Why Problematic Research Practices and Inertia are Holding Back Scientific Psychology

Understanding human behavior and the complexities of the mind has always been a fascinating area of study. Scientific psychology, as a field, aims to unravel the intricacies of the human psyche through rigorous research and empirical evidence. However, there is growing concern about problematic research practices and the inertia that exists within the scientific psychology community, hindering progress and impeding the advancement of knowledge in this field.

The Replication Crisis and Questionable Research Practices

In recent years, the field of scientific psychology has been plagued by a replication crisis. Numerous landmark studies, once considered foundations of psychological understanding, have failed to be replicated when attempts were made to reproduce their results. This crisis has led to a profound questioning of the reliability and validity of many psychological findings.

One major contributor to this crisis is the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs). QRPs can include selective reporting, p-hacking, cherry-picking data, and the suppression of negative or non-significant results. These practices are often unintentional and result from researchers' desires to publish positive and statistically significant results, fearing that a failure to do so will harm their career prospects.

Problematic Research Practices and Inertia in Scientific Psychology: History, Sources, and Recommended Solutions (Advances in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology)

by Arthur E. Jongsma (1st Edition, Kindle Edition)

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	8573 KB
Print length	:	144 pages

FREE

The existence of QRPs undermines the integrity of scientific psychology, as findings cannot be trusted to provide an accurate reflection of reality. Researchers may inadvertently contribute to the publication of false or biased claims, leading to a distortion in our understanding of human behavior.

Inertia and the Resistance to Change

Despite growing evidence of problematic research practices, there is a prevalent inertia within the scientific psychology community. Many researchers and established academics are resistant to change, which poses a significant obstacle to addressing these issues effectively.

One reason for this inertia is the emphasis on publishing positive and groundbreaking findings. Publications in high-impact journals and securing research grants are essential criteria for academic success and career advancement. This pressure to produce novel and exciting results can incentivize researchers to engage in questionable practices, perpetuating the cycle of problematic research and hindering progress.

Additionally, the traditional peer-review process, while crucial for maintaining quality standards, can also contribute to inertia. Established researchers, who serve as gatekeepers in the peer-review process, may be reluctant to challenge the status quo and reject research that deviates from conventional wisdom. This reluctance further perpetuates certain questionable practices and prevents the field from moving forward.

The Need for Change: Overcoming Inertia

Addressing problematic research practices and overcoming inertia in scientific psychology is essential for the future advancement of this field. To bring about meaningful change, several key actions must be taken.

Firstly, open science practices need to be embraced. This includes transparent reporting of methodologies and results, sharing raw data for replication purposes, and pre-registering study protocols to prevent questionable practices like HARKing (Hypothesizing After Results are Known).

Secondly, the incentive structure within academia needs to be revised. Rather than rewarding researchers solely for publishing positive findings, efforts should be made to value and reward rigorous methodology, replication studies, and the publication of negative or inconclusive results. By promoting a culture of transparency and accountability, researchers will be encouraged to prioritize scientific integrity over sensationalism.

Furthermore, increasing collaboration and interdisciplinary research can help combat inertia. Psychology is a multifaceted field that can benefit greatly from insights and methodologies borrowed from other disciplines. By fostering collaboration and embracing diverse perspectives, the field of scientific psychology can continue to evolve and progress.

Problematic research practices and inertia have hindered the advancement of scientific psychology. The replication crisis and the prevalence of questionable research practices have eroded confidence in psychological research findings. Additionally, the resistance to change and the pressure to publish positive and groundbreaking results contribute to the perpetuation of these practices.

However, change is possible. By embracing open science practices, revising the incentive structure within academia, and fostering collaboration, the scientific psychology community can overcome inertia and reaffirm its commitment to rigorous and reliable research. Only through these collective efforts can we ensure the field continues to grow and provides accurate insights into the complexities of the human mind.

Problematic Research Practices and Inertia in Scientific Psychology: History, Sources, and Recommended Solutions (Advances in Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology)

by Arthur E. Jongsma (1st Edition, Kindle Edition)

5 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	8573 KB
Print length	:	144 pages

FREE

This volume explores the abiding intellectual inertia in scientific psychology in relation to the discipline’s engagement with problematic beliefs and assumptions underlying mainstream research practices, despite repeated critical analyses which reveal the weaknesses, and in some cases complete inappropriateness, of these methods. Such paradigmatic inertia is especially troublesome for a scholarly discipline claiming status as a science.

The book offers penetrating analyses of many (albeit not all) of the most important areas where mainstream practices require either compelling justifications for their continuation or adjustments – possibly including abandonment – toward more apposite alternatives. Specific areas of concern addressed in this book include the systemic misinterpretation of statistical knowledge; the prevalence of a conception of measurement at odds with yet purporting to mimic the natural sciences; the continuing widespread reliance on null hypothesis testing; and the continuing resistance within psychology to the explicit incorporation of qualitative methods into its methodological toolbox. Broader level chapters examine mainstream psychology’s systemic disregard for critical analysis of its tenets, and the epistemic and ethical problems this has created.

This is a vital and engaging resource for researchers across psychology, and those in the wider behavioural and social sciences who have an interest in, or who use, psychological research methods.