Increased scientific rigor will improve reliability of research and effectiveness of management

Abstract

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. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

Do a priori hypotheses improve the reliability of wildlife research?

“…Results obtained in different sites by different methods and different researchers contribute to reliable knowledge (Johnson ). This is the opposite view of the statement by Sells et al (2018:492) that the “accumulation of speculative, untested findings over time presents a significant impediment to scientific understanding and effective management because repetition contributes to a mistaken impression of reliability.” We agree with Sells et al () that the accumulation of speculations impedes progress in science, but we think the problem is the confusion of indicative and conclusive results rather than a lack of wildlife research studies that rigorously follow the H‐D scheme. Often, the problem is even not caused by the authors of a publication but by those misciting the speculations of a study as if these were facts (Harzing ).…”

“…Sells et al (2018:486) discussed the importance of rigorous science and reliable knowledge that “contributes to effective conservation of wildlife resources.” The authors refer to Romesburg () who pointed at the common tendency of wildlife researchers to generate, based on observed data, plausible explanations that are, however, not properly tested. Furthermore, Sells et al () and Mitchell et al () associated the lack of rigorous hypothesis testing with the spread of unreliable knowledge in wildlife science. Sells et al () supposed that reliable science must follow the hypothetico‐deductive (H‐D) method.…”

Testing a priori hypotheses improves the reliability of wildlife research

“…The application of rigorous science is not limited solely to simple, easily reduced systems. Scientists by definition reduce complexity of any system they study using models, developed either inductively or deductively (Sells et al :488). Such models cannot reproduce every detail of the system being studied; instead they presume that simplified representations can produce predictions generally consistent with complex reality (Levin ).…”

“…These assertions suggest a misunderstanding of hypotheses and how they inform research and management. Hypotheses amend theory (i.e., the body of existing knowledge); they do not constitute it and they are not by definition universal (Williams , Sells et al :491). Rather, they are preconceived notions about how existing theory might be credibly adapted to explain observations in a studied system (e.g., properties of a local wildlife population).…”

“…Observational studies can be useful when lack of existing natural history, research, or theory hinders development of a priori hypotheses (a rare circumstance in modern wildlife research; Mitchell et al ). Observational and exploratory studies can also offer important a posteriori explanations for observed patterns, providing the foundation for a priori hypotheses that subsequent studies can test (Sells et al :492). Not all a posteriori explanations are equally useful, however.…”