Dear Jane,
That is a topic that have interested me for a long time. I teach
something of this in my classes to master students in wildlife
management and conservation here in Costa Rica. I know this is a
controversial issue.
First I recommend these 3 books:
Scientific Method for Ecological Research. E. David Ford.
Method in Ecology: Strategies for Conservation. Kristin S.
Shrader-Frechette and Earl D. McCoy
A Primer on Natural Resource Science. Fred S. Guthery
Is necessary to distinguish between statistical and scientific
hypothesis. Statistical hypotheses is about patterns, scientific
hypotheses are about process (they are based on "why" or "how").
My experience on this topic tells me that most ecologists do not know
the difference between the 2 kind of hypothesis.
Like you probably experienced, reviewers like to see hypothesis driven
research on the proposal that you submit but most of the time they do
not know what a true scientific hypothesis is.
Most research in ecology is not hypothesis driven, even when would like
to see that. Read any paper in ecological journals and see how many of
them are truly hypothesis driven.
Hypothesis driven research are not always possible and in many instances
is not necessary to have scientific hypothesis, all depend on the
context. Most of the time we are interested in parameter estimation on
how much a factor or covariable influence a parameter of interest.
Besides, If you are going to do hypothesis driven research you need to
work with multiple hypothesis (Chamberlin).
Falsification is the contribution of Karl Popper to the
Hypothetic-Deductive method. It has nothing to do with statistics or
statistical hypothesis.
The hypothetic-deductive method has been considered as "the scientific
method", however not many people know how it works. The
hypothetic-deductive method is inductive and not deductive like the
namesuggest.
There is no a superior approach to obtain scientific knowledge.
There are much more on this topic but I would like to see other opinions.
Best,
Manuel Spínola
On 27/02/2011 11:44 p.m., Jane Shevtsov wrote:
Fellow Ecologgers,
Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the role of hypothesis testing
(both the statistical and falsificationist varieties) in biology in
general and ecology in particular. Before saying anything, I want to
ask the forum a few questions.
1. What do you think of the current emphasis on hypothesis-driven
research? Does it help you do better science? Is it crowding out other
approaches?
2. Have you ever had a grant proposal or publication declined because
of an absent or unclear hypothesis?
3. Have you ever recommended that someone else's grant proposal or
publication be declined for that reason? Was it the main reason?
I look forward to hearing what people have to say.
Jane Shevtsov
--
*Manuel Spínola, Ph.D.*
Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre
Universidad Nacional
Apartado 1350-3000
Heredia
COSTA RICA
mspin...@una.ac.cr
mspinol...@gmail.com
Teléfono: (506) 2277-3598
Fax: (506) 2237-7036
Personal website: Lobito de río
<https://sites.google.com/site/lobitoderio/>
Institutional website: ICOMVIS <http://www.icomvis.una.ac.cr/>
