Maybe the way to make my point is to fall back on definition by example.
What is "good" research? Basically it is asking a question, a question
which is phrased as precisely as possible. For example, in a quick and
dirty example which is a gross over simplification;
(step 1) Ask a question. Why is the sky blue? If the question were; Why
is the sky coloured? It would be too broad since what is to say that the
sky is, or isn't, a particular colour for the same reason as some other
colour.
(step 2) Gather as many observations regarding the sky, blue, etc. as
possible, negative as well as positive, and develop a hypothesis had fits
those observations.
(step 3) You would then design a test to evaluate the validity of the
hypothesis.
(step 4) You would determine if the hypothesis is valid
(step 5) You, and others, would continue to repeatedly retest the
hypothesis either in the same manner or by other tests which may be
devised by someone over time. Keeping in mind that nothing is ever
proven, only disproven.
(step 6) At some point, following (step 4) you would publish your
interpretation of the results and the data you have developed.
The information upon which the hypothesis is ultimately based may be
published prior to the actual to the actual work, if any, in the form of
a "review" article. A review article contains nothing "new" only the
most complete citing of previously published data, negative as well as
positive, related to the topic. It would point out any conflicts, as
well as agreement, in reported results. In conclusion the author may
present questions they feel might be used as a basis for "research" or
high light "holes" in the current information available that should be
pursed.
The hypothesis testing answers only one question; i.e. Why is the sky
blue. It provides no "proof"/ data as to why the sky is not green or
purple, etc. Each of these is a separate question. Further it has even
less to do with, say, why are there clouds in the sky? Both relate the
sky but may or may not relate to each other.
Where is this going? Waggle presents data from a study that looked at
the quantifiable differences between several types of bees. What is the
question these researchers asked? I would say it was; Is there any
difference between different types of bees? They then proceed to provide
some strong, compelling data to show that in fact there are significant
differences based on size. Now Waggle comes along and states that small
bees are more "efficient" than large bees and cites this study as the
proof. He has made an assumption, on efficiently related to size, cited
their data as "proof" and proceeds to present it as "fact". This paper
would be an excellent reference to cite if he were planning to research
which size is the more efficient but those author's never asked that
question. Just because they didn't fly as far has no bearing on subject
unless you compare energy expended to total resources gathered.
It could be as simple as the fact they raised more brood and collected
more pollen. What if pollen sources were sufficiently abundant that they
didn't need to fly any further? That is one question that occurs to me
that someone might want to address in further research. I have heard it
said that the hallmark of "good" research is that raises more questions
than it answers.
Lusby is a well read and obliviously an intelligent, deep thinker with
good skills as an observer, but if one reads her published writings you
can not avoid the conclusion that she is presenting "one-sided" reviews,
accentuating points that support her conclusions while ignoring points
that fail to support her viewpoint, She proceeds to draw unwarranted
assumptions and then proceeds to present them as "fact" and inferring
that these "facts", being presented, are based on "research". She
appears to have an agenda, small cell fits that agenda, and it prevents
her from being an impartial reviewer, let alone an unbiased researcher,
prepared to follow the total picture where ever or in which ever
direction it leads. The "flaw" in it all is the same the one Waggle
makes only on a grander scale.
They get to (step 2) and then, in effect, proceed to jump to (step 6).
This is long, windy and repetitive but I have always been impressed by
the story Innes recounts in one of his books regarding the famous
preacher who was asked the secret of his success. "First I tell them
what I am going to tell them, then I tell them and then I tell them what
I just told them." May the archivist forgive me.
Unlike " ... 'cause never........... Sir Galahad" ... , at least I got
the words right this time around<grin>
Rip
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
