Search Weight Loss Topics:

Home » Testosterone » The problem with overqualified research – OUPblog

Not all research findings turn out to be true. Of those that are tested, some will need to be amplified, others refined or circumscribed, and some even rejected. Practicing researchers learn quickly to qualify their claims, taking into account the possibility of improved measurements, more stringent analyses, new interpretations, and, in the extreme, experimental or theoretical error.

Qualification is routinely achieved by changing the form of the verb. Take this example from a physicsarticle: This lack of correlation may be due to the increased inhomogeneity expected for the MG method. The authors use of may allows for the lack of correlation to be due to something else.

The softening of any statement with a word or words is called hedging. It can be accomplished in manyways. One has already been indicatedinserting an auxiliary modal verb, may, might, can, or could. Another common way is to add a mitigating phrase or clause such as It is possible that or This suggests that.

Unhappily, the temptation for an author is to keep accumulating hedges to secure progressively more protection against potential criticism. Asa result, it becomes correspondingly harder for the reader to see what the author is actually claiming.

In these two sentencesfrom a molecular biologyarticle, theres a doubling of hedges, here in italics: itis possible that G9a-mediated H3K9 and H3K27 monomethylationmightserve as stimulating factors and Possiblecandidatesmightcomprise Jarid2 and Snail1. Both instances of might can be eliminated without affecting the provisional status of the claims.

Altogether this article contained 44instances of might, can, could, likely, and varieties of possibly, but none of may. Because of its potential for ambiguity, some authorities advise authors not to use may when whats beingsignalledis possibility instead of permission.

This next example is from an oncologyarticle:It has five hedges in one sentence: Although,on balance, testosteronemight possiblybe beneficial to the cardiovascular system, testosteronemightalso havesomedetrimental effects. Two of the hedges can be safely eliminated; for example, Although testosterone might be beneficial to the cardiovascular system, testosterone might also have some detrimental effects. Yet with two opposing uses of might, the sense of equivocation remains, despite the restrictive some. Given that might is seen as being more tentative than may, a less equivocal version is Although testosterone may be beneficial to the cardiovascular system, it might also have some detrimental effects. Whether this edit is valid, though, needs expert judgement. In all, this article contained 54 instances of might.

There can be very good reasons for using might so oftenbut its unusual. I estimated its general frequency of occurrence from an analysis of a sample of about 1000 articles from the physical, life, andbehaviouralsciences, mathematics, engineering, and medicine. Across the sample, 50% of articles containing might used it just once or twice and only 1% used it as many as 21 times or more.

In a more detailed analysis, I also found that as the frequency of the modals may, might, can, and could increased in an article, the frequency of pairs of hedges such as could indicate and possibly suggests increased still more. The implication is that multiple hedges within a sentence are a response to the prevailing rate of protection within the articlerather like having to talk more loudly in a noisy restaurant.

Whatever the cause, hedging can clearly escalate. But theres a countervailing force: the need to deliver impact, usually in the abstract or conclusion of an articlesomething to be remembered by the reader, a take-home message.Since impact is lessened by hedging, summary statements may succumb to under-qualification and go beyond what the data can safely support. At worst, they can lead to public correction and retraction of the article.

How, then, to choose the right amount of hedging? Every claim is unique to its particular context and its difficult to generalize. Even so, theres some strategic advice,popularly attributed to Albert Einstein, that may be helpful. Applied to hedging, its this: Hedging should be as simple as possiblebut never simpler. Although finding the right balance is another challenge, it at least encourages restraint.

Featured Image Credits: Julian SchllonUnsplash

Visit link:
The problem with overqualified research - OUPblog

Your Full Name
Your Email
Your Phone Number
Select your age (30+ only)	30313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
Select Your US State	Select Your StateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington,DCWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming
Program Choice	Select Your ProgramInjectable HGHInjectable TestoteroneInjectable SermorelinInjectable Weight LossInjectable HCG DietInjectable Vitamins
Confirm over 30 years old	Yes
Confirm that you resident in USA	Yes
This is a Serious Inquiry	Yes
Message:

Home » Testosterone » The problem with overqualified research – OUPblog