Difficulties With Methodology in Social Science Research With Controversial Issues Regarding Human Sexuality.

IF 0.4 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS
Linacre Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-28 DOI:10.1177/00243639221082213
Walter R Schumm, Duane W Crawford
{"title":"Difficulties With Methodology in Social Science Research With Controversial Issues Regarding Human Sexuality.","authors":"Walter R Schumm, Duane W Crawford","doi":"10.1177/00243639221082213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social science is commonly used in debates about controversial issues, especially for those concerning human sexuality. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting such social science literature, because of a variety of methodological and theoretical weaknesses that are not uncommon. Families are complex structurally and over time; such data are not easily analyzed. Merely determining the number of, for example, sexual minority families has been a difficult task. While some new theories are popular with social scientists, for example, sexual minority theory, they are often used to the exclusion of other, equally valid theories and often are not well tested empirically. Some types of families remain relatively unexamined. Social scientists can be biased by their own values, which are reflected in weak use of theory and in a variety of methodological problems. Eight studies are presented as examples of probable confirmation bias, in which methods and theory were modified in unusual ways that may have affected the outcomes and conclusions. Suggestions for improving social science include greater attention to effect sizes rather than statistical significance per se, deliberately minimizing the politicization of science, developing a culture of humility with respect to social science, deliberately reducing common biases, and maintaining a deeper curiosity about social science than is often seen. Scientists must be open to seeing their best \"sacred cow\" ideas or theories disproven or modified with increases in research on such issues.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>In controversial areas of social science, there can be numerous threats to the validity of science. Here, some of the more common risks for social science research and theory are examined, with several specific illustrations of how bias appears to have crept into social science, often as confirmation bias. Recommendations are made for reducing bias in future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":44238,"journal":{"name":"Linacre Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10265389/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linacre Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639221082213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social science is commonly used in debates about controversial issues, especially for those concerning human sexuality. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting such social science literature, because of a variety of methodological and theoretical weaknesses that are not uncommon. Families are complex structurally and over time; such data are not easily analyzed. Merely determining the number of, for example, sexual minority families has been a difficult task. While some new theories are popular with social scientists, for example, sexual minority theory, they are often used to the exclusion of other, equally valid theories and often are not well tested empirically. Some types of families remain relatively unexamined. Social scientists can be biased by their own values, which are reflected in weak use of theory and in a variety of methodological problems. Eight studies are presented as examples of probable confirmation bias, in which methods and theory were modified in unusual ways that may have affected the outcomes and conclusions. Suggestions for improving social science include greater attention to effect sizes rather than statistical significance per se, deliberately minimizing the politicization of science, developing a culture of humility with respect to social science, deliberately reducing common biases, and maintaining a deeper curiosity about social science than is often seen. Scientists must be open to seeing their best "sacred cow" ideas or theories disproven or modified with increases in research on such issues.

Summary: In controversial areas of social science, there can be numerous threats to the validity of science. Here, some of the more common risks for social science research and theory are examined, with several specific illustrations of how bias appears to have crept into social science, often as confirmation bias. Recommendations are made for reducing bias in future research.

社会科学研究中有关人类性行为争议问题的方法论难题。
社会科学通常被用于有关有争议问题的辩论,特别是有关人类性行为的辩论。但是,在解读这些社会科学文献时必须谨慎,因为其中存在各种方法论和理论上的缺陷。家庭在结构上和时间上都很复杂;这些数据不易分析。例如,仅仅确定性少数群体家庭的数量就是一项艰巨的任务。虽然一些新理论(如性少数群体理论)很受社会科学家欢迎,但这些理论往往被用来排斥其他同样有效的理论,而且往往没有经过很好的实证检验。有些类型的家庭相对来说仍未得到研究。社会科学家可能会因自身的价值观而产生偏差,这反映在对理论的使用不力以及各种方法论问题上。本报告介绍了八项研究,作为可能存在确认偏差的例子,这些研究的方法和理论以不同寻常的方式进行了修改,可能对结果和结论产生了影响。改进社会科学的建议包括:更加关注效应大小而不是统计意义本身;有意识地将科学的政治化程度降到最低;在社会科学方面培养一种谦逊的文化;有意识地减少常见的偏见;对社会科学保持比人们通常看到的更深的好奇心。科学家必须以开放的态度看待他们最好的 "神牛 "观点或理论被推翻或随着对这些问题研究的增加而被修改。本文探讨了社会科学研究和理论面临的一些更常见的风险,并通过几个具体实例说明了偏见是如何悄然进入社会科学的,这些偏见通常表现为确认偏见。本文提出了在未来研究中减少偏见的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Linacre Quarterly
Linacre Quarterly MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
40.00%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信