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
