Abstract
This paper investigates whether there is a discrepancy between stated and actual aims in biomechanical research, particularly with respect to hypothesis testing. We present an analysis of one hundred papers recently published in The Journal of Experimental Biology and Journal of Biomechanics, and examine the prevalence of papers which (a) have hypothesis testing as a stated aim, (b) contain hypothesis testing claims that appear to be purely presentational (i.e. which seem not to have influenced the actual study), and (c) have exploration as a stated aim. We found that whereas no papers had exploration as a stated aim, 58 per cent of papers had hypothesis testing as a stated aim. We had strong suspicions, at the bare minimum, that presentational hypotheses were present in 31 per cent of the papers in this latter group.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 247-262 |
| Number of pages | 16 |
| Journal | Science in Context |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jun 2012 |
Bibliographical note
Thanks to Alexander Bird, Tom McLeish, Wilson Poon, and three anonymous referees for their comments.Funding
Darrell Rowbottom's work on this paper was supported by the Templeton Foundation, as part of the 'Why Why?- Methodological and Philosophical Issues at the Physics-Biology Interface' project, and subsequently by the British Academy.