Uher, Jana ORCID: 0000-0003-2450-4943 (2021) Problematic research practices in psychology: Misconceptions about data collection entail serious fallacies in data analysis. Theory & Psychology, 33 (1). pp. 411-416. ISSN 0959-3543 (doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543211014963)

Preview

PDF (Author's published manuscript) 33078_UHER_Problematic_research_practices_in_psychology.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (86kB) | Preview

Abstract

Given persistent problems (e.g., replicability), psychological research is increasingly scrutinised. Arocha (2021) critically analyses epistemological problems of positivism and the common population-level statistics, which follow Galtonian instead of Wundtian nomothetic methodologies and therefore cannot explore individual-level structures and processes. Like most critics, however, he focuses on only data analyses. But the challenges of psychological data generation are still hardly explored—especially the necessity to distinguish the study phenomena from the means to explore them (e.g., concepts, terms, methods). Widespread fallacies and insufficient consideration of the epistemological, theoretical, and methodological foundations of data generation—institutionalised in psychological jargon and the popular rating scale methods—entail serious problems in data analysis that are still largely overlooked, even in most proposals for improvements.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	data, idiographic-nomothetic, quantitative method, rating scale, replicability
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Faculty / School / Research Centre / Research Group:	Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences Faculty of Education, Health & Human Sciences > School of Human Sciences (HUM)
Related URLs:	Author Author
Last Modified:	29 Jul 2021 09:42
URI:	http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/33078

Actions (login required)

View Item

Downloads