As we progress through the years, research has become an indispensable element for advancement in numerous fields. It has driven significant innovations in science and technology, as well as in disciplines such as psychology, political science, and economics. Given the immense value we place on knowledge production, it is a constant human aspiration to refine the methods and processes of research. Yet, despite the promising results it yields, research is perpetually at risk of errors and biases that challenge its reliability and validity. This has led many, including Griffiths (1998), to argue that there is no hope of conducting a perfect research.
Research, as defined by the Research Council of Nipissing University, is “any original and systematic investigation undertaken in order to increase knowledge and understanding and to establish facts and principles.” It is also described as “studious inquiry; usually, critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation having for its aim the reversion of accepted conclusions, in the light of newly discovered facts” (Guyette, 1983). Research may be qualitative or quantitative in nature and can take many forms, including historical, experimental, quasi-experimental, causal-comparative, case study, or developmental. Regardless of its type, no form of research guarantees perfection in either process or result.
Two major types of errors are inherent in most research—random and systematic. Random errors, which occur in nearly all quantitative studies, can be minimized but never completely avoided. These may result from sampling variability or limitations in measurement precision. Systematic errors, on the other hand, are reproducible inaccuracies that consistently produce deviations from the true values. In addition to these errors, various types of bias—selection, measurement, and intervention bias—further compromise the objectivity and credibility of research. These inherent flaws support the view that perfect research remains unattainable.
Reflecting on our undergraduate research, titled “The Effect of the National Food Authority (NFA) Rice Subsidy Program 'Tindahan Natin' on the Political Attitudes of Rural Poor Household Beneficiaries in Barangay Caraudan, Janiuay, Iloilo,” we encountered several imperfections despite our best efforts. We employed the quasi-experimental method, specifically the non-equivalent control group design. During the data-gathering process, we discovered that our respondents were also beneficiaries of other government food subsidy programs. The presence of these external variables, such as Gulayan ng Masa, food-for-school program (FSP), and various agricultural subsidies, compromised the
