Definitions (Test 1) Flashcards
Science
an effort to make accurate observations, valid causal inferences about the world and assemble them in a compact and coherent way.
Empiricism
A way of knowing that relies on direct observations and experience.
Authority
1/3 non-scientific ways of knowing. When people accept the validity of information because it comes from a source that they deem to be an expert and form beliefs based by agreeing with an authoritative figure/source.
e.g. parent-child, student-teacher, student-textbook, patient-doctor.
A priori method
A way of knowing in which a person develops a belief through the use of logic and reasoning until an agreement is reached with others who are equally as convinced that the argument is valid.
What is Anecdotal Evidence and when is it used?
> Typically invloves evidence from a single case study that demonstartes the pheonomnon of instrest but it’s uncritical use of such evidence leads to dubious or invalid conclusions.
Used predominantly in pseudosciences.
Pseudoscience
A feild of enquiry which claims to use scientific methods and puts effort into being viewed as scientific. However, their conclusions are based on inadequate, non-scientific methods and the conclusions made are false and too simplistic.
(4) Characteristics of pseudoscience:
- A false association of true science
claims to be a science but produces false or oversimplified conclusions that are based on inadequate or non-scientific methods. - Relies heavily on anocdotal evidence
uncritical use and heavy relience on anecdotal evidence - Avoidance of falsification
tendency to lack specificity of their theory in order to avoid falsification and are known to alter their theory to fit or discredit disconfriming evidence. - Oversimplification of complex phenomena
Tendency to reduce complex phenomena into simplistic terms inorder to increasing consumer appeal.
The (4) goals of psychological research?
- Description
Precise definition of phenomena that makes it observable and measurable. Includes identifying patterns and classes of pehonema. - Prediction
Behavior follows laws, general patterns that make behavior predicitable. - Explanation
>Being able to explain behavior and identify its causes
>Back up causal inferences i.e. systematic change in Y caused the observable covariance in X. with exisiting psychological theories and literature.
>Be abe to rule out other plausibale explanations or confounding variables - Application
Provide knowledge of the world which is truthful and reliable so it can be applied successfully.
Use of Reason
2/3 non-scientific ways of knowing. A Priori Method In which a person develops a belief by reasoning and reaching agreement with other who are convinced of the merits of the reasoned argument.
Experience
3/3/ non-scientfic ways of knowing which relies on direct observation or experience.
2 assumptions of science
- Statistical Determinism
An assumption made by research psychologists that behavioral events can be predicted with a with a probability greater than chance. - Discoverability
An assumption that by using the agreed upon scientific method the causes of events can be discovered with a degree of confidence.
What is the Interpretive Gap
The distance between the object of study (the data) and the claims we make about infer from it. In other words, the external validity of the study’s findings.
What is the Replication Crisis? And 3 plausible explanations/causes?
A large proportion of psychological research that has been accepted and published into credible journals are not replicable.
A Small Study Bias:
Where studies with insufficiently small sample sizes report big, statistically significant results.
Publication Bias:
Journals are more likely to publish studies with eye-grabbing headlines and significant results.
P-hacking:
The process of running data through many statistical analyses with the goal of finding the desired result and then re-formulating your hypothesis to fit the significant statistical result.
How is Quantitative research evaluated?
Measurement tools such as validity and reliability.
Examples of how to increase replicability:
Pre-registration of studies
Prior to data collection researchers must publicly share their research question, aim and hypothesis.
Sharing Research Protocols
Publicly share detailed report of how you conducted your study to cover the important details that are left out of publication.
Publicly sharing data
Sharing raw data publicly so people can check that no alterations have been made that impairs the validity of the study and its findings.
Open-science practices are used for:
Restoring public trust in science we must increase our transparency and thus, our replicability.
Three stages where the interpretive gap increases:
Rendering data for analysis i.e. operationalizing phenomena into a measurable and observable event.
Analysis: the statistical test or qualitative test we conduct
Inferences & conclusions drawn
(3) dimensions that research accomplishes:
- Generalizability
- Accuracy
- Specificity
Qual > Specificity
Quan > Generalizability
Does qualitative or quantitative research have a larger interpretive gap?
Quantitative
What are the practical problems of qualitative research and open science methods?
(A) Pre-registration of studies:
Qualitative research does not identify a research hypothesis prior to data collection. It is inductive process which aims to find out and explain what is important to participants within the context data is collected in. Hopefully, you can see that pre-registering is not suitable for qualitative methods.
(B) Sharing Research protocols:
Data-collection for qualitative methods is primarily semi-structured interviews where researchers come into the session with loose predetermined topics they wish to cover but are very flexible to explore areas that the participants themselves make relevant and may not have been expected to lead to.
(C) Publicly sharing data:
This raises a serious ethical concern of maintaining the participants anonymity and rights to confidentiality. In addition, to remove any identifying information from the transcript in order to protect the participants identity we would be obscuring the data and removing the very parts of the data we make inferential claims from and making it very difficult to test for trustworthiness.
what principles help us evaluate the trustworthiness and transparency of qualitative research?
(A) Owning your Perspective
What is your theoretical perspective?
Epistemological view on knowledge how we come to know about the world, what can be studied and how we study it.
What is your subjective position?
What role do you have as a researcher and how do your relate to the object of study (power-dynamics).
Engaging in reflexivity
(B) Situating the Sample
Describing the research participants and the context in which data was collected in a way that allows readers to judge the applicability of your findings (time, history, culture etc.)
(C) Grounding in Examples
Providing raw data when possible with the corresponding analytical commentary underneath so readers can see the process of how an inferential conclusion was made.
A tool to help narrow the interpretation gap
(D) Providing Credibility Checks
Varity of different types of analysis on the same data to see if you come to the same conclusion
Different researchers
Triangulation (using different methods)
Testimonial Validity (sharing inferences with participants to confirm if our interpretation is correct).
(E) Coherence
Link from data to interpretation is clear, coherent and integrated.
Do not oversimplify data.
(F) Accomplishing General vs Specific Tasks
Is the research question general or specific?
Have adequately fulfilled your aim?
Have you provided enough detail for the reader to understand the range of people and situations sampled?
(G) Resonating with the Reader
Subjectively was the reader convinced, persuaded that your findings are reliable, coherent and useful.
Two goals of debriefing?
- Dehoaxing
2. Desensitising
Two types of reflexivity?
- Personal Reflexivity
Questinging our role as a researcher, our identity, demand charateristics, beliefs and experiences etc. influence the study. - Epistemological Reflexivity
Questioning our beliefs about knoweldge, what it is and how it is obtained and what it can be used for.
Power dynamics?
The Ivory tower metaphor, where psychological research has an underlying power dynamic between the reseacrher and object of study. The researcher is seen to be of a higher standing coming from academia with the object of study below them:
> conducting resaecrh “to” or “on” participants
Passive or active voice when writing lab report.
Responding to power dynamics:
> collaborative research
engaing in reflexivity
respecting participants unqiue prespective, way of knowing, observations etc.
building a positive relationship between scientist and science
3 dimensions of scientific study that can be used to evaluate if the study accomplished its goal?
- Generalisability
- Accuracy
- Specificity
three stages where interperative gap increases?
- Rendering data for anaysis
- Analysis
- Conclusions & Inferences
Different data collection methods?
> semi-structured interviews > focus groups > text, digital media, news > surveys > naturalistic observations
