This may seem like blatant self-promotion, but I think that the best synthesis of the interplay between natural history, experimentation, and theory is Earl Werner's chapter in our Experimental Ecology book from 1998 (Werner, E.E. 1998. Ecological experiments and a research program in community ecology. Pages 3-26 in W. J. Resetarits Jr. and J. Bernardo, eds. Experimental Ecology: Issues and Perspectives. Oxford, New York). I don't have a pdf, but there are a fair number of books floating around so it shouldn't be too hard to round up a copy of the paper.
The plan was to write an opening chapter for the book, but once I received Earl's contribution I knew that anything we might say by way of introduction would be anticlimactic. So, my main contribution was recognizing a good thing when I read it. I feel confident in recommending this as many of my younger colleagues have told me that they used it as a guide while working on their dissertations (along with other chapters) and continue to use is as a framework for guiding their research programs. While it doesn't deal directly with the philosophical issues underlying the original subject of the post, it relates to the general issue raised by Elizabeth and the more pragmatic concerns, and is certainly germane to anyone planning their research and hoping to maximize the long-term impact of that research, its acceptance in high impact journals, and the short and long term probabilities of having that research funded. The one caveat I will add is that the enterprise as laid out can appear quite daunting - there are few individuals who can excel at all three aspects of a such a program - Earl is undoubtedly unique in that regard. We all have our relative strengths and weaknesses, so the point to keep in mind is that one doesn't necessarily have to DO everything themselves - natural history, experimentation and theory - but MUST bring an awareness of all three to bear in generating and attempting to answer ecological questions. I would venture to say that ANY ecological question (writ large), whether basic or applied, can inform or be informed by ecological theory and the broader ecological questions at the heart of our science. On 2/28/11 10:41 AM, "Elizabeth Congdon" <congdo...@gmail.com> wrote: My experience: During my dissertation proposal defense, I was surprised by this debate coming up. I had listed my hypotheses within a powerpoint presentation as more or less statistical hypotheses rather than explanatory ecological hypotheses. As a 'green' PhD student, I was somewhat aware of the difference, but not aware of the debate. One of my committee members stopped me, declaring "that is not a hypothesis". Another committee member replied with "yes, it is". I sat back and let them debate it for a while, getting more and more freaked out that I wasn't going to pass my defense. In the end, I got a 'provisional pass' with the expectation that I convert the framework of my proposal in to more expanatory, hypothesis-testing style. I re-wrote - not changing my project at all, just how I presented it - and then I was good to go. I gave this a lot of thought as I moved forward and believe that part of this debate is really about descriptive, natural history work vs hypothesis-testing, rather than statistical vs ecological hypotheses (but I do agree with Sr Spinola that both are worthwhile discussions). In most cases, the natural history has to be done first in order to produce viable hypotheses. Unfortunately, this is not seen as 'dissertation-worthy' by many institutions and limits what studies can get funded and finished. In my case, I simply did the natural history stuff simultaneously and it worked out well. So, in my teaching I discuss the two different types of hypotheses and the importance of natural history to inform viable hypothesis development. On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Manuel Spínola <mspinol...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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/> > -- Dr. Elizabeth Congdon Biology Department Georgia Southern University Statesboro, GA 30458 912-478-5964 William J. Resetarits, Jr. Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409-3131 Phone: (806) 742-2710, ext.300 Fax (806) 742-2963
