Breakdowns in Scientific Practices: How and Why Some Accepted Scientific Claims May Have Little Actual Support

Author:

White Mark12ORCID,Stovner Roar34ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Teacher Education and School Research 1 ,

2. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 1 ,

3. Department of Primary and Secondary Teacher Education 2 ,

4. OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway 2 ,

Abstract

This paper considers the reasonableness of claims made in empirical psychological science. Drawing on validity and institutional theories, our conceptual model views research methods as institutionalized approaches to supporting the (implicit) inferential argument that is used to validate conclusions. Breakdowns occur when researchers falsely believe that a method strongly supports the inferential argument, but where little support is provided. We identify two characteristics of methods that promote breakdowns and show that these characteristics explain breakdowns of two common methods, null hypothesis significance testing and cutoffs for fit indices. Last, we discuss broadly how to reduce breakdowns in scientific practice.

Funder

NordForsk

Publisher

University of California Press

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3