Lecture note on scientific evidence: for MBA and Housing Studies students

Lecture note on scientific evidence: for MBA and Housing Studies students

 

In the context of doing MBA and Housing Studies dissertation projects, to what extent that the student-researcher needs to gather "scientific evidence" via primary and secondary research methods for analysis and, subsequently, support claims and recommendations? More specifically, does the student-researcher also gather unscientific evidence in the dissertation project work? For the discussion purpose, kindly highlight 3 main ideas of "scientific evidence".

In MBA and housing studies dissertations, the student-researcher is expected to gather scientific (empirical) evidence—via primary and/or secondary methods—to analyse the research problem and to substantiate claims and recommendations. However, “unscientific” evidence (e.g., anecdote, opinion, non-validated grey literature) is generally not admissible as core support for findings, though it may appear as context, illustration, or motivation if clearly labelled and critically appraised.guides.lib.strathyoutubeeprints.whiterose.ac+2

How far must you gather scientific evidence?

• To the extent required to answer your research question robustly. Dissertations typically require:
• A literature review (secondary evidence) that maps, appraises and synthesises existing studies.researchprospect+1
• Primary and/or secondary empirical data aligned to your methodology (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed) to generate new insights or test propositions.libguides.memphis+2
• In MBA projects, applied research often combines desk research (industry reports, company data, academic studies) with primary data (surveys, interviews, case analysis) to justify managerial recommendations.youtubeguides.lib.strath
• In housing studies, empirical work commonly uses official statistics, surveys, and qualitative data (interviews, case studies) and increasingly big/social media data; methodological fit and transparent appraisal are key.eprints.whiterose.ac+2

Do student-researchers also gather “unscientific” evidence?

Strictly speaking, a dissertation’s analytical core should be scientific/empirical evidence (systematically gathered, appraised, and analysable). “Unscientific” material—such as unsystematic anecdotes, op-eds, or unverified claims—is not appropriate as evidence for conclusions, but may be used:scribd+1

• As background or illustrative material (e.g., a news story motivating the problem), provided you flag its limits.eprints.whiterose.ac
• Within grey literature (policy briefs, industry white papers) that you still critically evaluate for credibility, bias, and relevance.research.monash+1

If such material is not critically appraised or is presented as proof, it undermines the dissertation’s validity.

Three main ideas of “scientific evidence”

1.    Empirical and observable
Scientific evidence is grounded in data collected through systematic observation or measurement (numbers, texts, images, artefacts) under defined conditions. It is not mere assertion; it is traceable to sources that others can inspect.libguides.memphis+1

2.    Methodologically rigorous and replicable
It arises from clearly specified designs and procedures (sampling, instruments, protocols) that allow the study to be reproduced or audited, supporting reliability and validity. This includes stating limitations and ensuring the analysis follows logical, coherent steps.scribd+1

3.    Generalisable or transferable within stated bounds
Scientific evidence supports inferences beyond the immediate sample—either statistical generalisation (quantitative) or analytic transferability (qualitative)—with claims constrained by the study’s scope and context. In policy/housing fields, this often means being explicit about for whom, where, and when findings hold.

 

What if the dissertation project is not based on positivism, such as interpretivism or pragmatism? Does it mean that the reliance of gathering and using "scientific evidence" is lower that a dissertation project based on positivism?

No—adopting interpretivism or pragmatism does not mean you rely less on “scientific evidence.” It means you rely on different kinds of evidence and quality criteria, but the expectation of systematic, rigorous, and defensible evidence remains just as high.diva-portal+2

Paradigm shift, not a rigour drop

·        Positivism seeks law-like generalisations via hypothesis testing, measurement, and statistical inference.diva-portal

·        Interpretivism seeks deep understanding of meanings, contexts, and social constructions via qualitative data (interviews, observations, texts).sjsu+1

·        Pragmatism focuses on what works to solve practical problems, often mixing methods to fit the research question.scribd+1

In all three, a dissertation must present evidence that is gathered and analysed systematically, with transparent methods and clear justification for claims.assets.publishing.service.gov+2

What changes is the type and standards of evidence

Under interpretivism/pragmatism, “scientific evidence” is still required, but it is not only quantitative. Quality is judged by criteria such as:

·        Credibility (accurate, plausible accounts, often checked via member validation or triangulation)sjsu

·        Dependability (clear audit trail so others can follow your process)assets.publishing.service.gov+1

·        Transferability (rich description so readers can judge applicability to other contexts)sjsu

·        Confirmability (reflexivity about researcher bias; coherence between data and interpretations)apastyle.apa+1

These are the qualitative equivalents of rigour, not a relaxation of it.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih+2

Practical implications for MBA/housing dissertations

·        Interpretivist housing study: e.g., in-depth interviews with tenants/landlords, policy document analysis, field observations—analysed thematically with clear coding procedures and reflexive notes.cochrane+1

·        Pragmatist MBA project: e.g., mixed methods combining financial data, surveys, and stakeholder interviews to design an actionable strategy—evidence is judged by coherence, practical utility, and methodological transparency.scribd+1

In both cases, anecdotes, opinions, or unappraised grey literature alone cannot support (支撑) conclusions; they must be integrated into a systematic evidential base.cochrane+2

Bottom line

The reliance on scientific evidence is not lower—it is redefined. You still need primary and/or secondary data, transparent methods, and critical appraisal; you just apply paradigm-appropriate standards (e.g., credibility over statistical significance).

 

** A collection of lecture notes on the subject of research methods for MBA students, 2026 June

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.