No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
The discipline of experimental psychology is in crisis, apparently. A number of big, established and (previously) esteemed researchers have lost their jobs, whole fields of enquiry within psychology are being targeted, and pundits of all varieties are weighing in on the merits of the adolescent science. Given the range of outlets critiquing psychology - published in places as mainstream as The New Yorker, The Guardian, Slate, National Geographic, and NPR (as well as within the academic literature) - it's easy to envisage serious discussions in Tea Rooms in Psychology schools everywhere (this has certainly been the case in mine). The crisis, dubbed 'repligate', is one of replication. Experimental psychologists just aren't doing enough of it. As a result, it is argued, findings in psychology must be taken with a grain of salt. We simply cannot have confidence that effects reported are not due to chance, questionable research practices, or more serious transgressions. Certainly each of these cases has been revealed to have been so in the recent past. This period in the history of psychology will be remembered as dark and stormy. I contend, however, that in addition to the legitimate concerns that are raised, both inside the discipline and out, it will be remembered as a period lacking measure and context. Is psychology all that different from other disciplines of science?
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.