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
