Method of Multiple Working Hypothesis

I have chosen to use the method of multiple working hypothesis for my current PhD research.

This method was championed by T.C. Chamberlin in the 1890s and was directed to me by Dr. David Gross of the University of Illinois. An encapsulation can be found under the title: T.C. Chamberlin's "Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses": An encapsulation for modern students. A more recent article that uses multiple working hypothesis can found under the title: Patters of Gap-Phase Replacement in a Subalpine, Old-Growth Forest, by Dr. Kenneth Lertzman.

The main idea behind using multiple working hypothesis is to get away from the ruling theory, i.e., the trap assumes your research will lead to meaningful results. Using multiple working hypothesis makes it more likely that the researcher will see the interaction of several causes, promote more thoroughness than research directed toward one hypothesis, and avoid the pitfall of accepting weak or flawed evidence for one hypothesis when another provides a more elegant solution.

The major drawback of framing your research in this manner is that of indecision. As you balance the evidence for various hypothesis, it is possible to rush to a (false) conclusion. Keeping an open mind, and above all, WRITING YOUR HYPOTHESES DOWN, will help avoid this pitfall.

My current hypotheses are:

In my research, I will examine how carbon management should be conducted in Canada's National Park with respect to the following (mostly not mutually exclusive) hypothesis:
1. Previous Flux of Carbon
-carbon management should be determined by analysis of previous fluxes of carbon from deglaciation to the present (Holocene)
2. Future Flux of Carbon
-carbon management should be determined by modeled future fluxes in carbon
3. Park Management Practices
-carbon management should be determined by best practices identified by park managers

My previous hypotheses were:

The data presented in my research will be examined with respect to the following (mostly not mutually exclusive) hypotheses:
a. Liming [4] –Chemical Option
-reacting CO2 rich power plant gases with limestone to form Ca2+ and bicarbonate in solution, which can then be released and diluted in the ocean
b. Direct Injection via Platform [2] – Physical Option
-injecting liquid CO2 from a platform (e.g., retrofitted oil rig) at depth (>3,000m) in the ocean
c. Surface Nutrient Pipe Translocation [5] –Biological Option
- deploying a large number of floating “pipes” in the ocean that act to translocate nutrient-rich seawater from below the mixed layer to the ocean's surface (upwelling), the nutrient supplied should enhance the growth of phytoplankton and consequently the export of organic carbon to the deep ocean via the biological pump

Next post will be on "strong inference".