Gathering and snooping around in data *before* a clear goal and research question are defined = inevitable poor science. Change my mind
-
-
Replying to @MaartenvSmeden
I don't think it's poor science if you clearly describe what you're doing and why. It's when the data snooping is hidden that the problems start!
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I think transparency is necessary but not sufficient, tbh. Calling it “exploratory” often just makes it worse: now your asking people to verify your finding that is unquantifiably uncertain and most probably false
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MaartenvSmeden
I hear you, but a lot of the research I'm involved in came from routine audits or similar. Hard to predefine a question, sometimes
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
Sure. But would you call those routine audits high quality science?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not necessarily, but some of the work that comes from them definitely is. It's hard to say where the line is tho!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.