If we iteratively modify our hypotheses through the process of data
collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation, how different is
this process from "observational" or "exploratory" research? It is,
of course, different to some debatable extent. Regardless, I think
Paul's comments shed light on the reality that there is a large gray
area between the extremes of purely observational studies and purely
hypothesis driven studies (which his 2005 paper apparently
documents). Given this, I find the explicit or underlying claims of
superiority made by proponents of hypothesis driven research to ring
false (despite some of the strong benefits of hypothesis testing that
Paul and others have made clear). I find such claims ironic since the
result of many observational or exploratory studies is, gasp, a
hypothesis.
Finally, regardless of the language we use to reference hypotheses in
our introductions, I ask: Is it always beneficial to cloak studies
that are somewhat exploratory behind a veil of singlular hypothesis
testing? Or might we also sometimes gain and share insights by making
the process of data exploration and hypothesis testing/modification
more apparent in our manuscripts?
To be clear, my comments are more in response to a general narrow-
mindedness that I've observed among some natural scientists, not to
any particular post or 'poster' in this recent thread (i.e. I found
Paul's post insightful and not especially narrow-minded).
Kevin Mueller
On Mar 9, 2011, at 11:00 PM, Paul Grogan wrote:
"Furthermore, often during the data interpretation or write-up
stage, additional reflection on the processes of experimentation and
evaluation of the data may indicate to the scientist (or to a manuscript
reviewer) that the test did not reflect the hypothesis as well as
originally
thought. In such cases, further refinement or editing of the hypothesis
statement should be made so that the final research output – the
peer-reviewed publication disseminating the new knowledge – is as
accurate
and accessible to others as possible. As a result, I usually finish my
manuscript Introduction sections with: “We used our data to test the
following hypotheses....” (rather than “We tested the following
hypotheses... which gives the impression of great foresight on the
part of
the author)."
