I am a evolutionary biologist with a special interest in behavioural ecology. In the lab we mainly work on sexual selection and reproductive decisions (female choice, male-male competition, sperm competition, parental care, life histories and so on). We test predictions from general theory that can be widely applied across species: Is the elaboration of sexual signals constrained by predation or by trade-offs with investment in other fitness-enhancing traits? Do females prefer older males, and - if so - why? Are males more variable than females in their morphology and behaviour? Why do animals have a bias towards being left or right sided? What is the cost of ejaculates versus mating effort? And so on... We tend to ask a question and then pick a study animal that can answer it. 

Practically speaking, our empirical research usually involves detailed observation of animal behaviour in the laboratory and, less so (unfortunately), in the field. Most of the work is experimental because of the need to determine causality, but we try to collect data on phenotypic correlations between traits of interest. Together these data provide a more complete picture. For example, an experiment may show that courting is a costly act, but one would still like to know whether males that court more live longer. Both pieces of information are essential. The touted superiority of experimental approaches in behavioural ecology depends on the credibility of the manipulation. In my view, many experiments do not demonstrate what they purport to show if the animal's perception disagrees with the way in which the experimenter describes it. For example, many manipulations of 'confidence of paternity' or 'perceived sex ratio' are potentially flawed.

I have a long standing interest in meta-analysis. Meta-analytic techniques attempt to quantitatively review a field of study using custom-designed statistics. It is no longer controversial in ecology and evolution, and continues to gain supporters. There are many great questions that can be tackled using existing data and meta-analysis. Recent ones we have asked are: Do sexy males sire more sons? Is the academic performance of females less variable than that of males? Is sexual selection stronger in species where males defend females? Do males using alternatve (sneaky) mating tactic tend to have larger testes?

Finally, I have collaborate with colleagues, notably Hanna Kokko, Lutz Fromhage and Jussi Lehtonen, in developing/explaining sexual selection theory.