Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

III. Methods and tools
significant criticism is that there have been
A
too few replication attempts, which
generally
have contributed to premature and overenthusiastic
may
acceptance of what should have
provisional findings. Researchers may
been
less inclined to pursue replication studies
be
they bring less recognition and reward,
because
thus some have argued that the interests of
and
are at odds with the interests of the
professionals
profession.
Academic publishers have displayed
•
preference for original research over
a
which are less likely to be viewed
replications,
significant contributions to the field.
as
Replications can be time-consuming and
•
especially when many original
difficult,
do not publish raw data or detailed
studies
methodology.
second criticism centres around a broader
A
or perish” culture, that is said to
“publish
academics to publish work rapidly and
pressure
to advance their careers, possibly
continuously
the risk of questionable research
increasing
This culture may also incentivize the
practices.
of headline-grabbing findings at the
pursuit
of rigorous scholarship, and reduce the
expense
and effort that professors give to teaching.
time
teaching is rarely rewarded as highly
Excellent
excellent research, with the implication being
as
future scholars may be less competent as
that
result. This is certainly not isolated to the
a
sciences, and also not necessarily true
human
academic institutions and cultures around
of
world, but it has been raised as an issue by
the
in particular have responded with
Psychologists
efforts to investigate the replicability
concerted
results in their discipline. Many Labs 2 is
of
such example, conducting comprehensive
one
of 28 classic and contemporary
replications
findings, with protocols that were peer
published
in advance. Results were replicated
reviewed
50% of the time. A second group called the
about
Science Collaboration brought together 280
Open
authors and 86 volunteers to repeat 100
original
studies published in major academic
psychology
The results were published in 2015 and
journals.
that 36% of studies were replicated. Both
showed
were massive collaborative undertakings
efforts
have set the stage for further such work.
that
economics, a smaller 2016 study reported
Within
Science found that 11 out of 18 experimental
in
from top journals were replicated
studies
are the implications of this for knowledge
What
the human sciences? It would be premature to
in
on the basis of the replication crisis that
conclude
beings are fundamentally inconsistent
human
exhibiting few behavioural patterns—
creatures
to conclude that methodologies in psychology
or
these opposing claims regarding
Consider
severe the problem is regarding
how
Gilbert, a psychologist at Harvard
Daniel
stated in 2016, “Our analysis
University,
invalidates the pessimistic
completely
that many have drawn from
conclusions
landmark study,” referring to the Open
this
Collaboration project. “The number
Science
studies that actually did fail to replicate
of
about the number you would expect to
is
8
Ironically enough, it seems that one of the most
reliable ndings in psychology is that only half of
psychological studies can be successfully repeated.
(Yong 2018)
successfully.
We can really use it to improve the situation rather
than just lament the situation. The mere fact that
that collaboration happened at such a large scale
suggests that scientists are willing to move in the
direction of improving.
(Ioannidis quoted in Baker 2015)
are fundamentally flawed.
For discussion
Just how bad is it anyway?
experimental results in the human sciences.
professional academics in the United States.
fail to replicate by chance alone—even if all
238