4 ms·

Well, not really.... https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/ https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/ > In your thesis or dissertation, you

Well, not really.... https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/ https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/methodology/ > In your thesis or dissertation, you will have to discuss the methods you used to do your research. The methodology or methods section explains what you did and how you did it, allowing readers to evaluate the reliability and validity of the research. It should include: The type of research you did How you collected your data How you analyzed your data Any tools or materials you used in the research Your rationale for choosing these methods

nl 7y ago
Ok. I'd note this wasn't a dissertation and instead was a statement by a qualified scientist who previously has studied the field. But if you want to be pedantic, that link is an explanation that includes references to the methodology. The methodology itself is in the report referenced in that explanation and available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_of_Landclearing_the_impacts_of_the_approved_clearing_of_native_vegetation_on_Australian_wildlife_in_New_South_Wales/link/5955ce840f7e9b591cd74473/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_o...
- mistermann 7y ago
  Well sure, the methodology is touched upon, but not terribly thoroughly (perhaps there is a link to their actual calculations in there). But, that methodology rests upon other methodologies in other studies. I mean, not that that's inappropriate, this is simply the complex nature of scientific studies. But on any kind of topic like this, I get a constant impression from comments that "the science" is right there for the reading, no gaps or uncertainty exist whatsoever. Are people literally saying exactly that? Well ya, a lot of the time they are literally saying that. But even if not, this is what is usually being implied, and it's certainly the impression readers are walking away with. In my experience, it's a rare person who can unemotionally acknowledge the fact that much of what we loosely refer to as "the truth" is actually just a big messy collection of approximations, if not outright imaginations in many cases.

nl 7y ago

Ok. I'd note this wasn't a dissertation and instead was a statement by a qualified scientist who previously has studied the field. But if you want to be pedantic, that link is an explanation that includes references to the methodology. The methodology itself is in the report referenced in that explanation and available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_of_Landclearing_the_impacts_of_the_approved_clearing_of_native_vegetation_on_Australian_wildlife_in_New_South_Wales/link/5955ce840f7e9b591cd74473/download https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318029981_Impacts_o...

mistermann 7y ago
Well sure, the methodology is touched upon, but not terribly thoroughly (perhaps there is a link to their actual calculations in there). But, that methodology rests upon other methodologies in other studies. I mean, not that that's inappropriate, this is simply the complex nature of scientific studies. But on any kind of topic like this, I get a constant impression from comments that "the science" is right there for the reading, no gaps or uncertainty exist whatsoever. Are people literally saying exactly that? Well ya, a lot of the time they are literally saying that. But even if not, this is what is usually being implied, and it's certainly the impression readers are walking away with. In my experience, it's a rare person who can unemotionally acknowledge the fact that much of what we loosely refer to as "the truth" is actually just a big messy collection of approximations, if not outright imaginations in many cases.