4.4 Article

An Empiricist's Guide to Using Ecological Theory

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/717206

关键词

hypothesis testing; experiments; experimental design; methodology; theory; mathematical models

资金

  1. University of British Columbia Grant for Catalyzing Research Clusters
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Postdoctoral Fellowship
  3. Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship
  4. NSERC Discovery Grant [2019-04872]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A scientific understanding of the biological world requires formalizing and testing ideas about how nature works. The authors provide a general and accessible guide for empiricists on how to approach, understand, and use ecological theory in empirical work, aiming to promote the full integration of theoretical and empirical research.
A scientific understanding of the biological world arises when ideas about how nature works are formalized, tested, refined, and then tested again. Although the benefits of feedback between theoretical and empirical research are widely acknowledged by ecologists, this link is still not as strong as it could be in ecological research. This is in part because theory, particularly when expressed mathematically, can feel inaccessible to empiricists who may have little formal training in advanced math. To address this persistent barrier, we provide a general and accessible guide that covers the basic, step-by-step process of how to approach, understand, and use ecological theory in empirical work. We first give an overview of how and why mathematical theory is created, then outline four specific ways to use both mathematical and verbal theory to motivate empirical work, and finally present a practical tool kit for reading and understanding the mathematical aspects of ecological theory. We hope that empowering empiricists to embrace theory in their work will help move the field closer to a full integration of theoretical and empirical research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据