Having joined the list serve only recently, I am quite surprised at the lengthy discussions going on. I see that ECOLOG has an archive, but it is organized by date. If this discussion reflects the current state of the field, I think it would be good to have some formal online publication of the views expressed, in a citable and searchable way. For instance there are dozens of scholarly writings on the subject of this thread, but the views expressed here are most current in the way people feel, and indicate there is still a very lively debate and little consensus. It seems like it would be quite useful to have a formal documentation of this and other current topics (at the very least for historians of science, not to mention those who are not subscribed to the list). Moreover, it might help funding agencies to better assess what scientists feel is worth funding, rather than applying a universal standard to all endeavors regardless of how realistic or practical these expectations might be.
-- Shermin de Silva, Ph.D http://elephantresearch.net/fieldnotes http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~sdesilva On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Jeff Houlahan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Martin identifies one of the problems with a very restrictive > definition of what science is - it excludes a bunch of stuff that most of us > would think of as research. In fact, I would say that sequencing the human > genome did not involve hypothesis testing - it was natural history at the > molecular level - and most people would consider it one of the greatest > scientific achievements of the last decade. > However, I also have some sympathy with Pat's take that simply telling us > what is there often has limited value. And if we think back to how this is > 'supposed' to work (based on textbook science), descriptions are often the > source of hypotheses that we should tyhen test. I would say at this point > we have many, many untested or poorly tested hypotheses, which may explain > why many scientists are not very supportive of work that will just provide > more hypotheses to test. Best. > > Jeff Houlahan > > > I am amazed by Pat Swain's statements implying that unless a program of >> work >> includes formal hypothesis testing, it's not even research. ("...I think >> that pure survey of a property for species (making a list of all the >> species >> of some taxonomic group) encountered isn't research...", "...some of the >> projects that I rejected as not being research might well have been >> fundable >> ...")This appears to be defining the word research in a way I have never >> seen or heard before. Does this mean that none of the scientific work >> that >> was done before the rise of modern statistics was not research? Where the >> people doing that work also not really scientists? And whatever happened >> to >> library research? >> Martin >> >> 2011/3/7 Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> >> >> Honorable Forum: >>> >>> Re: "I think these general surveys are valuable, but they don't overtly >>> involve hypotheses and testing. However, it can and does include >>> assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on the topic pointed out >>> there >>> are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk every square inch of a >>> site, >>> rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, knowledge, observations when out >>> there) places that are most likely to be different/interesting (have rare >>> things)." --Pat Swain (Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM) >>> >>> I don't want to appear to jump to conclusions, so I would be interested >>> in >>> Swain's expansions upon this issue. I wonder if Pat would have funded a >>> survey which was based upon random sampling/mapping that would provide a >>> baseline dataset and provide another level of scrutiny of the >>> different/interesting as well as an opportunity to discover that which >>> one's >>> present state of knowledge might otherwise overlook. >>> >>> Please describe the theoretical foundation for "walking" the site rather >>> than randomly sampling it, and how one approaches gaining knowledge of a >>> site without a (statistically) valid inventory. >>> >>> WT >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Swain, Pat (FWE)" < >>> [email protected]> >>> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM >>> >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology >>> >>> >>> Ecolog-L, >>> >>>> >>>> Way back when the question about hypothesis testing in ecology was first >>>> posed to the group, one of the questions was whether anyone had rejected >>>> projects or grant proposals for lack of hypotheses. The discussion has >>>> gone >>>> on while I thought about posting a response to that, but with Jane >>>> Shevtsov's prodding, I offer the following thoughts on hypothesis >>>> testing >>>> and research. >>>> >>>> For some years I was on a committee to review and select graduate >>>> student >>>> research proposals for grant support for a regional botanical >>>> organization >>>> at the same time that I was involved in evaluating proposals for small >>>> contracts from my office which is focused on rare species and uncommon >>>> natural communities in the state. (I stress the research grants vs. >>>> contracts; and I am no longer on the committee which no doubt has >>>> different >>>> biases from mine, and my office doesn't have money for small contracts >>>> like >>>> we used to). >>>> >>>> On the grad research committee, I was far more likely to approve >>>> proposals >>>> for consideration if a hypothesis was stated, and I tended to veto >>>> projects >>>> that didn't do that. For example, I think that pure survey of a property >>>> for >>>> species (making a list of all the species of some taxonomic group) >>>> encountered isn't research, but such a project can be developed and >>>> proposed >>>> in ways that has research in it (effects of land use history, >>>> recreation, >>>> management...). If a student wanted to inventory a property as a >>>> research >>>> project, as someone funding grants I wanted the reasons given for why >>>> that >>>> property is worth the effort and what will be done with the results. I >>>> recall one otherwise quite good proposal I didn't consider because it >>>> just >>>> said that the property was interesting and the nonprofit owning it >>>> should >>>> know what was on it. I wanted to be shown what assumptions are being >>>> made >>>> (those should be stated as hypotheses to be tested in a proposal for a >>>> research grant), predictions! >>>> of where differences might be and why and expectations that post >>>> inventory analyses would be undertaken. >>>> >>>> However, some of the projects that I rejected as not being research >>>> might >>>> well have been fundable (I think some were) by my office where we want >>>> to >>>> know what rare species are in particular places, and what is rare. We >>>> have >>>> funded contracts for surveys for particular taxonomic groups in general >>>> as >>>> well others focused on rare species/natural communities along rivers, on >>>> particular properties, and so on. I think these general surveys are >>>> valuable, but they don't overtly involve hypotheses and testing. >>>> However, it >>>> can and does include assumptions/hypotheses; as one of the posters on >>>> the >>>> topic pointed out there are always assumptions made. One doesn't walk >>>> every >>>> square inch of a site, rather picks areas (from aerials, maps, >>>> knowledge, >>>> observations when out there) places that are most likely to be >>>> different/interesting (have rare things). >>>> >>>> So my thinking back when I was on the grad research committee was that >>>> for >>>> an inventory to be research and worth funding with a grant, the proposal >>>> had >>>> to clearly state hypotheses to be tested, and better, to discuss (yes, >>>> in >>>> only 2 pages) underlying assumptions going into the project. Maybe some >>>> of >>>> what I was after was an overt awareness of the questions and assumptions >>>> involved in setting up the project. And some idea of expected analysis >>>> of >>>> the results. >>>> >>>> My convoluted discussion summarizes to 'yes, I rejected proposals that >>>> didn't have hypotheses stated'. >>>> >>>> >>>> Pat >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Patricia Swain, Ph.D. >>>> Community Ecologist >>>> Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program >>>> Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife >>>> 1 Rabbit Hill Road >>>> Westborough, MA 01581 >>>> 508-389-6352 fax 508-389-7891 >>>> http://www.nhesp.org >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>
