Discussion Question:
2. You have probably encountered conflicting research reported in the mass media. For example, one study might indicate that drinking red wine improves health while another study indicates it does not. Speculate on the reasons why various researchers might obtain different results when studying the same problem.
Reasons Why:
I believe this could be due to the idea that everyone has a different way of researching methods. This brings me back to the saying, “everyone has a different way of thinking.” No one person is the same in everything which is why the research might be different when studying the same problem. Just as every scientist has a different method to their researching.
The verge website indicated that results are influenced by the choices scientists make when they analyze raw data. “After discussing their approach with other teams, some scientists changed their minds, and counted the information differently. In other cases, researchers altered which variables they wanted to include in the analysis.” (Duhaime-Ross, 2015).
I know some scientists don’t often like to share their information of knowledge in the research they are doing before they publish it. I believe this is also due to the fact that they come up with different results than others.
Duhaime-Ross, Arielle. “Scientists Can Draw Very Different Meanings from the Same Data, Study Shows.” The Verge, The Verge, 7 Oct. 2015, www.theverge.com/2015/10/7/9469845/different-meanings-from-same-data-research-science.
Hello Brook,
I believe your comment on how researchers may conduct research in different ways is spot on. In regard to the wine studies, their are many variables to consider including what exactly the researchers decided was a improvement in health. Did they measure the participants body mass index? Or perhaps their resting heart rate? Maybe even the life expectancy of people who drank moderate amounts of wine vs those who refrained from it at dinner? The measurement decisions made would be a huge factor in determining if wine is ‘good’ for us. Additionally, other variables would have to be considered such as family history with certain ailments and other health related habits. This is why a true random sample would be important. The largest take-away from your post strikes me as stating that different studies may contradict each other for a large number of reasons so to generalize something such as ‘is it healthy?’ is always going to be controversial because there are too many metrics in which it can be measured by.
Brooke,
I apologize for the misspelling of your name. I have not been able to find out how to edit the post.
Brooke, your post made me think about an article that I read a couple years ago that claimed that eating chocolate helped you lose weight. Sounds too good to be true right. I believe it because it was a research papers and I honestly it made me feel not guilty after eating chocolate because after all it was “helping me lose weight”. I ran into another article months laters showing how that research paper on chocolate being good for weight loss was sort of cherry picking which of their subjects was losing weight and only reporting those. Im sure there was another research about the same chocolate and weight loss subject that showed different results and didn’t get as much attention. A very misleading research that was half of the truth. Brining that back to your post its clear people think different and also do researches different. Once people talk about their result they might see what the other did different and what results were the same. Great post.
I have another fun example of research that is easy to misinterpret. Faculty at KSU once checked out the “Twinkie Diet” and found it could lead to weight loss (Fell, 2010). They attributed it, however, to the fact that eating “junk food” has the same impact on weight as any other food, when you count calories and increase exercise. They were also clear to point out that they did not also investigate any other health effects from sticking to a poor nutritional diet.
Fell, J. (2010, December 6). A Twinkie diet? It comes down to calories. The Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-06-la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206-story.html
Brooke,
I completely agree with you that the basis for the research and what is being looked into when it comes to “health” is what can make or break research in this area. Health is a general term that can be defined in different ways. For example, it may not be healthy for the liver to have to break down an alcoholic substance, but at the same time it could be healthy for an individual’s mental health to have a glass of wine after a long day at the office. I feel that the definition of exactly what type of health is being assessed in in the research would be a deciding factor that the readers would need to be informed of.
Exactly, Samuel. Each study probably defines health a different way. And the way researchers define variables is can be the difference between a supported hypothesis and one that isn’t supported.
Just an FYI, academic researchers will normally share their research broadly. The research could be better developed when discussed as research in progress at a conference, the findings refined at a regional conference, and that can lead to an invitation to a national conference. All should ensure the article is stronger before it’s send to a journal for publication.
Of course, many researchers work for companies. NBC isn’t likely to share its research with CBS. Nielsen offers its most in-depth research only to paying clients. Whether research is shared often depends upon who funded the research.