It appears that your critic may be onto something though. I'm sorry that you were told you were doing something bad without any explanation of how. How or where would I need to make explicit I am exploring? Wouldn't stating that be sufficient? I am told I am guilty of dredging, but I do not understand how this can be the case when I am simply exploring the aims as I had outlined - clearly any findings would require replication. In a supplementary calculation, I used step-wise regression to investigate one hypothesis further, which threw up specific variables as predictors, which were then discussed in terms of conceptualisation. I've then computed the proposed statistical analysis on the hypotheses, using supplementary statistics to further investigate the aims which are linked to those hypotheses' results.

I have a main aim of 'investigating' my theory, with secondary aims also described as 'investigations', and have then stated explicit hypotheses about the variables. I've based my study on a publicly available dataset. I'm just wondering if what I've done is ok? R-bloggers - blog aggregator with statistics articles generally done with R software.

Kaggle <- also great for stats competitions.

Self posts with throwaway accounts will be deleted by AutoModerator Memes and image macros are not acceptable forms of content. Just because it has a statistic in it doesn't make it statistics. Please try to keep submissions on topic and of high quality. They will be swiftly removed, so don't waste your time! Please kindly post those over at: r/homeworkhelp. This is not a subreddit for homework questions.

All Posts Require One of the Following Tags in the Post Title! If you do not flag your post, automoderator will delete it: Tag

Real world examples of data dredging