Paul Grogan has stated very elegantly the case for a well formulated
hypothesis, but I wish point out another aspect of the matter. People who
are prospecting for iron will pass right over gold without seeing it. This
is more than just a metaphor; it reflects how the human mind seems to work.
That iterative process of refining the hypothesis can also be seen as
selectively excluding opportunities for novel observations and discoveries.
In a sense, one becomes progressively less open-minded. I don't mean that
in the common pejorative sense, but I think it shows how there is still room
for the researcher who "naively" makes observations and gathers data without
specifically looking for anything in particular.
Martin Meiss
2011/3/9 Paul Grogan <[email protected]>
> Hi,
> I am fascinated by the varying use of hypotheses in ecology, and have been
> following the recent emails with great interest. All scientific research
> must presumably share a common goal to reach the highest attainable levels
> of precision in explicitly articulating the research focus, and the ensuing
> research results. For me, precise research hypotheses are the most
> effective
> means of achieving this goal.
>
> The most important components of an hypothesis are that it is novel and
> contains a testable prediction – An hypothesis is “a supposition made as a
> starting point for further investigation from known facts”. The process of
> initial hypothesis generation, literature review, methodological
> considerations, and further refinement (or even replacement) of the
> hypothesis is iterative, and may pass through several cycles before a
> novel,
> testable and precise hypothesis is reached. The efficiency of the
> subsequent
> processes of experimentation (or other approaches to testing such as
> modelling or surveying), data analyses, and write-up, is markedly enhanced
> by the a priori development of a clearly stated and focussed research
> hypothesis. Furthermore, often during the data interpretation or write-up
> stage, additional reflection on the processes of experimentation and
> evaluation of the data may indicate to the scientist (or to a manuscript
> reviewer) that the test did not reflect the hypothesis as well as
> originally
> thought. In such cases, further refinement or editing of the hypothesis
> statement should be made so that the final research output – the
> peer-reviewed publication disseminating the new knowledge – is as accurate
> and accessible to others as possible. As a result, I usually finish my
> manuscript Introduction sections with: “We used our data to test the
> following hypotheses....” (rather than “We tested the following
> hypotheses... which gives the impression of great foresight on the part of
> the author).
>
> I published results of a survey of ecological journals in 2005
> which suggested that (in order of decreasing specificity and detail) only
> ~40% of papers contained explicit ‘hypotheses’, ~15% had ‘questions’, 25%
> had ‘objectives’, and the remainder had ‘aims’. Clearly not all ecologists
> are in agreement on the effectiveness of hypotheses. As suggested above, I
> agree with Manuel’s recent comment that ‘questions’, no matter how precise,
> are not the same as hypotheses (because the predictive element in the
> latter
> forces the researcher to APPLY the current knowledge).
>
> I also agree with Jane Shetsov in her comments yesterday that
> “hypothesis-oriented research does not have to involve “modern statistics”,
> because scientific hypothesis-testing is not the same as statistical null
> hypothesis testing”. The latter didactic approach may be useful to some
> ecologists, but multiple working hypotheses are more common in ecology.
> Furthermore, the next higher level – putting one’s questions and results in
> a meaningful ecological context is at least as important. This is the
> level
> that I try to work at. In any event, at whatever level they are used, what
> is most important is that the development and use of explicit hypotheses
> compels the researcher to be PRECISE in thought and language, and to focus
> on generating NEW knowledge – It is the process that is most important.
>
> Paul Grogan (Dept. of Biology, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada)
>
