A lot of comments in here like: "women," "feminism" "television," "Nietzsche" and the "absence of God."
I really don't think the "culture war" topics explain explain poor quality scholarship or low academic rigor. ๐งต
I really don't think the "culture war" topics explain explain poor quality scholarship or low academic rigor. ๐งต
First, the quality of methods used across empirical sciences has either improved or, at worst, remained the same.
Many of the issues now in scientific methodology were identified 50+ years ago. There are issues that haven't been addressed, but these aren't new issues.
Many of the issues now in scientific methodology were identified 50+ years ago. There are issues that haven't been addressed, but these aren't new issues.
The replication crisis can give you an initial idea of how much "junk" was being published before the "woke" culture war debates.
There are entire lines or paradigms within psychology that we don't even pursue anymore because they were wrong.
There are entire lines or paradigms within psychology that we don't even pursue anymore because they were wrong.
Something like Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment wouldn't get published today - not because of ethics, but because the design and data collection was garbage.
Many such cases from the "pre-woke" era.
Many such cases from the "pre-woke" era.
So, I don't really see any indication that the actual quality of research being published has declined. Whatever remains bad today was also a common problem decades ago.
Things that could increase the quality of published research: pre-registration. Still too infrequent across most disciplines.
The bias in journals (again across all disciplines) for publishing statistically significant (vs null) results is a huge problem for meta-science.
Low statistical and methodological literacy is a huge problem across disciplines as well.
Medical doctors, for example, have poor statistical literacy. What are the implications for medical research and evidence-based practice?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Medical doctors, for example, have poor statistical literacy. What are the implications for medical research and evidence-based practice?
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The culture of "publish or perish" incentivizes the rapid publications of low quality research in order to maintain an academic career and stay relevant.
"Slow science" might be a better goal.
"Slow science" might be a better goal.
Predatory journals, paywalls and "closed science" are related to this.
"Closed science" also contributes to the replication crisis.
Most cancer research, for example, cannot be replicated due to the unavailability of the original data.
Most cancer research, for example, cannot be replicated due to the unavailability of the original data.
Debt and financial barriers (in the USA) disincentivize the most motivated and gifted students from pursuing academic careers.
Having to make a choice between being poor in academia vs going into private industry.
Having to make a choice between being poor in academia vs going into private industry.
With the exception of debt, I expect most of the major issues I listed above to improve gradually within psychology. The trend is slow, but people are taking note of it.
Young psychologists are now taught about these issues when past generations were not.
Young psychologists are now taught about these issues when past generations were not.
Anyone interested in science, psychology or research I would recommend not getting too wrapped up in the culture war.
You might be surprised how little it actually intersects with your academic life.
You might be surprised how little it actually intersects with your academic life.
Loading suggestions...