No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Best Research Practices: How to Gain Reliable Knowledge
Abstract
Clearly explains how to plan and carry out reliable experiments, how to conceive and circumstantially support research hypotheses, how to test research hypotheses, how to discover cause and effect, and more. For students and practitioners in all fields of the physical, life, earth, social, and engineering sciences. Contains more than 150 illustrative research examples from all fields. Based on Professor Romesburg’s examination of 5,000 top scientific articles, studying the methods used to produce reliable knowledge. See the book’s first page explaining the blind peer review of the book that was commissioned and paid for by the author’s academic department; see the book’s back cover for peer reviewer comments.
... The basic concepts of rigorous science are far from new, but we are not aware of a paper that concisely reviews and summarizes the major components of rigorous science in wildlife biology. Although authors have previously emphasized the importance of producing reliable knowledge (Platt 1964;Romesburg 1981Romesburg , 2009Nichols 1991;Williams 1997), primary literature does not provide clear, succinct guidance on designing and carrying out rigorous research in wildlife biology. We had 2 objectives. ...
... Understanding biological causes of observed effects is of prime interest to researchers who seek to understand wildlife ecology and to managers who seek to manipulate causes to achieve desired effects. Although numerous means of establishing cause and effect exist, producing reliable knowledge about biological causation requires an understanding and application of a scientific method that develops and tests hypotheses (Romesburg 1981(Romesburg , 2009. Whereas detailed information is available in books suitable for indepth study (Gauch 2003, Copi and Cohen 2005, Romesburg 2009, Curd et al. 2012), more readily-accessible papers in the primary literature that argue the importance of scientific rigor (Platt 1964, Romesburg 1981, Williams 1997 offer limited explanations for the defining steps of rigorous science. ...
... Although numerous means of establishing cause and effect exist, producing reliable knowledge about biological causation requires an understanding and application of a scientific method that develops and tests hypotheses (Romesburg 1981(Romesburg , 2009. Whereas detailed information is available in books suitable for indepth study (Gauch 2003, Copi and Cohen 2005, Romesburg 2009, Curd et al. 2012), more readily-accessible papers in the primary literature that argue the importance of scientific rigor (Platt 1964, Romesburg 1981, Williams 1997 offer limited explanations for the defining steps of rigorous science. The lack of clear, succinct justification for employing the full series of steps is an understandable obstacle to acceptance by skeptics and critics, and a significant hurdle to graduate students and wildlife professionals developing research. ...
Rigorous science that produces reliable knowledge is critical to wildlife management because it increases accurate understanding of the natural world and informs management decisions effectively. Application of a rigorous scientific method based on hypothesis testing minimizes unreliable knowledge produced by research. To evaluate the prevalence of scientific rigor in wildlife research, we examined 24 issues of the Journal of Wildlife Management from August 2013 through July 2016. We found 43.9% of studies did not state or imply a priori hypotheses, which are necessary to produce reliable knowledge. We posit that this is due, at least in part, to a lack of common understanding of what rigorous science entails, how it produces more reliable knowledge than other forms of interpreting observations, and how research should be designed to maximize inferential strength and usefulness of application. Current primary literature does not provide succinct explanations of the logic behind a rigorous scientific method or readily applicable guidance for employing it, particularly in wildlife biology; we therefore synthesized an overview of the history, philosophy, and logic that define scientific rigor for biological studies. A rigorous scientific method includes 1) generating a research question from theory and prior observations, 2) developing hypotheses (i.e., plausible biological answers to the question), 3) formulating predictions (i.e., facts that must be true if the hypothesis is true), 4) designing and implementing research to collect data potentially consistent with predictions, 5) evaluating whether predictions are consistent with collected data, and 6) drawing inferences based on the evaluation. Explicitly testing a priori hypotheses reduces overall uncertainty by reducing the number of plausible biological explanations to only those that are logically well supported. Such research also draws inferences that are robust to idiosyncratic observations and unavoidable human biases. Offering only post hoc interpretations of statistical patterns (i.e., a posteriori hypotheses) adds to uncertainty because it increases the number of plausible biological explanations without determining which have the greatest support. Further, post hoc interpretations are strongly subject to human biases. Testing hypotheses maximizes the credibility of research findings, makes the strongest contributions to theory and management, and improves reproducibility of research. Management decisions based on rigorous research are most likely to result in effective conservation of wildlife resources.
... Random error would be reported as either a confidence interval or standard error interval. Minimizing random error is best achieved by including a statistician when formulating objectives (Romesburg, 2009). Measurement decisions will be influenced by, and influence, the choice of statistical methods used later for analyzing the collected data. ...
... These statistical methods will enable random error to be determined. Romesburg (2009) advocates making a statement of accuracy to represent a subjective estimate of the systematic error in the study results. Unlike statistical methods for computing random error, which are widely applicable over many scientific disciplines, defining systematic error is more discipline-specific. ...
... An effective way to reduce systematic error is by the use of appropriate protocols (Romesburg, 2009). Protocols for minimizing random error are much the same for all fields of research and are dealt with primarily by applying statistical principles and methods. ...
Landslide monitoring evokes images of action; installing devices, taking measurements, and analyzing data. This action orientation makes it easy to overlook the important first step in landslide monitoring which is to carefully define the purpose for the monitoring program. It is helpful, when considering undertaking such a program, to view its purpose as fitting into one of the following categories: phenomena monitoring, investigation monitoring or performance monitoring. A thorough consideration of the general purpose for a monitoring effort ensures that appropriate objectives are defined. Few organizations can afford to be unconcerned about whether a landslide monitoring program is collecting the right information or enough of it. Without well-defined objectives, the likelihood increases for data to include unacceptable systematic error, be subject to lost or incomplete data or otherwise lack the reliability and continuity to adequately address the concerns which caused landslide monitoring to be undertaken in the first place.
... The statistical core for matrix assessment is a non-hierarchical cluster analysis using a k-means algorithm. Cluster analysis refers to a number of techniques used to form clusters on the basis of the distance or similarity between groups defined by a number of variables (Romesburg 1984(Romesburg , 2010. The point of cluster analysis is to resolve a set of landsliderelated data into an intrinsic grouping (Melchiorre et al. 2008). ...
... The statistical core for matrix assessment is a non-hierarchical cluster analysis using a k-means algorithm. Cluster analysis refers to a number of techniques used to form clusters on the basis of the distance or similarity between groups defined by a number of variables (Romesburg 1984(Romesburg , 2010. The point of cluster analysis is to resolve a set of landsliderelated data into an intrinsic grouping (Melchiorre et al. 2008). ...
... With an island landscape of steep slopes underlain by predominantly clay-rich soils and volcanic bedrock, it is hardly surprising that the abundant rainfall, especially during intense storms, can result in landslide occurrence (De Graff et al. 1989, 2010. Dominica is notable for the number of landslide fatalities and injuries sustained in recent time (De Graff et al. 1989). ...
In many of the lesser developed areas of the world, regional development planning is increasingly important for meeting the needs of current and future inhabitants. Expansion of economic capability, infrastructure, and residential capacity requires significant investment, and so efforts to limit the negative effect of landslides and other natural hazards on these investments are crucial. Many of the newer approaches to identifying and mapping relative landslide susceptibility within a developing area are hindered by insufficient data in the places where it is most needed. An approach called matrix assessment was specifically designed for regional development planning where data may be limited. Its application produces a landslide-susceptibility map suitable for use with other planning data in a Geographical Information System (GIS) environment. Its development also encourages collecting basic landslide inventory data suitable for site-specific studies and for refining landslide hazard assessments in the future. This paper illustrates how matrix assessment methodology was applied to produce a landslide-susceptibility map for the Commonwealth of Dominica, an island nation in the eastern Caribbean, and how with a follow up study the relative landslide-susceptibility mapping was validated. A second Caribbean application on Jamaica demonstrates how this methodology can be applied in a more geologically complex setting. A validated approach to mapping landslide susceptibility which does not require extensive input data offers a significant benefit to planning in lesser developed parts of the world.
... Such collaborative projects are, for instance, how virtually all research in subatomic physics is conducted: typical is the research to discover the Higgs boson particle (Lederman and Teresi 1993). Theorists created a hypothesis of the properties of the Higgs particle, supported it well with current knowledge, and with the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) method (Romesburg 1981(Romesburg , 2009) they by deduction predicted observations from the hypothesis. Then experimentalists devised and carried out the experiments, getting the actual observations. ...
I explained how publishing wildlife research in open access (OA) journals like PLOS ONE makes wildlife science less reliable. Subsequently, several researchers rejected my explanation, opining that OA journals have top publishing standards and are crucial for the future of wildlife science because researchers in developing countries can access them for free, better enabling them to contribute. Consequently, some opined that research societies should consider remaking their society journals into OA journals, in particular the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) sponsored by The Wildlife Society (TWS) becoming an OA journal. In this, my response to them, I show that their opinions are misguided and explain 1) how OA journals unquestionably have inferior publishing standards; 2) why OA is not crucial to the future of wildlife science; 3) why wildlife science's investing its limited resources in certain areas other than OA publishing is crucial to its future; 4) why changing JWM into an OA journal would quite possibly result in losing both TWS and JWM as we know them, leaving us with much less effective replacements; 5) how universities push for open access not because OA leads to better science (it does not) but because OA saves university libraries money, serves egalitarian attitudes among faculty and students, and provides graduate students with the quickest and easiest way of getting their articles into print; and 6) how the goal of growing science in developing countries requires growing the countries’ economies as prerequisite to growing their science, irrespective of the availability of OA articles. As well, these ideas hold beyond wildlife science, including throughout the natural resources and environmental sciences.
... We see professors teaching their students that every research project has 2 parts. Part I includes research methods: address important questions and correctly apply research methods to get reliable and useful findings (Romesburg 2009). Part II is to get the findings totally peer reviewed and published to the proper audience. ...
The last decade has seen an enormous increase in the number of peer-reviewed open access research journals in which authors whose articles are accepted for publication pay a fee to have them made freely available on the Internet. Could this popularity of open access publishing be a bad thing? Is it actually imperiling the future of science? In this commentary, I argue that it is. Drawing upon research literature, I explain why it is almost always best to publish in society journals (i.e., those sponsored by research societies such as Journal of Wildlife Management) and not nearly as good to publish in commercial academic journals, and worst—to the point it should normally be opposed—to publish in open access journals (e.g., PLOS ONE). I compare the operating plans of society journals and open access journals based on 2 features: the quality of peer review they provide and the quality of debate the articles they publish receive. On both features, the quality is generally high for society journals but unacceptably low for open access journals, to such an extent that open access publishing threatens to pollute science with false findings. Moreover, its popularity threatens to attract researchers’ allegiance to it and away from society journals, making it difficult for them to achieve their traditionally high standards of peer reviewing and of furthering debate. I prove that the commonly claimed benefits to science of open access publishing are nonexistent or much overestimated. I challenge the notion that journal impact factors should be a key consideration in selecting journals in which to publish. I suggest ways to strengthen the Journal and keep it strong.
... Francis Bacon phrased the term "instantia crucis", crucial instance, which he explained as a metaphor for a crux marking a crossroad (Novum Organum, 1620). Newton and Boyle took up the same metaphor in "experimentum crucis", crucial experiment, meaning a moment of decision and significance (Romesburg, 2009). This doctoral thesis takes a similar metaphor and proposes the term "crucial action" ("cruciallis actio"), as a moment of decision that asks for valuations of alternative directions and acting that determines a trajectory for the best possible outcome. ...
This doctoral thesis proposes ways for the translation of the Lean Thinking (LT) into design practice and research, taking the LT concepts as dimensions to study designers’ behavior across design disciplines. Lean Thinking has its roots in manufacturing, however, as a philosophy of guiding principles of Value creation, LT has been applied to a large variety of processes, people and organizations. Despite the implementation success achieved in several fields of practice and research, the translation of LT Principles to design has several problems to overcome. But as a motivational framework LT provides concepts, which are relevant to the design activity and in particular to the assessment of designers’ behavior and performance. This research takes the LT perspective, adopting the concepts of Lean Principles, such as Value and Flow, and the concept of MUDA (the Japanese word for waste) for studying designers in the context of interaction with stakeholders in design and product development processes. As in the design activity, Value is not completely defined in the beginning of the Value creation process, this thesis claims the importance of adopting Lean Principles within crucial actions for an effective Value definition. The empirical part of this research comprises of case studies in five design disciplines. Based on these studies, the translation of the Lean Principles and MUDA in design leads to categorization systems and to the concept of critical situations. Results integrate a framework of awareness to critical situations and crucial actions in design. This thesis proposes a motivational approach for designers that help them improve performance in Value creation. The framework of awareness provides a meta analysis and challenges designers and developers to reflect upon their thinking and acting and on what prevents them from changing behavior to reach an effective performance. The use of the framework in practice might improve designers’ and developers’ adaptive behavior and so contribute to professional competence and education.
... As noted by Low, Perrott (2001) collected data on Aspergillus fumigatus spore densities among islands to test the a priori prediction that these densities would be highest on Mokoia, hence his results gave some corroboration of the aspergillosis hypothesis through hypothetico-deductive inference. In contrast, the ruru hypothesis is so far based solely on induction (see Romesburg (1981Romesburg ( , 2009) for detailed comparison of alternative modes of inference). ...
This article explains four kinds of inquiry exercises, different in purpose, for teaching advanced-level high school and college students the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) method. The first uses a picture of a river system to convey the H-D methods logic. The second has teams of students use the H-D method: their teacher poses a hypothesis drawn from a research article the students have not seen and asks them to design an H-D test of it. Later they read the article and compare their designs with its. The third exercise extends this; when economically practical, the class may experimentally test the best of its designs. Finally, an Internet/library exercise lets students inquire into the history of the H-D method.
This research seeks to understand how wetlands maintain a water supply in the Bear River Basin, where water is generally scarce. Research was conducted through semi-structured interviews with wetland and water experts in the basin and archival research of historical documents and water rights.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages three refuges on the Bear River, and has obtained water rights portfolios for each. Holding water rights does not ensure that there will be water available for refuge wetlands. Instead, position in relation to other powerful water users is the most important factor in determining the security of a refuge's water supply and the threats faced from drought. All refuges must manage their water because the human-hydrology of the river is complex and variable; this requires a combination of infrastructure and planning. Maintaining relationships with other water users is another important adaptation to the human-hydrology of the river, because all water users along the river are interconnected. Recognizing that they face the same threats to their water supply allows wetland managers and irrigators to cooperate in order to maintain the water supply for their region of the river and increases adaptability as the region faces climate change.
The Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge is the oldest refuge on the river and has the least secure water supply, despite having the largest water rights portfolio. Because it is chronically short of water during the summer, refuge staff have developed an adaptive management strategy to effectively utilize the water they do receive. Management involves predicting water supplies each year, setting water level targets accordingly, actively diverting water to priority wetlands, and allowing non-priority wetland to dry. This is followed by extensive monitoring of habitat conditions and bird use, the results of which are shared in annual management plans. This strategy maintains the most wildlife habitat possible and offers important institutional adaptations. Most importantly, it demonstrates the refuge's water rights are being put to beneficial use. Sharing knowledge gained through management also builds trust and adaptive capacity among water users facing the complex human-hydrology at the end of the Bear River.
The surface-to-volume ratio (S/V) is well suited for inquiry-based learning in high school and college biology courses. It has a huge catalogue of biological and physical applications concerning structure and junction. It is easy to learn, illustrates scientific methods, and can provide students with their favorite classroom moments, as many of its applications ring bells with their own world.
Absence of scientific independence can be associated with a lack of impartiality and therefore with a lack of credibility. Yet scientific credibility is essential for effective participation in sociopolitical processes—processes that necessarily involve politics and often result in decisions about land management, conservation, and public policy. All scientists are aware of these processes, many wish to participate, and some wish to advocate for their personal policy preferences. However, scientists who lack impartiality often create the perception of bias, and they can suffer a concomitant loss of credibility. Some policy-makers also have personal preferences for certain policies, and the term normative policies can be used here even though all policies can be viewed as normative in the sense that they involve multiple inputs. Hence, the idea that scientists must provide unbiased information for unbiased application by policy-makers is sometimes wrong. For scientists to be effective participants in sociopolitical processes that lead to conservation policies or related actions, they should inform the public about issues while avoiding direct involvement in policy development and the political considerations this necessarily entails. Scientists should only participate in the decision-making process with impartial information and in their proper role as objective scientists.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.