I have to agree with Christopher B. on his points. Stating unequivocally
(if not dogmatically) that work that isn't hypothesis-driven is NOT research
simply doesn't correspond to the meaning of "research" if we look it up in a
dictionary. Granted, specialized fields such as ecology may redefine
English words to suit their special purpose, but I am certainly not aware
that consensus within ecology has emerged to justify such restricted usage.
An earlier poster pointed out that if a granting agency only wants
to fund hypothesis-driven research, one should heed that when applying for
their funds. This is not a comment on the value of different approaches to
research; it's just a pragmatic meeting of requirements. This touches on
the fact, also addressed by Christopher B's comments, that science, by its
nature, is not an individual enterprise. The knowledge base drawn upon, the
resources made available, and the consequences of outcomes, all function at
the level of large institutions or all of society. We are all drawing from
a common pool and are all contributing to the pool. Funding agencies are a
mechanism to evaluate and reward certain types of contributions, but people
within a particular agency shouldn't imagine that their agency speaks for
all of science.
Some individuals, because of habit, training, temperament, and
intellectual styles may wish to focus on one type of research (say, rigorous
hypothesis testing) and others prefer another type, say exploration and data
gathering without a-priori expectations. This diversity is good; let each
individual function in the niche to which he/she is most suited or most
enjoys. It's fine if some of us just publish observations if others of us
can use those observations.
It is up to higher-level control mechanisms (or an "invisible
hand," as in economics) to make the most use of these contributions, to
bring together people and data that reinforce one another, and to provide
nudges in useful directions. As has been pointed out by other posters, what
is most valuable may change as a field or sub-field matures, or as society's
needs change, but there's still room for everyone. I think this is
especially true when we consider how new information technology can get more
data before more people, even data that were gathered a hundred years ago.
Martin Meiss
2011/3/9 Christopher Brown <cabr...@tntech.edu>
> William and others,
>
> Personally, I think that the answer to the question "Is all data
> gathering research?" is clearly and unequivocally YES...just as I think
> this is not really the question you are addressing here. Instead, I
> think you are more properly asking "Is all data gathering fundable
> research?" (or perhaps "Is all data gathering research that is useful
> for professional advancement?"). For these latter questions, I think
> your comments are important and useful to keep in mind, for both
> students and professionals; however, I think your initial paragraph too
> broadly dismisses activities that are crucial to our understanding of
> nature. As but one example: I was recently reading a paper by Jerry
> Coyne et al (Evolution 2008) examining the origins of sexual dimorphism
> in birds. As their data, they used information on hybrids gathered from
> the literature. Now, my guess is that many of us (if we wanted) could
> use the original hybrid reports as an example of "non-research" data
> gathering, since on their own they really have no "useful" purpose other
> than just as a bit of information, perhaps only interesting to other
> ornithologists. But, with enough of these pieces out there, Coyne et al.
> were able to address an interesting theoretical question. As I learned
> early on, write down and record everything, as you never know what will
> be important later on.
>
> Chris
> ***********************************
> Chris Brown
> Associate Professor
> Dept. of Biology, Box 5063
> Tennessee Tech University
> Cookeville, TN 38505
> email: cabr...@tntech.edu
> website: iweb.tntech.edu/cabrown
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
> [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Resetarits, William
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:34 PM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
>
> It seems a rather critical issue has raised its head at this juncture in
> the discussion. "Is all data gathering research." I think we risk being
> disingenuous and misleading the many students on this listserve if we
> don't clearly and unequivocally answer "NO." To suggetst hat the
> "system" is somehow faulty and that it is OK for folks, especially
> students, to follow their hearts and simply gather data on their
> favorite organisms or systems is doing them a grave disservice. One of
> the first, and undoubtedly the most important, thing I learned in my
> PhD. was also the most simple. The key question in any research
> project, whether empirical, experimental or theoretical, is... What's
> the question? Or as one of my committee members so eloquently put it,
> "why should I care." The fact that no one knows anything about a
> particular taxon or a system, or "I really like organism X" is rarely an
> adequate answer.
>
> No one really doubts the absolute value of pure descriptive natural
> history, and data is a good thing, but it cannot realistically be an end
> in itself for a professional scientist in this day and age. Even the
> most storied present day natural historians, and those of the past as
> well, bring much more to the table. In any realistic funding climate,
> question driven science will, and should, take precedence. This does
> not mean that one can't do pure natural history in the context of
> question driven science, but it alone is unlikely to be sufficient to
> drive the research to the top of anyone's funding list, onto the pages
> of top journals, or to drive a candidate to the top of many job lists,
> at least at the PhD. level.
>
> Similarly, biodiversity discovery is important, ongoing, and it gets
> funded. Why? NSF's Program in Biotic Surveys and Inventories, recently
> expired programs in Microbial Observatories, and Microbial Inventories
> and Processes, and to some extent the ongoing Dimensions of Biodiversity
> program, among others, target biodiversity discovery. But all of them
> require well-framed questions that convince the target audience that
> THIS biodiversity discovery project should be funded over the 90% of
> those submitted that cannot be funded. The key is what else it brings
> to the table beyond just documenting what is out there. Most applied
> funding that allows for simple inventories and surveys is driven by
> economic and political considerations, not scientific. As valuable as
> it was for documenting the flora, fauna, ethnography, and geology of the
> American West, the Corps of Discovery expedition was NOT a scientific
> expedition but funded solely for economic and political purposes. Onl!
> y Jefferson's personal missive to gather data on plants, animals,
> Indian tribes etc., made it something beyond an exploration and mapping
> expedition. The actual science was done by others long after the Corps
> had returned. Similarly, naturalists (such as Darwin) were employed on
> commercial and exploratory voyages largely to bring back interesting,
> and more importantly, economically valuable plants and animals. Such
> was the case with the Beagle.
>
> We all admire Darwin as a natural historian, but that isn't why we
> remember him and why he is on the British ten-pound note and voted the
> second most admired Brit in history (behind only Churchill - for very
> pragmatic reasons). Why the situation now is different is that he lived
> in a time when you had to expand the realm of natural history and
> systematic data both to generate and shed light on important questions.
> I agree with Jeff that we have a backlog of questions. The benefit of
> addressing those questions, or gathering data in the context of those
> questions, rather than simply plunging ahead with gathering more data,
> is that the answers to those questions can guide us to be more efficient
> in prioritizing what data we still need to gather with our limited time
> and resources.
>
>
>
> On 3/8/11 8:51 AM, "David L. McNeely" <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> ---- Martin Meiss <mme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am amazed by Pat Swain's statements implying that unless a program
> of work
> > includes formal hypothesis testing, it's not even research. ("...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...", "...some of
> the
> > projects that I rejected as not being research might well have been
> fundable
> > ...")This appears to be defining the word research in a way I have
> never
> > seen or heard before. Does this mean that none of the scientific work
> that
> > was done before the rise of modern statistics was not research? Where
> the
> > people doing that work also not really scientists? And whatever
> happened to
> > library research?
> > Martin
>
> Martin, I had the same response. I suppose that folks like John Wesley
> Powell could have cast hypotheses to cover their appeals for funding.
> Maybe T. Jefferson, M. Lewis, and W. Clark could have jointly written a
> grant proposal, stating as hypotheses that the Missouri River reached
> to the Rocky Mountains, that the Rocky Mountains were only as tall as
> the Appalachians, that there were rivers in the west that reached the
> Pacific Ocean, that there was an extant elephant species in the interior
> of North America, that Native Americans would be friendly and trade with
> the expedition, .............. . Again, why? that Some things we just
> don't know, and collecting information toward finding out is a good
> thing. In some cases, the only legitimate question to ask is, "What is
> there?" Once we know that, then we can craft hypotheses about the what
> and the where. Now, so far as library work is concerned, surely you
> realize that one can craft excellent hypotheses that can be ver!
> y effectively tested by examining data that have already been
> collected. Meta analysis has become an extremely important way to get
> answers in a wide range of fields. But you are right, exploration is
> research, hypothesis or no.
>
> Darwin did not set out around the world to test the hypothesis of common
> descent, or that of natural selection. He set out to see what was there
> (and to have an adventure rather than a pulpit).
>
> mcneely
>
> >
> > 2011/3/7 Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net>
> >
> > > Honorable Forum:
> > >
> > > Re: "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)." --Pat Swain (Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM)
> > >
> > > I don't want to appear to jump to conclusions, so I would be
> interested in
> > > Swain's expansions upon this issue. I wonder if Pat would have
> funded a
> > > survey which was based upon random sampling/mapping that would
> provide a
> > > baseline dataset and provide another level of scrutiny of the
> > > different/interesting as well as an opportunity to discover that
> which one's
> > > present state of knowledge might otherwise overlook.
> > >
> > > Please describe the theoretical foundation for "walking" the site
> rather
> > > than randomly sampling it, and how one approaches gaining knowledge
> of a
> > > site without a (statistically) valid inventory.
> > >
> > > WT
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Swain, Pat (FWE)" <
> > > pat.sw...@state.ma.us>
> > >
> > > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:03 AM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Hypothesis Testing in Ecology
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----
> > >> 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
> > >>
> > >>
>
> --
> David McNeely
>
>
> 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
>
