- Email: [email protected]
Scientific Method for Ecological Research
116
Book reviews
chapter on monitoring populations. This got bogged down in mundane aspects of indices of abundance (‘‘the basic relationship between the index and abundance should be ascertained to determine whether the index might yield misleading results and therefore should not be implemented’’). Indeed! This advice strongly implies that there are studies of terrestrial invertebrates in which this fundamental precept has not been followed. The mind (or, rather, the mindlessness) boggles! The chapter by MacDonald and others on analysing interactions in populations provides an account of issues, methods and problems. I found it interesting, it not being an area I know anything about. I would have preferred some external connection to the requirements of experimental design in studies of ethnology and social systems. Nevertheless, it was worth the effort. Other contributions were on methods of marking animals, feeding, predator –prey dynamics, population viability analysis (surely one of the most overworked nontopics in modern ecology!) and how to determine distributions using GIS (which was unnervingly completely disconnected from the chapters on home range and use of habitat). So, what should I recommend? If you have time, given the welter of more relevant material constantly appearing, you could learn from some chapters, if discerningly chosen. Buying it would not seem an optimal use of resources for most marine ecologists. A.J. Underwood Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, Marine Ecology Laboratories, A11, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia E-mail address:[email protected] Tel.: +61-2-93512590; fax: +61-2-93516713 PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 0 9 8 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 7 4 - 4
Scientific Method for Ecological Research By E. David Ford, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 564 pp., ISBN 0 521 66005 x (hb); 0 521 66 973 1 (pb)
I suspect that many of us who started their research in ecology in the 1960s took basic courses in the history and philosophy of science. Here we were taught the importance of erecting hypotheses and following Popper to try and falsify, rather than find support for them. If we were lucky, we had ecological courses where we became familiar with Andrewartha and Birch and learned about density dependent and independent processes. Armed with Southwood’s ‘‘Ecological Methods’’, we picked up a few useful tips, read the relevant literature and went out into the field to study a problem suggested by our supervisor. Since the 1960s, ecology has grown to be a vast subject with almost as many approaches to the subject as there are practitioners. In a highly
Book reviews
117
praiseworthy attempt to guide the new student, E. David Ford has produced a text that has the aim ‘‘to provide a text for new researchers in ecology, giving a framework to understanding methodological issues, and helping them to define a research plan.’’ Ford covers a wide range of topics from the philosophy of science, to mathematical models and statistical analyses. The book is divided into four main sections. These are Section 1: Developing an analytical framework (253 pp.), Section 2: Making a synthesis for scientific inference (115 pp.), Section 3: Working in the research community (36 pp.) and Section 4: Defining a methodology for ecological research (53 pp.). From this, it is clear that Ford believes that developing an analytical framework is a major task. Yet getting started on the book is not easy, as it begins with a summary of the four sections, then a short review of what the chapters within each section are to contain and then on p. 15, yet another introduction to the development of an analytical framework. The undoubted strengths of the book are in areas such as Chapter 3, which clarify difficult topics such as concepts, axioms, postulates and the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Ford gives a good coverage of modern philosophers of science such as Kuhn, Lakatos and Shapere and their ideas, using concrete ecological examples to illustrate the points being made. One example used is that of top-down versus bottom-up control in ecosystems. Ford uses Paine’s and Menge and Sutherland’s research to illustrate Lakatos’ description of progress in scientific research. Yet, he is rather uncritical in his use of such data. Paine did not study effects of predators on species diversity but effects on primary space occupiers, a quite different aspect. Nor are data that differ from Paine’s results or published criticisms of his experimental design mentioned. In a book seeking to guide students to a more critical approach to ecology, a balanced presentation is needed. Ford has sound advice on collecting data and how to determine the precision and accuracy needed. He covers, albeit briefly, treatments, replication and pseudoreplication, stratification and controls in experiments. There are brief discussions of statistical inference and modeling from simple population dynamics to systems. All of this is sound and gives a student a general introduction to the topic. However, inevitably, in attempting to cover everything, there are major gaps. For example, the important topic of multivariate statistical approaches is not covered and this is a major omission as most ecological data are multivariate. Ford introduces his approach by analyzing 34 questions that students posed at the start of a graduate course on scientific method. The first of these are, ‘‘How can I come up with a question?’’ and ‘‘I have ideas and topics, but I do not have a project.’’ Surely this is not the way that people get into research? Most students take undergraduate courses and then find areas of science in which they are interested and take specialist courses, which often involve practical projects designed by a research supervisor. Deciding that they are interested in the topic, they read extensively and discuss with the experts. If they are successful students, they get taken on to do graduate research. The research topic is not derived by the student alone, in a vacuum, but discussed and developed together with more experienced supervisors. Further along, we read question 6 ‘‘Am I making a significant contribution to the body of knowledge?’’ Surely research begins with a period of training in using and applying
118
Book reviews
methods and learning the trade of how to do ecological research? It is most unlikely that a first project will in fact be ‘‘a significant contribution to knowledge.’’ So I am not sure whether such a list of questions helps to guide a new recruit to ecological research. Ford uses as an example the development of a student through the progress of her M.Sc. Her approach to the topic, a study of usage of woody debris on stream banks by small mammals, is described in detail. However, having completed her thesis she made comments on her progress, which are repeated on p. 101. What I found quite astounding was the statement, ‘‘She conducted no pilot study and wished that she had.’’ The need for a pilot study should not be a post hoc lesson, but placed up front as essential for any field investigation. In the chapter introducing experimentation, he uses the word measurement as a synonym for data, which I find strange. For example, p. 133 ‘‘The choices you make in developing a measurement or designing an experiment. . .’’ where I would have said, ‘‘The choices made in collecting data or designing an experiment. . .’’ Measurement in the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as ‘‘A dimension ascertained by measuring; size or extent measured by a standard’’, or ‘‘The action or an act of measuring; mensuration.’’ So is this a text ‘‘for new researchers in ecology’’? Certainly, there is an immense amount of useful information that students can access. However, I found it a difficult read and suspect that students will also. I tend to err on the side of those scientists described in Ford’s statement in the preface that ‘‘Some experienced researchers have little patience with making a formal description of the research process, believing strongly that research is best taught by the student taking the role of apprentice.’’ But this shows my bias. J.S. Gray Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University, 81 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China E-mail address: [email protected] Tel.: +852-2784-4325; fax: +852-2788-7406 PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 0 9 8 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 7 5 - 6
Book reviews
chapter on monitoring populations. This got bogged down in mundane aspects of indices of abundance (‘‘the basic relationship between the index and abundance should be ascertained to determine whether the index might yield misleading results and therefore should not be implemented’’). Indeed! This advice strongly implies that there are studies of terrestrial invertebrates in which this fundamental precept has not been followed. The mind (or, rather, the mindlessness) boggles! The chapter by MacDonald and others on analysing interactions in populations provides an account of issues, methods and problems. I found it interesting, it not being an area I know anything about. I would have preferred some external connection to the requirements of experimental design in studies of ethnology and social systems. Nevertheless, it was worth the effort. Other contributions were on methods of marking animals, feeding, predator –prey dynamics, population viability analysis (surely one of the most overworked nontopics in modern ecology!) and how to determine distributions using GIS (which was unnervingly completely disconnected from the chapters on home range and use of habitat). So, what should I recommend? If you have time, given the welter of more relevant material constantly appearing, you could learn from some chapters, if discerningly chosen. Buying it would not seem an optimal use of resources for most marine ecologists. A.J. Underwood Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, Marine Ecology Laboratories, A11, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia E-mail address:[email protected] Tel.: +61-2-93512590; fax: +61-2-93516713 PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 0 9 8 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 7 4 - 4
Scientific Method for Ecological Research By E. David Ford, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 564 pp., ISBN 0 521 66005 x (hb); 0 521 66 973 1 (pb)
I suspect that many of us who started their research in ecology in the 1960s took basic courses in the history and philosophy of science. Here we were taught the importance of erecting hypotheses and following Popper to try and falsify, rather than find support for them. If we were lucky, we had ecological courses where we became familiar with Andrewartha and Birch and learned about density dependent and independent processes. Armed with Southwood’s ‘‘Ecological Methods’’, we picked up a few useful tips, read the relevant literature and went out into the field to study a problem suggested by our supervisor. Since the 1960s, ecology has grown to be a vast subject with almost as many approaches to the subject as there are practitioners. In a highly
Book reviews
117
praiseworthy attempt to guide the new student, E. David Ford has produced a text that has the aim ‘‘to provide a text for new researchers in ecology, giving a framework to understanding methodological issues, and helping them to define a research plan.’’ Ford covers a wide range of topics from the philosophy of science, to mathematical models and statistical analyses. The book is divided into four main sections. These are Section 1: Developing an analytical framework (253 pp.), Section 2: Making a synthesis for scientific inference (115 pp.), Section 3: Working in the research community (36 pp.) and Section 4: Defining a methodology for ecological research (53 pp.). From this, it is clear that Ford believes that developing an analytical framework is a major task. Yet getting started on the book is not easy, as it begins with a summary of the four sections, then a short review of what the chapters within each section are to contain and then on p. 15, yet another introduction to the development of an analytical framework. The undoubted strengths of the book are in areas such as Chapter 3, which clarify difficult topics such as concepts, axioms, postulates and the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Ford gives a good coverage of modern philosophers of science such as Kuhn, Lakatos and Shapere and their ideas, using concrete ecological examples to illustrate the points being made. One example used is that of top-down versus bottom-up control in ecosystems. Ford uses Paine’s and Menge and Sutherland’s research to illustrate Lakatos’ description of progress in scientific research. Yet, he is rather uncritical in his use of such data. Paine did not study effects of predators on species diversity but effects on primary space occupiers, a quite different aspect. Nor are data that differ from Paine’s results or published criticisms of his experimental design mentioned. In a book seeking to guide students to a more critical approach to ecology, a balanced presentation is needed. Ford has sound advice on collecting data and how to determine the precision and accuracy needed. He covers, albeit briefly, treatments, replication and pseudoreplication, stratification and controls in experiments. There are brief discussions of statistical inference and modeling from simple population dynamics to systems. All of this is sound and gives a student a general introduction to the topic. However, inevitably, in attempting to cover everything, there are major gaps. For example, the important topic of multivariate statistical approaches is not covered and this is a major omission as most ecological data are multivariate. Ford introduces his approach by analyzing 34 questions that students posed at the start of a graduate course on scientific method. The first of these are, ‘‘How can I come up with a question?’’ and ‘‘I have ideas and topics, but I do not have a project.’’ Surely this is not the way that people get into research? Most students take undergraduate courses and then find areas of science in which they are interested and take specialist courses, which often involve practical projects designed by a research supervisor. Deciding that they are interested in the topic, they read extensively and discuss with the experts. If they are successful students, they get taken on to do graduate research. The research topic is not derived by the student alone, in a vacuum, but discussed and developed together with more experienced supervisors. Further along, we read question 6 ‘‘Am I making a significant contribution to the body of knowledge?’’ Surely research begins with a period of training in using and applying
118
Book reviews
methods and learning the trade of how to do ecological research? It is most unlikely that a first project will in fact be ‘‘a significant contribution to knowledge.’’ So I am not sure whether such a list of questions helps to guide a new recruit to ecological research. Ford uses as an example the development of a student through the progress of her M.Sc. Her approach to the topic, a study of usage of woody debris on stream banks by small mammals, is described in detail. However, having completed her thesis she made comments on her progress, which are repeated on p. 101. What I found quite astounding was the statement, ‘‘She conducted no pilot study and wished that she had.’’ The need for a pilot study should not be a post hoc lesson, but placed up front as essential for any field investigation. In the chapter introducing experimentation, he uses the word measurement as a synonym for data, which I find strange. For example, p. 133 ‘‘The choices you make in developing a measurement or designing an experiment. . .’’ where I would have said, ‘‘The choices made in collecting data or designing an experiment. . .’’ Measurement in the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as ‘‘A dimension ascertained by measuring; size or extent measured by a standard’’, or ‘‘The action or an act of measuring; mensuration.’’ So is this a text ‘‘for new researchers in ecology’’? Certainly, there is an immense amount of useful information that students can access. However, I found it a difficult read and suspect that students will also. I tend to err on the side of those scientists described in Ford’s statement in the preface that ‘‘Some experienced researchers have little patience with making a formal description of the research process, believing strongly that research is best taught by the student taking the role of apprentice.’’ But this shows my bias. J.S. Gray Department of Biology and Chemistry, City University, 81 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China E-mail address: [email protected] Tel.: +852-2784-4325; fax: +852-2788-7406 PII: S 0 0 2 2 - 0 9 8 1 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 7 5 - 6