BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:24:00 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
I must say I'm a bit confused by this discussion.

There are basically 2 reasons I look at a study:

1.  For purposes of debate (sometime to "use a study as a weapon"):  Sometimes one is looking for some support for a point of view or a basis for a "fact".  For instance, if one is debating the size a swarm trap should be, one would likely look to Seeley's work, and could find a quote stating that such and such a size is too big, too small, too low to the ground, too small an entrance, etc.

It is easy to not read the whole study when you are looking for this kind of data...which is where it will usually trip you up :)

I should also say that "debate" isn't always with another person...if I'm designing a swarm trap, a bottom board, or considering a management practice I debate with myself to figure out what the best course of action is.  Sometimes I email or call other beekeepers to find out what they do, sometimes I look at books in our library on online, sometimes I search an archive, sometimes I'll pull up a study.

2.  To figure out what a study actually says:  First of all, it is human nature to look more closely at data that contradicts one's own beliefs...so it isn't surprising that one reads a study especially closely in this context...but of course, that is what a peer reviewed published scientific study is supposed to be able to do...stand up to scrutiny, even from critics.

But to really understand a study, you have to break it down in definable parts (whether one does this formally or informally is irrelevant...it is the same process regardless...assuming it is done well).

A.  What does the author claim the study shows?  ...this often also requires going and reading some of the studies that are cited in the footnotes of the study being read.

B.  What procedure was actually performed?

C.  Does the experimental model and data actually support the claims of the study?

D.  What might the data show that isn't discussed in the write up?

E.  (finally):  What could (or should) have been done better?  ...this could be procedural ("the test should last 5 weeks instead of 3"), or it could point out weird data (like the controls died faster than they should have, that data was all over the place and simple averages were used, bees were in cages and we need to see what happens in the field, etc).

F.  Another consideration that is unfortunate is "what didn't make it into the published reports"?  At least one member of Bee-l (on another forum) indicated that formal published research from a reputable bee lab was not written up accurately...that there were problems that never made it into the published study.  This one is the hardest to determine with any accuracy, as it relies on data that is outside the writing....it is here that reading everything else in the study carefully can cast some doubt...what doesn't make sense?  What should have happened that isn't reported?

It will probably surprise no one that I did some formal debating in highschool.  In this kind of debate, any documented claim from any source is considered evidence...only to be questioned when the opposing team questions it.  (ie. a claim that was common the year I debated where employment was the topic was "employment leads to death" and "employment leads to nuclear war").  Until one makes any kind of response (even if the response is "that is a stupid claim" or "the person that said that was convicted of fraud") the claim stands....One popular strategy is to present a ton of bad evidence in a short amount of time (talking really fast emphasizing only the outline headers)...making it difficult for the other team to respond to everything in the time alloted.

One would hope that as adults actually trying to get to the bottom of things we wouldn't have to do things this way...that we can debate honestly by presenting the most truthful facts, ideas, and positions we are capable of.

Obviously, we are going to have more constructive debates and discussions if we don't simply cherrypick quotes and phrases from a study to support our positions and beliefs.

Over the last year or so, the mere title and summary of the Seeley SC study has been "wielded as a weapon".  I've done my best to actually read the study and present what I think is lacking (which is plenty in this case).  Allen appears to be the only one to have read the study closely enough to make any comments...I understand that Tom is popular and no one wants to say anything bad about his work...but this study demands such criticism, especially when it's unsupported claims are used to try and prove something.

There are many reasons a study might not reflect the real world...but in many cases the study simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny, no matter what external factors may be in play.

Over the course of this discussion, another study was cited (de Jong)....the same misinterpretations were made on the same study in 2008 (by the same person)...the same corrections were provided by me...and the same silence followed (at least this time I was not accused of "intellectual dishonesty" for looking at the study data properly).

If one is going to use a study as a weapon, one needs to read the whole thing critically in order to determine which way the barrel is pointing :)

deknow

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2