Synthesis as a research method. Analysis and synthesis as the most important methods for studying changes in production management systems

In order to understand what these methods are, we note that a particular position, conclusion, consequence is in the same relationship to the general position, principle, reason, in which the action is to the cause. Just as from a known cause a known effect is obtained, so from a known principle, a reason, a known conclusion, a consequence, is obtained. We are also looking for known position a principle or basis, as for a known action we look for its cause. On the other hand, just as for a known cause we look for its effect, so for known principles we can look for their consequences.
From here, depending on what we are looking for, we get two different processes.
If we go from cause to action, from reason to conclusion, then such a path is called progressive or synthetic. It is called progressive because it corresponds to the real course of nature, the actual course of things, since in nature the cause comes before the effect. The reverse path, namely from action to cause, from conclusions to principles, is called regressive, analytical.
Diagram of the relationship between analysis and synthesis:

Often the words “analysis” and “synthesis” are given a different meaning, namely, analysis is understood as a method of decomposing a whole into its component parts, and synthesis is the inverse method of adding a whole and its parts, or elements. In this sense, they most often talk about chemical analysis and synthesis. But in order to true meaning the concepts of “analysis” and “synthesis”, as they are used in scientific research and the presentation was clear, we must consider the main meaning of the word “analysis” to be that which we have just indicated, namely the reduction of particular provisions to basic principles, and by synthesis we should understand the derivation of consequences from the basic principles.
Analytical method We use research when we look for the reasons for given actions. A judge, moralist, etc., who look for the reasons for certain actions, use the analytical method; legislator, politician, teacher who try to foresee actions known reasons, must follow the synthetic path.
To explain the application of analysis, let's take the following example. To solve the problem of inscribing a regular hexagon into a given circle, we reason like this. Let us assume that the problem is solved, and let AB be one of the sides of the inscribed hexagon. If we draw the radii to the end points of the sides, then the triangle formed in this way will be equiangular (since each angle is equal to two thirds right angle); therefore, the side of an inscribed regular hexagon is equal to the radius. It follows that in order to inscribe a regular hexagon in a given circle, you need to apply the radius six times to the circle. Here the application of the analytical method is obvious. We, having made the assumption that the problem has been solved, i.e., having admitted this particular proposition, have found the condition, the general principle under which this particular proposition is possible, i.e., from which this proposition can be deduced. In other words, we reduce this particular situation to a general principle.
An example of the application of synthesis is the theorem: “in any triangle, the sum of its angles is equal to two right angles.” To prove this theorem, we must accept the following two general propositions: “internal crosswise angles are equal” and “every pair adjacent corners equal to two straight lines." Of these general provisions we derive the required position.
The relationship of analysis and synthesis to induction and deduction. But, one may ask, what is the relationship between analytical and synthetic methods and inductive and deductive methods? The relationship between them is such that analysis corresponds to induction and synthesis corresponds to deduction. That analysis corresponds to induction can easily be explained as follows.
Induction aims to discover laws general principles. In the process of induction we move from particular provisions to general principles. Therefore, in the process of induction we take a regressive path. From this it follows that induction corresponds to analysis.
On the contrary, deduction deduces particular provisions and certain consequences from general principles. From this the relationship between the deductive method and the synthetic method becomes clear. The synthetic method is that we assume known principles open and proven; From these general principles we draw consequences.

Review questions
What is a proof and how does it differ from a syllogism? What three parts do we distinguish in the proof? What are the basic principles? What kind of proof is called direct? What kind of evidence is called indirect? Explain the course of indirect proof. What is a method called? What is the system called? In what two cases is a method used in scientific thinking? Which method is called analytical and which synthetic? Why is the synthetic method called progressive, and the analytical method regressive? Show the application of analytical and synthetic methods in mathematics. What is the relationship between analytical and synthetic methods and inductive and deductive methods?

One of the most common methods of cognition is analysis. In the 19th century, this method was generally identified with science. Obviously, for this reason, analysis is currently the dominant method of cognition. And when complementing analytical procedures with synthesis, they usually do not talk or write about it. Most often in justification management decisions when using the results of analysis, only the term “analysis” is used, although the decision itself is nothing more than a synthesis of the results of the analysis. So what is analysis, and what is synthesis, and why must analysis necessarily be complemented by synthesis?

In general, analysis involves dividing a whole into parts and studying in detail (quantitative and qualitative) these parts. The analysis itself without subsequent generalization of its results has no practical significance. Any analysis of the parts that make up the whole is carried out to obtain, through generalization, new knowledge about the whole into a more accurate and detailed information about its constituent parts. This generalization of analytical information and its transformation into new knowledge about the whole is called synthesis. I.P. wrote quite fully and succinctly about the logical connection between analysis and synthesis in the cognitive process in his book. Suslov (Digression 3.10).

Retreat 3.10. Analysis and synthesis: logical interdependence of application in the process of cognition

If at the entrance of analysis the study proceeds from the individual, empirically concrete to the universal, then in the process of synthesis it unfolds from the universal to the theoretically cognizable, structurally dismembered concrete. As a result of synthesis, the cognizable phenomenon appears as a single whole, explained from its “generative basis,” the internal law... Analysis and synthesis constitute a unity of opposites, two sides of a single cognitive process, therefore, their separation is unacceptable... In principle, any cognitive act is both analysis and synthesis. For example, outputting the value of money, i.e. the transition from a more abstract category to a less abstract one is not only a synthesis, but also an analysis, since in this case the researcher draws on empirical data on commodity relations showing the formation of money and scientific concept about them... In relation to research, we can talk about individual stages and periods of analytical and synthetic work. Let's say, the study of a major economic problem is carried out in parts in separate departments... of an institute... The results of such analytical work are then synthesized. At each stage of the study, either analysis or synthesis may come to the fore. Analysis prepares the “work” for synthesis; synthesis helps analysis to penetrate deeper into the essence of phenomena. The entire process of economic research can be conventionally depicted as a chain, where the link of analysis is followed by a link of synthesis, then more complex analysis and synthesis, etc.

Source: Suslov I.P. Methodology of economic research. M.: Economics, 1983. pp. 174-179.

According to I.P. Suslov, in solving any specific research problem, the process of cognition should be not just a form of an integral unidirectional sequence of methods for collecting data and producing new knowledge, but also a certain mechanism that allows a return to the use of already applied methods, but on a different, richer in content basis . Thus, looking ahead, it can be noted that the methodology of each specific study should be built on the principles systematic approach, the most important of which is feedback.

Analysis and synthesis should always be used together, and synthesis should complement analysis. In fact, this is true. Only this is usually not mentioned. We can give a couple of examples not from economics. So, the patient donates blood for analysis. Then he comes to the doctor, who, focusing on the quantitative indicators of blood components, synthesizes the results of the analysis into a diagnosis (however, no one says that the patient was sent to donate blood for synthesis; everyone says that he went to donate blood for analysis). The same can be said about the work of the country's meteorological services. Numerous weather stations, as well as weather satellites, collect a huge amount of data on the state of the atmosphere, cloudiness, direction and strength of wind, precipitation, etc., which flow as data to the Hydrometeorological Center of the country, where they are processed, forming into powerful information arrays in order to be subjected to in-depth analysis. And all this is done only to ensure that the results of the analysis are synthesized into forecasts for the country as a whole and for its regions. This is how analysis and synthesis are used in all branches of science. Economics is no exception here. A. Marshall is right: methods of cognition are the same for all sciences (see Digression 3.3), but their application is determined by the content of each specific branch of knowledge.

As for economics, as in other branches of science (see examples above from medicine, meteorology), discussions about analysis are considered separately, not in connection with synthesis. This clearly follows from the content educational literature and economic practices. Thus, from time immemorial, in higher education, the course “Analysis” has been taught. economic activity" Published and in print great amount textbooks and teaching aids, which are called “Analysis of economic activity” or “ Economic analysis economic activity"; There are textbooks with the title “Market Analysis” or something else, but with the indispensable use of only the word “analysis”. There is not a word about synthesis either in the title or in the content of this extensive educational literature. In this regard, the assumption may arise that synthesis as a method of knowledge in higher economic schools is not studied at all; only one analysis is studied.

However, it is not. Synthesis both in business practice and in educational process is given no less attention than analysis, only without using the word “synthesis”. In economic practice - as well as in medicine and meteorology, where synthesis is used, but we are talking about a diagnosis, weather forecast - synthesis based on the results of an analysis of economic activity or market analysis is used in the development of proposals for the development of enterprises, regions, countries in the form of goals , strategies, plans, programs and other management decisions. In the educational process, synthesis procedures are set out in extensive literature on the development and justification of management decisions, plans, projects, programs, goals, strategies, etc. In these educational publications, a reservation is always made that any such solution is based on analysis, but it is never said that such a method of cognition as synthesis is also involved here. Although this was not always the case. For example, when defining the concept of “Scientific Organization of Labor” (SLO), formulated in the early 1920s, the term “analysis” is used together with the term “synthesis” (Digression 3.11).

Retreat 3.11. Analysis and synthesis: two sides of a single cognitive process

Scientific organization of labor should be understood as an organization based on careful study production process with all the accompanying conditions and factors. The main method is to measure from nature the costs of time, materials and mechanical work, analysis of all received data and synthesis, giving a harmonious, most profitable production plan.

Analysis and synthesis, like induction and deduction, are opposite, but at the same time closely related methods of knowledge. In its simplest form analysis there is a mental division of the whole into parts and separate cognition of these parts as elements of a complex whole. The task of analysis is to find, to see the parts as a whole, the simple in the complex, the many in the whole, the cause in the consequence, etc.

Synthesis is the opposite process - connecting parts into a whole, considering the whole as complex, consisting of many elements. The ascent from cause to effect is a synthetic, constructive path.

Since the phenomenon being studied always appears as complex education, its knowledge (after preliminary general familiarization) usually begins with analysis, and not with synthesis. To combine parts into a whole, you must first have those parts in front of you. Therefore, analysis precedes synthesis.

How to carry out the analysis?

Logic has developed a number of rules for analytical research, which include the following.

1. Before analyzing the subject (phenomenon) under study, it is necessary to clearly distinguish it from another system into which it is included as compound element. This is also done with the help of analysis (previous).

2. Next, the basis on which the analysis will be carried out is established. The basis is that characteristic of the analyzed object that distinguishes some components from others. At each stage of analysis, one basis of division should be selected, and not several at once. The elements identified as a result of the analysis should exclude each other, and not be included in one another.

3. After this, analysis is carried out, and analytical knowledge is acquired mainly by inference, i.e. based on actions performed according to the rules of formal logic.

Synthesis as a way of constructing non-inferential knowledge consists in combining and processing several knowledge systems, in combining various theoretical statements, as a result of which an intersystem transfer of knowledge occurs and new knowledge is born.

Based on synthesis, the scientific research addresses the following important theoretical questions:

1. The subject under study is presented as a system of connections and interactions, highlighting the most significant aspects and connections.

2. It becomes clear whether there is a single nature, common essential elements in phenomena that are studied as different, but which have something in common.

3. It is established whether there is a connection between laws and dependencies related to one object.

Synthesis, therefore, is not a simple addition of parts, but logically a constructive operation that allows one to outline the movement of knowledge (put forward ideas, hypotheses, develop them) and carry out its movement. The results of synthetic activity must be a complete picture that adequately reflects reality.

The advantage of the synthetic research method is its compliance, adequacy with the process of movement and development.

Procedures system analysis and synthesis in economic research:

1. Identification and formulation of a scientific problem. Definition of the object and subject of research, goals and objectives.

2. Purposeful collection of information, structuring of problems, description of the system under study. Contents: goals of the system, degree of dependence on the environment. System elements. Structure. Connections and relationships. System behavior. Control.

3. Constructing hypotheses about integration mechanisms and development paths. Building a model (synthesis).

4. Study of an object using a system of methods. Adjustment of research plans.

5. Forecast of system development. Explanations. Designs.

Topic 6. Methods of expert assessment in the study of management systems

6.1. Characteristics of methods expert assessments

If in the process of research there are systems for managing intuitive information transformed by imagination, expert research methods are used. These methods are especially often used in previous forecasting and planning studies of control systems. Expert research can have both independent significance and can be used in checking the truth (verification) of logical research and modeling.

Predictive expert assessments reflect the individual judgment of specialists regarding efficiency, resource consumption, safety, as well as the development prospects of an object and are based on the mobilization of professional experience and intuition.

Expert methods research is used for analysis, diagnosis of a condition, subsequent prediction of development options: objects whose development is either completely or partially not amenable to substantive description or mathematical formalization; in the absence of sufficiently representative and reliable statistics on the characteristics of the object; in conditions of great uncertainty in the operating environment of the object, the market environment; in medium- and long-term forecasting of new markets, objects of new areas of industry, subject to the strong influence of discoveries in the fundamental sciences; in cases where either the time or funds allocated for forecasting and decision-making do not allow studying the problem using formal models; missing necessary technical means modeling, for example, computer technology with relevant characteristics; in extreme situations.

Currently, a significant number of expert assessment methods have been developed, and there are also different approaches to their classification. We will follow the following classification approach.

Methods of expert assessments can be divided into two groups: methods of collective work of an expert group and methods of obtaining individual opinions of members of an expert group (Fig. 18).

Methods of collective work of an expert group involve obtaining a common opinion during a joint discussion of the problem being solved. Sometimes these methods are called methods of directly obtaining collective opinion. The main advantage of these methods is the possibility of versatile analysis of problems. The disadvantages of the methods are the complexity of the procedure for obtaining information, the complexity of forming group opinion according to individual expert judgments, the possibility of pressure from authorities in the group. Teamwork methods include brainstorming, scenarios, business games, meetings and court.

Fig. 18. Expert assessment methods

Brainstorming method. Methods of this type are also known as collective idea generation, brainstorming, and discussion methods. All these methods are based on the free expression of ideas aimed at solving a problem. The most valuable ones are then selected from these ideas.

Various implementations of these methods are possible. The most common is the following.

Two groups are created: idea generators and analysts. The first group includes people with a rich imagination, as a rule, specialists from related fields. A group meeting is organized, led by a facilitator. The main task of the presenter is to fully encourage initiative and creativity, the freedom to put forward new ideas, even at first glance dubious or absurd, and to avoid criticism. All ideas put forward are recorded and transferred to a group of analysts. The group of analysts consists mainly of specialists in a given problem, analyzing proposals and selecting the most valuable among them.

The advantage of the brainstorming method is the high efficiency of obtaining the required solution. Its main disadvantage is the complexity of organizing the examination, since sometimes it is impossible to bring together the required specialists, create a relaxed atmosphere and eliminate the influence of official relationships.

Scripting method is a set of rules as set out in in writing proposals from specialists on the problem being solved. A scenario is a document containing an analysis of a problem and proposals for its implementation. Proposals are first written by experts individually, and then they are agreed upon and presented in the form of a single document.

Typically, scenarios are developed to predict the development of various systems, a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness and possible progress of a complex operation and include a description of all stages life cycle systems or operations. In the future, such a description is the basis for the development of formalized models of various stages of system development. In other words, the scenario is a kind of descriptive model with which the study of any system begins in accordance with the stages of modeling.

The main advantage of the script is its comprehensive coverage of the problem being solved in an understandable form. Disadvantages include possible ambiguity, vagueness of the issues presented and insufficient validity of individual decisions.

Business games based on modeling of functioning social system management when performing operations aimed at achieving the set goal. Unlike previous methods, where expert assessments are formed during a collective discussion, business games involve the active activity of an expert group, each member of which is assigned a certain responsibility in accordance with pre-drawn rules and a program.

Business games are widely used for decision making in management industrial enterprises and other organizations and are also aimed at studying behavior and training specialists in a given environment.

The main advantage of business games is the ability to develop a solution in dynamics, taking into account all stages of the process under study with the interaction of all elements of the social management system. The disadvantage is the complexity of the organization business games in conditions close to the real problem situation.

Method of meetings (commissions, round table) - the simplest and most traditional. It involves holding a meeting or discussion with the aim of developing a single collective opinion on the problem being solved. Unlike the brainstorming method, each expert can not only express his opinion, but also criticize the proposals of others. As a result of such thorough discussion, the possibility of errors in reaching a decision is reduced.

The advantage of the method is the simplicity of its implementation. However, at a meeting, the erroneous opinion of one of the participants may be accepted due to his authority, official position, perseverance or oratorical abilities.

"Trial" method is a type of deliberation method and is implemented by analogy with the conduct of a trial. The chosen solution options act as “defendants”; in the role of “judges” - decision makers; in the role of “prosecutors” and “defenders” - members of the expert group. The role of "witnesses" is played by various conditions choice and arguments of experts. When conducting such a “trial,” certain decisions are rejected or accepted.

The “court” method is advisable to use when there are several groups of experts who adhere to various options solutions.

Methods for obtaining individual opinions of members of the expert group are based on preliminary collection of information from experts interviewed independently of each other, with subsequent processing of the received data. These methods include questionnaire methods, interviews and Delphi methods. The main advantages of the individual expert assessment method are their efficiency, the ability to fully use the individual abilities of the expert, the absence of pressure from authorities and the low cost of examination. Their main disadvantage is high degree subjectivity of the resulting assessments due to the limited knowledge of one expert.

Questionnaire method involves the development of special questionnaires containing a list of questions on the problem being solved. Questionnaires are multiplied according to the number of experts and sent to the appropriate addresses. In the process of filling out questionnaires, the following requirements must be met: ensure the mutual independence of expert judgments; if necessary, check the experts’ unambiguous understanding of the questionnaire questions; do not allow several experts to fill out one questionnaire; fill out the form and submit it within the specified time frame.

The questionnaires are collected by the head of the examination; they are processed using statistical methods processing expert information.

The main advantages of the questionnaire survey method are the ability to collect a large amount of information in a fairly short period of time and the independence of expert judgments. Disadvantages include the difficulty of developing an effective questionnaire containing a reasonable list of questions.

Interview method involves a conversation between the head of the examination and the expert, during which formulated questions are posed to him according to a pre-developed program. A feature of the interview method is that the manager and the expert are in direct contact.

Conventionally, there are three forms of interviews: free conversation, when additional questions are formed during the interview; conversation of the “question-answer” type, when a limited range of questions is defined and a clear answer must be given to them; cross-sectional survey, when an expert is asked by several researchers.

The advantage of the interview method is the ability to obtain information that is not readily available through a questionnaire survey. However, the results of the survey may be influenced by the personality of the manager, the expert’s ability to communicate, the speed of his thinking and other factors.

Delphi method, or the Delphic Oracle method, is an iterative questionnaire procedure. At the same time, the requirement of absence of personal contacts between experts and ensuring their complete information for all assessment results after each round of the survey, while maintaining the anonymity of assessments, argumentation and criticism.

The method procedure includes several successive stages (rounds) of the survey. At the first stage, an individual survey of experts is carried out, usually in the form of questionnaires. Experts give answers without giving reasons. Then the survey results are processed and a collective opinion of a group of experts is formed, the arguments and benefits of various judgments are identified and summarized. The second is that all information is communicated to the experts and they are asked to reconsider their assessments and explain the reasons for their disagreement with the collective judgment. New estimates are processed again. transition to next stage. Practice shows that after three or four stages, the experts’ answers stabilize and it is necessary to stop the procedure.

The advantage of the Delphi method is the use of feedback during the survey, which significantly increases the objectivity of expert assessments. However this method requires significant time to implement the entire multi-stage procedure.

Introduction

Analysis and synthesis are called general scientific because they are used in the knowledge of all phenomena of reality and, therefore, in all sciences.

These methods were formed during centuries cognitive activity people and improve during its development. It is necessary to master them in order to apply them in the study of social reality, including the socio-economic and political processes occurring in society.

General scientific methods, being methods of understanding reality, are at the same time methods of thinking for researchers; on the other hand, research thinking methods act as methods of cognitive activity.

The purpose of this abstract is to study the application of analysis and synthesis in the study of technical objects.

The objectives of the work are:

- studying the features of the methodology of technical sciences;
- consideration of analysis as a method of cognition;
- study of synthesis as a method of cognition.

The object of the work is the methodology of technical sciences. The subject of the work is analysis and synthesis as research methods.

The concept of analysis and synthesis as research methods

The empirical level of cognition is the process of mental - linguistic - processing of sensory data, in general information received through the senses. Such processing may consist of analysis, classification, generalization of material obtained through observation. Here concepts are formed that generalize observed objects and phenomena. In this way, the empirical basis of certain theories is formed.

What is characteristic of the theoretical level of cognition is that “here the activity of thinking is included as another source of knowledge: theories are constructed that explain observed phenomena, revealing the laws of the area of reality that is the subject of study of this or that theory.”

General scientific methods used both at the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge are methods such as: analysis and synthesis, analogy and modeling.

Analysis and synthesis, like induction and deduction, are opposite, but at the same time closely related methods of knowledge.

In its simplest form, analysis is the mental division of a whole into parts and the separate knowledge of these parts as elements of a complex whole. The task of analysis is to find, to see the parts as a whole, the simple in the complex, the many in the whole, the cause in the consequence, etc.

Analysis is a method of thinking associated with the decomposition of the object being studied into its component parts, aspects, development trends and methods of functioning with the aim of relative self-study. Such parts can be some material elements of the object or its properties, characteristics.

He takes important place in the study of objects of the material world. But it constitutes only the initial stage of the process of cognition.

The analysis method is used to study components subject. Being a necessary method of thinking, analysis is only one of the moments in the process of cognition.

The means of analysis is the manipulation of abstractions in consciousness, i.e. thinking.

To carry out this second stage in the process of cognition - to move from the study of the individual components of an object to the study of it as a single connected whole - is possible only if the method of analysis is complemented by another method - synthesis.

In the process of synthesis, the components (sides, properties, characteristics, etc.) of the object under study, dissected as a result of analysis, are brought together. On this basis, further study of the object takes place, but as a single whole.

Analysis mainly captures what is specific that distinguishes parts from each other. Synthesis reveals the place and role of each element in the system of the whole, establishes their interrelation, that is, it allows us to understand the common features that connect the parts together.

Analysis and synthesis are in unity. In essence, they are “two sides of a single analytical-synthetic method of cognition.” “Analysis, which involves the implementation of synthesis, has as its core the selection of the essential.”

Analysis and synthesis originate in practical activities. Constantly dissecting in its practical activities various items into their component parts, man gradually learned to separate objects mentally.

Practical activity consisted not only of dismembering objects, but also of reuniting parts into a single whole. The thought process arose on this basis.

Analysis and synthesis are the main methods of thinking, which have their objective basis both in practice and in the logic of things: the processes of connection and separation, creation and destruction form the basis of all processes in the world.

On empirical level cognition uses direct analysis and synthesis for the first superficial acquaintance with the object of study. They generalize observed objects and phenomena.

On theoretical level cognition uses recurrent analysis and synthesis, which are carried out by repeatedly returning from synthesis to re-analysis.

They reveal the deepest, most significant aspects, connections, patterns inherent in the objects and phenomena being studied.

These two interrelated research methods receive their own specification in each branch of science.

From a general reception they can turn into special method, so they exist specific methods mathematical, chemical and social analysis. The analytical method has also been developed in some philosophical schools and directions. The same can be said about synthesis.

Synthesis is the opposite process - combining parts into a whole, viewing the whole as complex, consisting of many elements. The ascent from cause to effect is a synthetic, constructive path.

Since the phenomenon being studied always appears as a complex formation, its cognition (after preliminary general familiarization) usually begins with analysis rather than synthesis. To combine parts into a whole, you must first have those parts in front of you. Therefore, analysis precedes synthesis.

Logic has developed a number of rules for analytical research, which include the following.

1. Before analyzing the subject (phenomenon) under study, it is necessary to clearly distinguish it from another system into which it is included as a component element. This is also done with the help of analysis (previous).
2. Next, the basis on which the analysis will be carried out is established. The basis is that characteristic of the analyzed object that distinguishes some components from others. At each stage of analysis, one basis of division should be selected, and not several at once. The elements identified as a result of the analysis should exclude each other, and not be included in one another.
3. After this, analysis is carried out, and analytical knowledge is acquired mainly by inference, i.e. based on actions performed according to the rules of formal logic.

Synthesis as a method of constructing non-inferential knowledge consists in combining and processing several knowledge systems, in combining various theoretical statements, resulting in an intersystem transfer of knowledge and the birth of new knowledge.

Based on synthesis, the scientific research addresses the following important theoretical questions:

1. The subject under study is presented as a system of connections and interactions, highlighting the most significant aspects and connections.
2. It becomes clear whether there is a single nature, common essential elements in phenomena that are studied as different, but which have something in common.
3. It is established whether there is a connection between laws and dependencies related to one object.

Synthesis, therefore, is not a simple addition of parts, but logically - a constructive operation that allows one to outline the movement of knowledge (put forward ideas, hypotheses, develop them) and carry out its movement. The results of synthetic activity must be a complete picture that adequately reflects reality.

The advantage of the synthetic research method is its compliance, adequacy with the process of movement and development.

Procedures for system analysis and synthesis in economic research:

1. Identification and formulation of a scientific problem. Definition of the object and subject of research, goals and objectives.
2. Purposeful collection of information, structuring of problems, description of the system under study. Contents: goals of the system, degree of dependence on the environment. System elements. Structure. Connections and relationships. System behavior. Control.
3. Constructing hypotheses about integration mechanisms and development paths. Building a model (synthesis).
4. Study of an object using a system of methods. Adjustment of research plans.
5. Forecast of system development. Explanations. Designs.

General scientific methods used both at the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge are methods such as: analysis and synthesis, analogy and modeling.

Analysis is a method of thinking associated with the decomposition of the object being studied into its component parts, aspects, development trends and methods of functioning with the aim of studying them relatively independently. Such parts can be some material elements of the object or its properties, characteristics.

It occupies an important place in the study of objects of the material world. But it constitutes only the initial stage of the process of cognition.

The analysis method is used to study the components of an object. Being a necessary method of thinking, analysis is only one of the moments in the process of cognition.

The means of analysis is the manipulation of abstractions in consciousness, i.e. thinking.

To comprehend an object as a whole, one cannot limit oneself to studying only its component parts. In the process of cognition, it is necessary to reveal objectively existing connections between them, to consider them together, in unity. To carry out this second stage in the process of cognition - to move from the study of the individual components of an object to the study of it as a single connected whole - is possible only if the method of analysis is complemented by another method - synthesis.

Analysis and synthesis originate in practical activities. Constantly dividing various objects into their component parts in his practical activities, man gradually learned to separate objects mentally. Practical activity consisted not only of dismembering objects, but also of reuniting parts into a single whole. The thought process arose on this basis.

At the empirical level of knowledge, direct analysis and synthesis are used for the first superficial acquaintance with the object of study. They generalize observed objects and phenomena.

At the theoretical level of knowledge, recurrent analysis and synthesis are used, which are carried out by repeatedly returning from synthesis to re-analysis. They reveal the deepest, most significant aspects, connections, patterns inherent in the objects and phenomena being studied.

These two interrelated research methods receive their own specification in each branch of science. From a general technique they can turn into a special method, so there are specific methods of mathematical, chemical and social analysis. The analytical method has also been developed in some philosophical schools and directions. The same can be said about synthesis.

Analogy is “a plausible probable conclusion about the similarity of two objects in some characteristic based on their established similarity in other characteristics.” Analogy lies in the nature of the very understanding of facts, connecting the threads of the unknown with the known. The new can be meaningful and understood only through the images and concepts of the old, known. The first airplanes were created by analogy with how birds behave in flight, kites and gliders.

Despite the fact that analogies allow us to draw only probable conclusions, they play a huge role in cognition, as they lead to the formation of hypotheses, i.e. scientific guesses and assumptions, which in the course of additional research and evidence can turn into scientific theories. An analogy with what is known helps to understand what is unknown. An analogy with something that is relatively simple helps us understand something that is more complex. Thus, by analogy with the artificial selection of the best breeds of domestic animals, Charles Darwin discovered the law natural selection in the animal and flora. The most developed area where analogy is often used as a method is the so-called similarity theory, which is widely used in modeling.

One of characteristic features modern scientific knowledge is the increasing role of the modeling method.

Modeling is based on similarity, analogy, common properties of various objects, and the relative independence of form.

Modeling is “a research method in which the object of interest to the researcher is replaced by another object that is in a relationship of similarity to the first object.” The first object is called the original, and the second is called the model. Subsequently, the knowledge gained from studying the model is transferred to the original based on analogy and similarity theory. Modeling is used where studying the original is impossible or difficult and is associated with high costs and risk. A typical modeling technique is to study the properties of new aircraft designs using scaled-down models placed in a wind tunnel. Modeling can be subject, physical, mathematical, logical, symbolic. It all depends on the choice of the character of the model.

A model is a means and way of expressing the features and relationships of an object taken as the original. A model is a system objectified in reality or mentally represented that replaces the object of cognition.

Modeling is always and inevitably associated with some simplification of the modeled object. At the same time, it plays a huge role, being a prerequisite for a new theory.

The basis of such a research technique, which is now very widespread in science, as modeling, is inference by analogy. In general, modeling, due to its complex nature, can rather be classified as a class of research methods or techniques.

Synthesis as a research method. Analysis and synthesis as the most important methods for studying changes in production management systems

Introduction

The concept of analysis and synthesis as research methods

Latest

You need to know this