Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Why did it take so many decades for the behavioral sciences to develop a sense of crisis around methodology and replication? – Stat Columbia (Andrew Gelman and Simine Vazire | April 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on April 20, 2021
Keywords: Journal, Publication ethics, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On April 10, 2021

A finger pressing on a computer keyboard key with the word "Publish" written across it

For several decades, leading behavioral scientists have offered strong criticisms of the common practice of null hypothesis significance testing as producing spurious findings without strong theoretical or empirical support. But only in the past decade has this manifested as a full-scale replication crisis. We consider some possible reasons why, on or about December 2010, the behavioral sciences changed.

“On or about December 1910 human character changed.” — Virginia Woolf (1924).

Woolf’s quote about modernism in the arts rings true, in part because we continue to see relatively sudden changes in intellectual life, not merely from technology (email and texting replacing letters and phone calls, streaming replacing record sales, etc.) and power relations (for example arising from the decline of labor unions and the end of communism) but also ways of thinking which are not exactly new but seem to take root in a way that had not happened earlier. Around 1910, it seemed that the literary and artistic world was ready for Ezra Pound, Pablo Picasso, Igor Stravinsky, Gertrude Stein, and the like to shatter old ways of thinking, and (in a much lesser way) the behavioral sciences were upended just about exactly 100 years later by what is now known as the “replication crisis.”

An interesting discussion about the replication crisis, behavioural science and the passage of time. We have included links to six related items.

We have occasion to consider this in the context of a previously unpublished article by psychologist Lewis Petrinovich from 1990, raising concerns about the state of behavioral research in ways that anticipate many ideas currently present in the science reform movement. But for reasons that are still not well understood, the behavioral sciences did not move toward serious reform until a few years ago, following the “replication crisis,” as exemplified by three articles in leading psychology journals: a methodological criticism of “voodoo correlations” in neuroscience (Vul et al., 2009); a notorious paper claiming evidence for extra-sensory perception (Bem, 2011), and an article that introduced the terms “researcher degrees of freedom” and “p-hacking” (Simmons et al., 2011). Gelman (2016) reviews some of the tumult that followed. The behavioral sciences are at a different stage of methodological selfawareness than they were in 1990 or 1970, when Campbell, Cronbach, Meehl, and others appeared to represent only a small minority of the profession when lamenting the mismatch between statistical methods and substantive theory in the social and behavioral sciences.

From the 1960s onward, the methodological reform movement included leading academic researchers who made compelling arguments, which leads us to ask, from our perch in the third decade of the twenty-first century: What went wrong? Why were these solid arguments set aside? Why, despite the pleas of Petrinovich and others, did the behavioral sciences take so long to internalize these critiques? And then what happened to make the field suddenly recognize the need for change and respond to the crisis?

1 Discussion of “What behavioral scientists are unwilling to accept,” by Lewis Petrinovich, for Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences. We thank Margaret Echelbarger, Paul Smaldino, and several other people for helpful comments, Alex Weiss for soliciting this article, and the U.S. Office of Naval Research for partial support of this work.

2 Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York.

3 Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne.

Screen shot of a pdf of a paper about behavioural science
Why did it take so many decades for the behavioral sciences to develop a sense of crisis around methodology and replication?
Andrew Gelman and Simine Vazire write about behavioral sciences, methodology and the replication crisis, as well as the time that it has taken to become concerns.

Related Reading

(US) Harvard Data Science Review explores reproducibility and replicability in science – EurekAlert (Amy Harris | December 2020)

Hong Kong Principles

(Queensland, Australia) Analysis challenges slew of studies claiming ocean acidification alters fish behavior – Scienced

RePAIR consensus guidelines: Responsibilities of Publishers, Agencies, Institutions, and Researchers in protecting the integrity of the research record (Papers: Collaborative Working Group from the conference “Keeping the Pool Clean… | December 2018)

Why is the scientific replication crisis centered on psychology? – Statistical Modelling, Causal Inference, and Social Science (Andrew: September 2016)

I-O Psychology’s Lack of Research Integrity – Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Sheila K. List and Michael A. McDaniel: September 2016)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in