How to discuss your research findings without getting into “hypothesis testing”?

Zachary Horne writes:

I regularly read your blog and have recently started using Stan. One thing that you’ve brought up in the discussion of nhst [null hypothesis significance testing] is the idea that hypothesis testing itself is problematic. However, because I am an experimental psychologist, one thing I do (or I think I’m doing anyway) is conduct experiments with the aim of testing some hypothesis or another. Given that I am starting to use Stan and moving away from nhst, how would you recommend that experimentalists like myself discuss their findings since hypothesis testing itself may be problematic? In general, any guidance you have on this front would be very helpful.

My reply: In any particular case, I’d recommend building a model and estimating parameters within that model. For example, instead of trying to prove that the incumbency advantage was real, my colleagues and I estimated how it varied over time and across different congressional districts, and we estimated its consequences. The point is to draw direct links to questions outside the lab, or outside the data.

Maybe commenters have other suggestions?

The post How to discuss your research findings without getting into “hypothesis testing”? appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.