A new survey reveals that academic psychologists are (self-admittedly) dishonest:
Averaging across the psychologists’ reports of their own and others’ behaviour, the alarming results suggest that one in ten psychologists has falsified research data, while the majority has: selectively reported studies that “worked” (67 per cent), not reported all dependent measures (74 per cent), continued collecting data to reach a significant result (71 per cent), reported unexpected findings as expected (54 per cent), and excluded data post-hoc (58 per cent). Participants who admitted to more questionable practices tended to claim that they were more defensible. Thirty-five per cent of respondents said they had doubts about the integrity of their own research. Breaking the results down by sub-discipline, relatively higher rates of questionable practice were found among cognitive, neuroscience and social psychologists, with fewer transgressions among clinical psychologists.
December 1st, 2011 | 5:04 pm
Of course the sample for this survey is self selected, which makes the results as empty of meaning as most “research” in the social sciences.
December 1st, 2011 | 5:58 pm
In my professional opinion (I’m a social scientist), other than actual fabrication of data, all of the practices mentioned here (e.g. post-hoc model adjustment, selectively reporting significant results) can be ethically acceptable. For example, you may run dozens or even hundreds of analyses and refine your statistical models as you go, not because you’re twisting the results but because as you learn more about the data, you get a clearer sense of what assumptions and methods are most appropriate to your analyses. And then “selectively reporting” results can be a legitimate way of making sure the most scientifically relevant results don’t get lost in the clutter of hundreds of analyses.
I’m not saying there aren’t abuses; I’m not saying the abuses aren’t widespread. I’m saying that knowing how many people have committed these particular practices doesn’t really tell us how widespread abuse is, because these practices are not always abusive.
December 1st, 2011 | 9:59 pm
I’ve always been of the opinion that psychology, like Marxism, is a secular religion masquerading as a science. One thing that convinces me of that is that by some miracle, psychological studies always “prove” whatever the studier wants them to.
December 2nd, 2011 | 5:47 am
[...] via BPS Research Digest: Questionable research practices are rife in psychology, survey suggests. HT: Joe Carter [...]
December 2nd, 2011 | 9:44 am
The article cited by Joe Carter has a link describing the fraudulent work of Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel. It is shocking. He has been “massaging” or fabricating data for over a decade. In many cases, he never did any research at all, just made it all up. The work of at least 12 doctoral candidates is now tainted because they depended on Stapel’s research. According to the investigative report, “the affair has profound ramifications for the reputation and practice of psychology”.
December 2nd, 2011 | 10:30 am
I’ve always been of the opinion that psychology, like Marxism, is a secular religion masquerading as a science.
The “religion” is the Enlightenment itself.
Its adherents believe Christianity was replaced with “the truth”. It is not counted as a religion because “the truth” is not just another belief system – it is the one and only reality.
That is why if you believe anything other than what they believe, they will call you “religious”, but their own answers to the same question are “secular” – their mythology hinges on the belief that it isn’t a mythology, it’s just “the truth” – inherently different in kind from other belief systems.
This is why so many humanists genuinely can’t tell the difference between objective facts vs. their own assumptions. The assumptions of the scientific method aren’t just tools you use when studying material problems to them. They believe there is nothing except the material*, and therefore the assumptions of the scientific method are more than just tools useful in specific situations. The assumptions of the scientific method are in fact articles of faith*.
_____
* note that they do not recognize these two core articles of faith – that the world is entirely material and that the scientific method is therefore the appropriate source of all knowledge.
They don’t recognize these as articles of faith, but as self-evident and true in and of themselves.
Sometimes they will use the scientific method to prove these two assumptions – which is pretty much the same situation as a person using a Bible to prove that the Bible is the word of God: if you don’t start from a position of faith, it makes no sense, but the person who does have faith can’t always see that.
December 2nd, 2011 | 2:00 pm
All social science is pseudo-science. Most of their hypotheses are unfalsifiable and many experiments are not fully replicable. Social science “research” is invariably political advocacy in disguise.
December 3rd, 2011 | 6:48 am
Even under the best of circumstances, as a minimum that the researchers are honest, social science is problematic. The results are influenced so much by the design parameters of the study, by wording, and by sampling techniques.
Add in the prejudices of the researchers, and you know you need to take all their results with a huge grain of salt. This of course includes polling data, with which we are deluged. Unless one digs into the design of the study and the exact wording of questions, one best not believe the headlined summaries of these studies.
One needs only to read the commentary by Forster to be forewarned.
December 3rd, 2011 | 9:38 am
Not just social science studies but any research can be skewed toward the researchers’ bias. Hard sciences would just prefer to keep that fact as quiet as possible.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact