N. methods of journalism. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of Mikhailov V.A., 2006.

Experiment is different from observations in the first...

Methods psychology (4)

Abstract >> Psychology

Has two methods obtaining facts subject to further analysis - methods observations and experiment, which, ... main purveyor of psychological knowledge and basis for many theories. AT difference from observations psychological experiment ...

Theoretical and methodological aspect method observations in sociological research

Course work>> Sociology

... experiments this method- one of the leaders. Like self sufficient method, observation... put together main Advantages and disadvantages method observations"(table... differ from natural, if observation open (effect observations) Difficulties of application observations ...

Main questions of philosophy and main directions of philosophy

Cheat sheet >> Philosophy

What is given in sensory experience. Experiment and observation are main method knowledge. 2. Any true knowledge is... laws for the world and its components. Main difference O.P. from N.P. - scientific knowledge assumes as its result ...

Main tasks of psychology and pedagogy

Study Guide >> Psychology

Constituting the structure of personality, is different from some of her others ... , sociometric methods and socio-psychological experiment. In pedagogy, there are main and support methods. To main refer method observations and method experiment, to...

Looking after my little son, I constantly see how he makes new discoveries for himself, observing the world and conducting small experiments. Now he himself does not know what these concepts mean, and how they differ. But when he's a little older, that's what I'll tell him.

My observations and experiences

It's best explained with an example.

I have always loved to observe the objects of the world around me. So, it is very interesting to see how ants behave depending on the weather and time of day.

But more than that, I love experimenting.

I had an amazing experience once when I was a child. From the children's encyclopedia, I learned that the abdomen of ants is transparent. This assumption became my hypothesis, which had to be confirmed or refuted. I prepared sweet syrups of different colors and placed small drops near the anthill. It's funny, but when the ants drank, their tummies turned the color of a drop of syrup. This confirmed my hypothesis.

Have you guessed how my simple observations of the life of an anthill differed from the experiment?

• In the first case, I just watched (observed) the behavior of insects. While conducting the experiment, I myself had to interact with the subjects by placing colored drops near the anthill.
• While conducting the experiment, I had a hypothesis (from the children's encyclopedia) and a plan of action.
• Observations did not require any equipment (although this is not always true, for example, to observe space objects, you will need a telescope). For the experiment, I needed sugar, water, dyes and other means for making syrup.

Cat watching

Watch your pet. You will notice a lot interesting features. For example, that cats and cats are able to make many different sounds from each other.

Experience "Lava"

This interesting experiment can test the hypothesis that oil is lighter than water, but salt is heavier than oil.

1. Take a glass. Fill it with water and vegetable oil (2:1). The oil will float on top.
2. Add food coloring.
3. Pour in a spoonful of salt.

"Lava" in the bank

Enjoy "lava" in a glass.

Modern natural science is characterized by the strengthening of the role of observation in it. The main reasons for this phenomenon are:

1) the development of the observation method itself: the equipment created for observation can operate in automatic mode for a long time and be controlled at a distance; its connection to a computer makes it possible to quickly and reliably process observational data;

2) the realization by the scientific community that experiments on objects that are vital for humanity cannot be carried out. This is, first of all, the ocean and the earth's atmosphere. They can only be studied by observation;

3) the emergence of new possibilities for observing the Earth with the development of space technology. Observations of the Earth from space make it possible to obtain information about integral terrestrial formations in an integrative form, which cannot be obtained in the conditions of being the subject of observation on the Earth. They make it possible to observe integral pictures of the interactions of several subsystems of the Earth at once, to observe the dynamics of a number of processes on the Earth;

4) the removal of observation equipment beyond the Earth's atmosphere and even beyond its gravitational field expanded the possibility of astronomical observations. So, with the help of machines, we managed to see reverse side Moon, to survey the surface and environment of other planets of the solar system. The fact is that outside the earth's atmosphere there is no absorption of electromagnetic cosmic radiation in a wide frequency range by the atmosphere. After the removal of instruments from the earth's atmosphere, X-ray and gamma-ray astronomy arose and began to develop rapidly.

What is scientific observation?

Observation- this is a deliberate, systematic perception of a phenomenon, carried out in order to identify its essential properties and relationships.

Observation is an active form of scientific activity of the subject. It requires the formulation of the task of observation, the development of a methodology for its implementation, the development of methods for fixing the results of observation and their processing.

The emerging tasks of observation are caused by the internal logic of the development of natural science and the demands of practice.

Scientific observation is always associated with theoretical knowledge. It shows what to observe and how to observe. It also specifies the degree of observation accuracy.

Observations can be:

-immediate - the properties and aspects of the object are perceived by the human senses;

-mediated- performed with the help of technical means (microscope, telescope);

- indirect- in which not objects are observed, but the results of their impact on some other objects (electron flow, which is fixed by the glow of a screen with a special coating).

Observation conditions should provide:

a) the unambiguity of the intention of the observation;

b) the possibility of control either by repeated observation, or by applying new, different methods of observation. Observation results must be reproducible. Of course, there is no absolute reproducibility of the results of observations. The results of observations are recorded only within the framework of certain scientific knowledge.

In the process of observation, the subject does not interfere with the nature of the observed phenomenon. It breeds shortcomings of observation as scientific method knowledge:

1. It is impossible to isolate the observed phenomenon from the influence of factors obscuring its essence. The concept of the obscuring factor is easy to understand on the example of the free fall of bodies. Indeed, the free fall of bodies shows that air resistance clearly affects the nature of the motion of the body, but it does not have any effect on the dependence of this motion on the force of gravity. Thus, a darkening factor is a factor on which the phenomenon under study does not depend, but which modifies the form of manifestation of the phenomenon under study.

2. You can not reproduce the phenomenon as many times as required for this study; you have to wait for it to repeat itself.

3. It is impossible to study the behavior of a phenomenon under different conditions, i.e. it is impossible to study it comprehensively.

It is these shortcomings of observation that force the researcher to proceed to the experiment. In concluding this question, we note that in modern natural science, observation is increasingly taking the form of measuring the quantitative value of the properties of a system. The results of the observation are recorded in the protocols. They are tables, graphs, verbal descriptions, etc. Having received observation protocols, the researcher tries to establish dependencies between certain properties: quantitative, following in time, concomitance, mutual exclusion, etc.

10. Method of experiment

Experiment- this is a method of cognition based on controlling the behavior of an object with the help of a number of factors, the control over the action of which is in the hands of the researcher.

The experiment did not completely replace observation. Observation under experimental conditions fixes the impact on the object and the reaction of the object. Without this, the experiment goes to waste. For example, Ohm's law for a section of a circuit says: for metals and electrolytes, the current in the circuit is proportional to the applied voltage. In order to verify this pattern experimentally, it is necessary to change the voltage in the circuit and observe (fix) how the current strength changes in this case.

The main difference between the experiment from observation lies in the fact that even in the simplest experiment an artificial system of elements is created that has not previously been encountered in human practice. This artificial system will be an experimental facility.

The main requirement for the experiment- reproducibility of its results. This means that an experiment conducted at different points in time, other things being equal, should give the same result. Nevertheless, not every biological experiment, for example, can be repeated as many times as desired (heart transplantation, etc.). Such repetition is possible in principle. But there is also the question of the expediency of repetition.

Depending on the subject of research experiment subdivide on natural science, technical and social. The choice of one or another type of experiment, as well as the plan for its implementation, depends on the research task. In this regard, experiments are divided into: search, measurement, control, verification.

search engines experiments are set up to discover unknown objects or properties. Measuring- to establish the quantitative parameters of the subject or process being studied.

Control– to check the results obtained earlier. Testing- to confirm or refute a certain hypothesis or some theoretical statement.

A modern experiment is theoretically loaded. Really:

Instruments are used in the experiment, and they are the materialized result of previous theoretical activity;

Any experiment is built on the basis of some theory, and if the theory is well developed, then it is known in advance what result the experiment will lead to;

An experiment, as a rule, does not give a continuous picture of the process, but only its nodal points. Only theoretical thinking is capable of restoring the whole process from them;

When processing experimental data, it is necessary to carry out averaging and apply the theory of errors.

The theoretical loading of the experiment increases. The reason for this is the occurrence mathematical theory experiment, the use of which reduces the number of samples in the experiment, increases its accuracy.

In order to have a good understanding of the possibilities and limits of applicability of the theory of experiment planning, the creation of automated experiment control systems, it must be taken into account that all decisions and actions of the experimenter can be conditionally divided into two types:

1) based on a detailed and scrupulous study of a particular phenomenon;

2) based on more general properties characteristic of a variety of phenomena and objects.

We call the first decisions and actions heuristic, and the second - formalizable. If we are talking about the heuristic part, then here success is determined by the level of training of the experimenter in a particular field of knowledge, as well as his intuition. The mathematical theory of experiment deals with the study of only the formalized part of experimental activity. Success here is entirely determined by the development of the theory and the level of training of the experimenter in the framework of this theory.

The most important concept of the theory of planning an experiment is the concept of a factor. factor called a controlled independent variable corresponding to one of the possible ways of influencing the object of study. Often such variables are called adjustable factors. Temperature, pressure, composition of the reaction mixture, concentration, etc. can act as controlled factors. In each particular case, the number of these factors and their numerical values ​​are clearly defined. When choosing factors, it is desirable to take into account as many of them as possible. They are established based on the results of a literature review, a study of the physical essence of the process, logical reasoning and a survey of specialists.

The quantitative and qualitative states of the factors chosen for the experiment are called factor levels. As factors, it is advisable to choose such independent variables that correspond to one of the reasonable effects on the object of study and can be measured by the available means with a sufficiently high accuracy.

The main requirements for factors, such:

a) manageability, i.e. the ability to set and maintain the selected desired level of the factor constant during the entire experience and its changes according to a given program. The controllability requirement is associated with the need to change the factors during the experiment at several levels, and in each individual experiment, the level of variation must be maintained fairly accurately.

b) compatibility, i.e. the feasibility of any combination of factors. Compatibility of factors means that all their combinations can be implemented in practice. This requirement is serious, since in some cases the incompatibility of factors can lead to the destruction of the installation (for example, as a result of the formation of a mixture of gases prone to self-explosion) or measuring instruments.

c) independence, i.e. the possibility of establishing factors at any level, regardless of the level of other factors. The concept of independence implies that a factor is not a function of other factors. In particular, such a factor as room temperature is a function of other factors: the number of heat emitters and their location, etc.

d) the accuracy of measurement and control must be known and sufficiently high (at least an order of magnitude higher than the accuracy of measuring the output parameter). The low accuracy of measuring factors reduces the possibility of reproducing the experiment;

e) there must be a one-to-one correspondence between the factors and the output parameter, i.e. a change in factors will entail a change in the output parameter;

f) the areas of definition of the factors should be such that at the limiting values ​​of the factors, the output parameter remains within its boundaries.

Uncontrolled factors also affect the experiment - these are uncontrolled conditions for conducting experiments. In principle, it is impossible to describe them all, and it is not necessary.

The next important concept of the mathematical theory of experiment is concept of “response function”. What is behind these concepts?

The course of the process is quantitatively characterized by one or more quantities. Such quantities in the theory of experiment planning are called response functions. They depend on influencing factors.

Under the mathematical description of the process, we mean a system of equations relating the response functions to the influencing factors. In the simplest case, this can be a single equation. Often such a mathematical description is called a mathematical model of the process under study. The value of the mathematical description of the phenomenon under study lies in the fact that it provides information about the influence of factors, allows you to quantify the value of the response function for a given process mode, and can serve as the basis for optimizing the process under study.

When choosing an output parameter, the following requirements must be taken into account:

a) the output parameter must have a quantitative characteristic, i.e. must be measured;

b) he must unambiguously evaluate (measure) the performance of the research object;

c) it must be such that it is possible to clearly distinguish between experiments;

d) it should reflect as fully as possible the essence of the phenomenon under study;

e) it must have a sufficiently clear physical meaning.

The successful choice of the output parameter is largely determined by the level of knowledge of the phenomenon under study.

You can use two or more output parameters, but then the task becomes much more complicated. Note that the factors are selected only after the output parameter (or parameters) is selected.

The process is controlled by instruments that measure input and output parameters. For short-term studies, it is recommended to use indicating means of control, and for long-term studies, recording ones.

The space whose coordinates are factors is called the factor space, or the space of independent variables. Mathematical analysis of experiment planning is reduced to the choice of the optimal location of points in the factor space, providing the best research results in a certain sense.

Modern experimental studies have the following features:

1. The impossibility of observing the phenomena under study using only the sense organs of the subject-experimenter (low or high temperatures, pressure, vacuum, etc.);

2. Natural science of the 19th century tried to deal experimentally with well-organized systems, i.e. study systems that depend on a small number of variables. The ideal, for example, of an experimental physicist was single-factor experiment. Its essence is as follows: it was assumed that the researcher could stabilize all the independent variables of the system under study with any degree of accuracy. Then, changing some of them one by one, he installed the dependencies he was interested in. Here is an example of a one-way experiment. Consider a gas that is at a certain temperature, pressure, volume. Each of the named parameters of the system (temperature, pressure, volume) can be made constant. So it is possible, say, to study the change in the volume of a gas with a change in pressure, if the temperature is constant, i.e. conduct an isothermal process. Similarly, isobaric and isochoric processes are carried out.

In the second half of the 20th century, it became necessary to conduct experiments with diffuse, i.e. poorly organized systems. Their peculiarity lies in the fact that in such systems several processes of different nature take place simultaneously. Moreover, they are so closely related to each other that, in principle, they cannot be considered in isolation from each other. For example, these are the physical processes that occur between the cathode and the anode in a lamp, this is an emission spectral analysis, etc.;

H. Use of filtering devices. The bottom line: not all signals given out experimentally have the same value. It is often difficult to identify from a large amount of information the one that is significant. In such situations, filter devices are used. These are automata capable of selecting incoming signals and giving the researcher the information that is needed to solve the problem.

Example. In the physics of the microworld, it is known that the same particle can decay through several channels. The decay probabilities for different channels are different. Some of them are negligible. For example, the K + -meson decays through seven channels. The decay of the K + - meson, which takes place with a low probability, is very difficult to fix if the results of the experiment are processed manually. This is where filters come into play. They automate the search for the desired type of decay elementary particle;

4. Modern experiments are characterized by the use of sophisticated equipment, a large amount of measured and recorded parameters, and the complexity of algorithms for processing the information received.

All experiments are set with the following goals:

1) to obtain new empirical data subject to further generalization;

2) in order to confirm or refute already existing ideas and theories, and it is necessary to understand what the experiment in theory confirms and what does not.

The experiment does not test the theory as a whole, but its observable consequences. By means of measurements, two groups of facts are compared: those predicted by the theory and those found as a result of the measurement. If there is not at least an approximate coincidence between them, the theory, even if it is logically coherent, cannot be considered satisfactory. At the same time, the experiment does not allow making an absolute conclusion about the correctness of the theory. Having received experimental confirmation of a theoretical position, it is far from always possible to guarantee that the experiment confirmed only it. The researcher does not always know how many other valid assumptions the result satisfies. This, in particular, is connected with the impossibility of the “decisive experiment”. The experiment with absoluteness confirms not the theoretical construction itself, but its specific interpretation.

In a number of cases, observation and in all cases experiment are associated with the measurement of certain characteristics of the system under study.

What is a dimension?

The procedure for establishing one quantity with the help of another, taken as a standard, is called measurement. Measurement links observation to mathematics and allows the creation of quantitative theories.

The measurement method includes three main points:

a) choosing a unit of measurement and obtaining an appropriate set of measures;

b) establishment of the rule for comparing the measured quantity with the measure and the rule for adding measures;

c) description of the measurement procedure.

So, the measurement involves the implementation of a particular physical procedure, but is not limited to it. Measurement, in order to fulfill its purpose, must also involve a certain theory. It is also necessary to know the theory of the device, since without such knowledge its readings will remain incomprehensible to us.

The purpose of observations and experiments is to give facts to science. What is meant by fact?

There are different definitions of fact in the literature. We assume fact empirical knowledge, which either performs the function of a starting point in the construction of a scientific theory, or plays the role of verifying its truth. By the way, theoretical knowledge can also perform these two named functions. And then it will act as a fact.

Since fact is an element of knowledge, it often merges with its explanation. It is very important to always clear the facts from their explanation as much as possible. Why? If we pass off a fact that has already been explained as a real fact, then we will unreasonably impose a ban on other possible explanations for this fact. However, it must be borne in mind that the facts in their pure form do not exist. Every fact bears the seal of existing knowledge. As a form of knowledge for natural science, a fact is valuable in that it has a certain invariance in various systems of knowledge.

It is generally accepted that the defining property of observation is its non-intervention into the processes under study, in contrast to the active introduction into the study area, which is carried out during experimentation. In general, this statement is correct. However, upon closer examination, it needs to be clarified: after all, observation is also active to a certain extent. There are also situations when, without intervention in the object under study, observation itself will be impossible. For example, in histology, without prior dissection and staining of living tissue, there will simply be nothing to observe.

The intervention of the researcher during observation is aimed at achieving optimal conditions for the very same observations. The task of the observer is to obtain a set of primary data about the object. Of course, in this set, certain dependences of data groups on each other, some regularities and trends are often already visible. Preliminary guesses and assumptions about important connections may arise in the researcher during the observation itself. However, the researcher does not change structure this data, does not interfere with the relations between phenomena.

So, if the phenomena BUT and AT accompany each other in the entire series of observations, the researcher only fixes their coexistence (without trying, say, to cause the phenomenon BUT with absence AT). This means that the empirical material increases during observation. extensive way - by expanding observations and accumulating data. We repeat a series of observations, increase the duration and detail of perception, study new aspects of the original phenomenon, and so on.

In the experiment, the researcher takes a different position. Here, active intervention is carried out in the area under study in order to isolate various kinds of connections in it. Unlike observation, in an experimental research situation, the experimental material grows intense way. The scientist is not interested in the accumulation of ever new data, but selection in the empirical material of some significant dependencies. Applying various controlling influences, the researcher tries to discard everything insignificant, to penetrate into the interconnections of the studied area. An experiment is an intensification of experience, its detailing and deepening.

On the whole, the relationship between the experimental and observational components is complex, each time depending on the specific circumstances of the study. It should be understood that in their "pure form" observation and experiment are, rather, idealized strategies. In various situations, as a rule, the methodological strategy of either observation or experiment prevails. According to this predominance, we qualify this or that research situation. Of course, we call the study of distant space objects observation. And conducting an experimental laboratory intervention with predetermined objectives (say, testing a working hypothesis), well-defined dependent and independent variables comes close to the ideal of a “pure experiment”.

Thus observation and experiment are idealized strategies actions in real research situations. The activity of the researcher during observation is aimed at rubbing and extensifying empirical data., and when experimenting - to deepen them, intensification.