Descriptive and Hypothesis-Driven Research

Abstract

We thank Dr. Slonczewski and Kaneshiro for their letter (Microbe, February 2009, p. 50). We believe that a careful reading of our commentary will reveal few differences between our respective views. However, we take issue with some of their characterization of our comments. For example, we did not define “descriptive research in opposition to hypothesis-driven research,” nor did we suggest that descriptive research is necessarily less “valid” than hypothesis-driven research. The statement that descriptive research is generically less acceptable for ASM journals is in fact contrary to our message. As we stated earlier, “descriptive research can illuminate novel phenomena or give rise to novel hypotheses,” and is often of tremendous value in many fields of science, including our own. We argue that descriptive and hypothesis-driven science should not be regarded as antipodal, but rather as natural partners in a progression of understanding. Given the routine characterization of science with such labels as “descriptive,” “mechanistic,” “hypothesisdriven,” or “discovery-driven,” and the tendency for such labels to be interpreted positively or negatively with significant consequences, it behooves us all to think carefully about the meaning and intention of such descriptors. We are increasingly convinced that these terms mean different things to different scientists. Hence, we welcome continued discourse, as initiated by Dr. Slonczewski and Kaneshiro, in the pursuit of mutual understanding despite the limitations of language.