Experimental design is an art and a specialized form of intuition guides the principal in terms of choosing which variables to select. But design exists within a practical continuum of costs, editorial tastes, current research trends...that entire cumbersome sociology of big science and small. Large scope experiments are exercises in almost military logistics;on the other hand, narrow scope experiments are not fairly valued in the marketplace, but they're the bread and butter of scientific progress and are much easier to prosecute. There's Wagnerian Hero Science, and Drudgery Science. All hats off to the latter!
I think there is also something in the middle between the two modes of science you mention, and it is in fact a continuum. Other than that, I agree! :)
Absolutely! Sometimes, as a PhD student, I am struggling to choose factors to test, and even I am afriad be questioned if I choose these factors which do not have any good reasons, but when I got comments from other reviewers, the most common question is why you choose these rather than those. Most time, I just want to say, I just like or my lab can support me to these factors. But I cannot, because the reviewers want to know the scientific reason.
Right, this is why it's important to carefully rationalize which factors include. Why are they important compared to some others. Why are they specifically key for increasing external validity.
Of course there are many reasons for why you include certain factors, you may also be interested in their interactions.
Experimental design is an art and a specialized form of intuition guides the principal in terms of choosing which variables to select. But design exists within a practical continuum of costs, editorial tastes, current research trends...that entire cumbersome sociology of big science and small. Large scope experiments are exercises in almost military logistics;on the other hand, narrow scope experiments are not fairly valued in the marketplace, but they're the bread and butter of scientific progress and are much easier to prosecute. There's Wagnerian Hero Science, and Drudgery Science. All hats off to the latter!
I think there is also something in the middle between the two modes of science you mention, and it is in fact a continuum. Other than that, I agree! :)
Absolutely! Sometimes, as a PhD student, I am struggling to choose factors to test, and even I am afriad be questioned if I choose these factors which do not have any good reasons, but when I got comments from other reviewers, the most common question is why you choose these rather than those. Most time, I just want to say, I just like or my lab can support me to these factors. But I cannot, because the reviewers want to know the scientific reason.
Right, this is why it's important to carefully rationalize which factors include. Why are they important compared to some others. Why are they specifically key for increasing external validity.
Of course there are many reasons for why you include certain factors, you may also be interested in their interactions.