The technical content of this chapter is important to the professional hydrologist, but practice is not confined to making technical decisions. The intent of this discussion question is to show that hydrologists must often address situations where value issues intermingle with the technical aspects of a project. In discussing the stated problem, at a minimum include responses to the following questions:
1. What value issues are involved, and how are they in conflict?
2. Are technical issues related to the value issues? If so, in what way are the technical issues in conflict with the value issues?
3. If the hydrologist attempted to rationalize the situation, what rationalizations might he or she use? Provide arguments to suggest why the excuses represent rationalization.
4. What are the hydrologist’s alternative courses of action? Identify all alternatives, regardless of the ethical implications.
5. How should the conflict be resolved?
You may want to review Sections 1.6 to 1.12 in Chapter 1 in responding to the problem statement.
Case. A research hydrologist makes a statistical analysis of data collected as part of a research program. Part of the analysis involves a hypothesis test. The test leads to the decision to reject the research null hypothesis that the researcher wanted and expected to be accepted. In reviewing the statistical test, the researcher recognizes that the null hypothesis would have been accepted if a more stringent level of significance had been used. While the commonly used level of significance was initially employed, the researcher reports the results using the more stringent level of significance so that the finding supports the initial expectations.
We need at least 10 more requests to produce the solution.
0 / 10 have requested this problem solution
The more requests, the faster the answer.