It occurred to me that this proposal is similar to what is commonly done in physics laboratories. Many experiments have built-in biases and if the student reports correct results (i.e., the values in the reference books) then it can be assumed that they have fudged the data. I recall experiments on gravitational acceleration, the charge to mass ratio of the electron, and the Hall effect, as well as a virtually impossible experiment, measuring the resistance of a light bulb. Verifying some of Galileo's results is another good example (heavier objects really do fall faster than light ones, the period of a pendulum depends on the weight as well as the length). I cannot immediately think of a good parallel in ecology, but certainly it is a good concept worth thinking about.
Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 2:34 AM Subject: Re: questionable research practices > But I have wondered if there would be value in the following scenario: > > 1. Professor teaches a 'bogus' concept to the students, perhaps in a way > that they assume it is a lecture as usual. > > 2. Professor then has the students perform an experiment to > "demonstrate" > the phenomenon. Prefessor expects a full report write up on intro, > methods, > data results, discussion (of what went right or wrong, comments, etc). > > 3. Professor evaluates how many students: > A. Report that the data does not support the phenomenon and that > the phenomenon might be questionable. > B. Rationalize what went wrong with their experimenting such that > their particular experiment 'failed'. > C. Fudge the data. > > 4. Ask the class to do a peer review of each others reported research > findings. > > Debbie Antlitz
