Why research methods matter

Posted by Lance Gravlee on January 17, 2008 
Filed Under In the news

This week we’ve been talking about the development of sexuality research and the importance of scientific research methods for avoiding the errors of everyday reasoning. We also discussed how subtle differences in methods could produce drastically different results. On Tuesday, the Well blog at the New York Times gave a good example of the second point.

Tara Parker-Hope writes about the discrepancy between recent studies on whether men who had prostate cancer surgery were able to have sex again:

For men having prostate cancer surgery, one of the biggest fears is that they will be left impotent. Unfortunately, the research that might help address that question is likely only to confuse.

A notable study in 2005 showed that a year after surgery, 97 percent of patients were able to achieve an erection adequate for intercourse. But last month, researchers from George Washington University and New York University reviewed interim data from their own study showing that fewer than half of the men who had surgery felt their sex lives had returned to normal within a year.

So which of the studies is right? Surprisingly, they both are.

Parker-Hope explains that the different conclusions are primarily a result of methodological differences between studies, including who participated, how often they had sex before surgery, and how researchers defined potency. For example, did researchers ask whether a man was ever able to have sex following surgery? Or did they ask whether men could have sex regularly—without Viagra?

These details about methods don’t often make the headlines when research about sexuality gets reported in the media. That’s why it’s important to think critically about the assumptions and evidence that scientists, journalists, or others use to support their conclusions.

Comments

Leave a Reply