Warming up an already warm June night, an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education called "Replication Crisis in Psychology Research Turns Ugly and Odd" * attempts to fuel the discussion of replicability and the whole endeavor of scientific research in psychology. The only problem is that this article does not fuel the discussion so much as it fuels feelings about it. It reads a bit too much like gossip.
The main argument about whether social psychological experiments can and should be replicated is terribly important in current times when information travels fast -faster than reflection-. Although this piece brings to fore many issues, one that is often absent from the conversation on replicability is that pesky variable: The environment. Careful thought about environmental variables that might affect results and their replicability in different settings is rarely the subject of any of these debates. It is assumed that anything that is worth studying can be measured in a lab. Almost forty five years ago Harold Proshansky wrote about the methodological challenges of the emerging science of environmental psychology:
"What lies at fault in its studies of complex human problems are the many untenable assumptions that are made about the nature and meaning of human behavior and experience. At the roots of these assumptions is the view of the individual as another "object" to be studied. His or her behavior and experience can be dealt with in terms of discrete components or properties that can be isolated, studied under pure conditions, and eventually be quantified" (Proshansky, 1970).
And it is at this point where I feel deeply concerned about the legacy of great thinkers in environmental psychology and environmental social sciences. The future that they envisioned for their field, did not come to fruition. Psychologists did not join the more complex view of people and environments. It is too complicated. Not having clear quantifiable findings makes things that matter to researchers harder: Publishing, getting grants, getting tenure, having popular soundbites on the media or in social networks. Of course there are some places where amazing research happens (I am thinking of the Graduate Center of CUNY or Cornell's College of Human Ecology), but these places are rare and these researchers would not consider themselves -and are not considered by their colleagues- traditional or mainstream psychologists.
The XXI century has been here for a while, it is time to place more value, attention, and resources on research that does not oversimplify the complexity of human nature. We owe it to all of those XX century thinkers who dared to go beyond the establishment.
* This article was accessible to the general public at the time that I read it, it is now only available to subscribers of the Chronicle of Higher Education, hopefully readers of this blog will have institutional subscriptions and can access it.
Proshansky, H. (1970). Environmental Psychology: A Methodological Orientation. In Harold M. Proshansky, William H. Ittleson & Leanne G. Rivling (Eds.) Environmental Psychology. People and Their Physical Settings, 2nd Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
The main argument about whether social psychological experiments can and should be replicated is terribly important in current times when information travels fast -faster than reflection-. Although this piece brings to fore many issues, one that is often absent from the conversation on replicability is that pesky variable: The environment. Careful thought about environmental variables that might affect results and their replicability in different settings is rarely the subject of any of these debates. It is assumed that anything that is worth studying can be measured in a lab. Almost forty five years ago Harold Proshansky wrote about the methodological challenges of the emerging science of environmental psychology:
"What lies at fault in its studies of complex human problems are the many untenable assumptions that are made about the nature and meaning of human behavior and experience. At the roots of these assumptions is the view of the individual as another "object" to be studied. His or her behavior and experience can be dealt with in terms of discrete components or properties that can be isolated, studied under pure conditions, and eventually be quantified" (Proshansky, 1970).
And it is at this point where I feel deeply concerned about the legacy of great thinkers in environmental psychology and environmental social sciences. The future that they envisioned for their field, did not come to fruition. Psychologists did not join the more complex view of people and environments. It is too complicated. Not having clear quantifiable findings makes things that matter to researchers harder: Publishing, getting grants, getting tenure, having popular soundbites on the media or in social networks. Of course there are some places where amazing research happens (I am thinking of the Graduate Center of CUNY or Cornell's College of Human Ecology), but these places are rare and these researchers would not consider themselves -and are not considered by their colleagues- traditional or mainstream psychologists.
The XXI century has been here for a while, it is time to place more value, attention, and resources on research that does not oversimplify the complexity of human nature. We owe it to all of those XX century thinkers who dared to go beyond the establishment.
* This article was accessible to the general public at the time that I read it, it is now only available to subscribers of the Chronicle of Higher Education, hopefully readers of this blog will have institutional subscriptions and can access it.
Proshansky, H. (1970). Environmental Psychology: A Methodological Orientation. In Harold M. Proshansky, William H. Ittleson & Leanne G. Rivling (Eds.) Environmental Psychology. People and Their Physical Settings, 2nd Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
RSS Feed