One of the main objectives of the university is research, the purpose of which is the creation of knowledge. To achieve this purpose, the university has implemented the research method. Advances in human knowledge in various fields drive the innovation of the research method. The need to innovate this method is manifested in its insufficiency to generate new knowledge and its obsolescence to address realities as complex as society. Thus, the scientific method has stagnated in its application to known empirical realities. The use of the scientific method in known contexts transforms it into a tool for exploring information and recycling knowledge, falling far short of meeting the university's objectives, such as knowledge production. In this article, we will analyze the research plan scheme for the development of a standard thesis.


The main objectives of a university are fundamentally two: academic training and research. The latter aims at the creation of knowledge. Therefore, the university becomes a center for knowledge generation, as evidenced in research works. Most of these works culminate in a graduation thesis. These theses can be undergraduate or postgraduate, but both usually follow the same structure. Each university establishes a development plan for the thesis. A basic scheme of a research plan includes the following elements:

  1. Title


  2. Statement of the problem

    -Description of the problem situation
    -Problem formulation

  3. Objectives

    -General objective
    -Specific Objectives

  4. Justification

  5. Background

  6. Theoretical framework

  7. Hypothesis formulation

    -General hypothesis
    -Specific hypotheses

  8. Development methodology

  9. Proposed index

  10. Schedule

  11. Bibliography

The fact that we start with the statement of the problem indicates that we are investigating an unknown reality or, at least, a reality for which we do not have a scientific explanation. A scientific explanation is a set of coherent arguments. The coherence of these arguments is determined by laws. Therefore, a known and scientifically defined reality is explained based on its scientific laws. This suggests that in a research work, we must strive to identify or discover the law that governs the problematic reality.

Problem statement: description of the problem reality

A problem is an objective fact with which we can agree to identify its objectivity. However, it can cease to be a problem if we change the perspective of the fact. Indeed, from a universal vision, everything is perfect; problems are simply appreciations determined by the limits of knowledge. These limits are added to those of the research method.

Therefore, the limits of the research method evidence the presence of the problem. On the other hand, when the research method has epistemological foundations, the vision expands, and the problem finds an explanation and therefore ceases to be such. In this sense, problems reflect the limits of human knowledge, and, consequently, the investigation of the problem reveals the limit of the research method. That is, if the problem does not exist, there is nothing to investigate, and the research method would not be necessary either.

Problem formulation

In the formulation of the problem, questions are usually formulated. Each question requires an answer. The obtaining of the answers becomes the objective of the research. To achieve these objectives, hypotheses are proposed, which are tentative answers to the questions, which are then corroborated with the analysis of the data. This data comes from a sample of the problem reality and this sample is from a study population. The answers we get to the questions become conclusions. And from the conclusions come recommendations. The conclusions can be useful for future research, which will result in new conclusions and recommendations. Without the conclusions, new techniques cannot be created. Without the techniques, new instruments cannot be created. Therefore, the works that conclude in conclusions do not contribute with results to the solution of the problem, nor do they generate new knowledge. Considering that the thesis is the final product of the university career, it ends up being a contribution to nothing, so universities are not fulfilling their main role of creating knowledge. The problem is not the lack of research, but the obsolete method of scientific research.

Research work must contribute to knowledge, and, for this purpose, it must culminate in the creation of techniques and instruments. The creation of instruments implies the creation of techniques. To create a technique, it is necessary to identify the law. Therefore, all research work consists of looking for the law that explains the problem. When we investigate a problem, we are looking for the cause, and the cause of the problem is in the law. The research method has its own limit, in that it is only applicable to known realities, to empirical realities where their elements are known, but it does not have the capacity to discover new knowledge or to discover the new laws that govern a problem.

On objectives

In a research plan, two types of objectives are usually proposed: one general and several specific ones. These correlate with the number of questions asked.

If we maintain the coherence of the scientific research process, the objective should be to find the answer to the problem, and that answer should be based on scientific law. If the problem is unknown, research should lead us to the discovery of the law. However, a research work establishes a hierarchy of objectives: one general or main and others specific. This type of research is appropriate for known topics, where events are predictable, and the aim is simply to quantify. For this reason, background information is required to ensure that the topic has already been studied, and new knowledge is not expected, let alone a scientific explanation derived from discovering the law governing the problem.

On the justification

The solution to the problem is a necessity. This necessity justifies the research process. When the solution to the problem is not used as a reference, but simply to conduct research following a work protocol, the issue of justification arises, with the criteria that the research be significant, important, and useful. None of the three criteria are related to the objective of reaching the scientific explanation of the problem. This is because research papers do not pursue a scientific explanation, much less seek the law that allows an explanation.

On the theoretical framework

The theoretical framework includes two elements: the background and the theoretical bases.


The research plan requires searching for the background, the purpose of which is to guarantee the mastery of knowledge of the topic. It is preferred to investigate a known topic where everything is predictable. At this point, we are dealing with a known topic posed as a false problem, so the purpose is not to produce new knowledge, as should be the case in scientific research. The more research background on the topic, the more information is available, and practically nothing new is being investigated, only exploration and manipulation of knowledge are being performed. Therefore, it is not possible to create new techniques.

On the theoretical bases

The theoretical bases constitute support for the research work. With them, the researcher has the confidence and security of understanding the topic. However, scientific theories do not generate new knowledge. Creating new theories from existing theories is to recycle existing knowledge. From a theory, techniques or instruments cannot be created. Therefore, theoretical bases do not constitute ideal support for creating new knowledge and new techniques.

On the formulation of the hypothesis

The formulation of hypotheses applies to experimental research and, as such, is a tentative answer to the problem based on the objectives of the research. The problem is formulated as a question, and the objectives are the answers to these questions. As they are known realities, it is easy to formulate hypotheses based on the formulation of the problem. However, if it is a matter of discovering or generating new knowledge, a known reality is not ideal, nor can a hypothesis arise based on a formulation of the problem; it must first have a scientific basis. A scientific basis is not the problem itself, but the explanation of the problem. The explanation of a problem is based on scientific law.

Relating or aligning the general hypothesis and the specific hypotheses with the objectives and problems is a mechanical procedure that is carried out uncritically. There is also no interest on the part of researchers in reviewing this issue, as research papers do not aim to generate knowledge or create new techniques, they are simply mechanical procedures in which knowledge is recycled without adding anything new. For this reason, universities do not produce knowledge through research due to the obsolescence of the research method.

On the methodology of development

The methodology of development establishes the steps to reach the solution to the problem. These steps include the stage of data collection, and processing of the same, followed by the presentation, interpretation and discussion of the results. From this process, conclusions and recommendations are reached.

If we want to get to the root of the problem, we will find the inductive method as the origin of the problem of the scientific method. The inductive method starts from the analysis of specific facts to reach general knowledge. General knowledge or generalization does not have the rigor of law. Therefore, through the inductive method, it is not possible to reach the discovery of laws, and without laws there is no science. However, in empirical realities, the inductive method allows us to quantify data to reach results that can be interpreted. An interpretation without law is subjective. Subjectivity is alien to science. This does not mean that we should return to the deductive method, but that we must first innovate the epistemological bases of the inductive and deductive methods and then propose the innovation of the research method.

On conclusions and recommendations

Conclusions are answers to the questions asked and may or may not agree with the hypotheses. However, only recommendations can arise from the conclusions. A recommendation cannot be new knowledge, especially when the problem investigated belongs to a known reality. The only thing done is to explore the data and recycle existing knowledge. Thus, recommendations are an invitation to repeat the cycle of investigations without innovation, and without creating knowledge and techniques.

On bibliography

The bibliographic sources are evidence of the error in the creation of knowledge. New knowledge arises from the changing reality; bibliographic sources are static realities, especially when we take theoretical sources. Scientific theories are subject to temporality and are not solid references to take as a basis for the creation of knowledge. The most valuable thing for scientific research are laws. Based on laws, we can propose hypotheses, and in the absence of laws, the need to investigate the causes of the problem arises. Naturally, the current research method is effective for recycling knowledge of already known realities, but it is useless for generating new knowledge. This is the reason why universities are not producers of knowledge and, as a result, the problems of society and the world remain unsolved.

Proposal for innovation of the research method

To overcome the problems of knowledge production in universities, we present the Princonser method. This has been developed on the epistemological bases of science. The innovation of the research method has an ontological and epistemological basis, where systems and laws are interconnected. Therefore, for the Princonser method, the basis of the research is not the data, but the laws. The objective of this method is to generate new knowledge and techniques. In this way, we open the door to invention in fields hitherto unknown. Thus, scientific research at universities becomes a generator of knowledge and new techniques.

Foundations of the Princonser Method

The foundations of the Princonser method are as follows: 1. Knowledge arises from changing reality, not from existing theories. 2. The research method should not be based on data, but on laws. 3. Innovation does not arise from existing information, but from unknown reality. 4. Invention does not arise from data collection, but from the identification of the unknown law. 5. Invention arises from the need to explain the unknown reality, not from the known reality. For the application of the Princonser method, we need to train researchers in new research techniques, which will allow the creation of new techniques and the production of new knowledge.