The unadorned meaning of research is ‘scientific inquiry’ or simply ‘to search again’. The intriguing word denotes the systematic investigation to increase knowledge and understanding or simply to arrive at facts. It is the careful subject of a study to set up new information or facts about the subject matter. The researcher could be systematic, detailed, organized but cannot be perfect. The word ‘perfect’ on its own is ambiguous. What does this word really mean? Every researched work usually undergoes fresh scrutiny and further examination before assimilation and therefore all the research outcomes are subject to amendments. This paper seeks to confirm Griffiths 1998’s claim that there is no hope for perfect research.

Continuous editing of a single research will disqualify any research as out rightly perfect and make the claim true. For example, the research carried out by Kaka 2009 has since gone through editions more than five times. Knowledge is an abyss and a claim of reaching a ‘perfect’ terminal is both impractical and makes little sense. For instance, the infamous Isaac Newton had at one time claimed that he had collected a few pebbles from the ocean of knowledge, though he undoubtedly made many scientific discoveries and contributions to science. In this context, modesty should be every researcher’s benchmark and an incentive; acclamation should thus never blanket our academic quests.

It is also vital to note that research involves getting the information from other print or people, regardless of their knowledge about the issues, and it is of no interest to research whether they are familiar with the matter or not.

The method of trial and error employed in any research also indicates another great weakness of research. The data obtained through trial and error is what is termed as research. Essentially all the errors, inaccuracies, and even false information, could end up as part of the research outcome. This makes little sense and the research essence consequently disappears. This is clear in the research carried out by McLeod 2003.

Even if the research methods and techniques are changed, they will not necessarily spring forth an error-free, perfect, and spotless work. It is worthwhile to note that at times the theories, claims and the results arrived at by the researchers contradict each other, making the process ambiguous. Some results are divided, precarious, and uncertain therefore leaving out new facts that will always be unearthed with time. The qualitative research, for instance, is weak due to problems to do with research validity. The quantitative however, has errors when it comes to the data validity, the analysis, and the drawing of conclusions.

The opinions of the researchers also make the process biased. Every outcome in most cases is in the favor of the researcher. For instance, in the research by Claudia 2007, the available research on the effect of negative evidence in second language acquisition presents a somewhat divided picture with negative evidence apparently being effective for giving phenomena but not for other functions.

Concisely, there are reasonable grounds to make the conclusion that there exists no hope for perfect research. The outcomes as well as the procedure are dependent on many factors. Furthermore, human error, falsified information provided, inevitable inaccuracies, and other inevitable errors nullify the word ‘perfect.’