Positive Deviance Underlies Successful Science: Normative Methodologies Risk Throwing out the Baby With the Bathwater

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
R. Hans Phaf
{"title":"Positive Deviance Underlies Successful Science: Normative Methodologies Risk Throwing out the Baby With the Bathwater","authors":"R. Hans Phaf","doi":"10.1177/10892680241235120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Successful science needs deviant ideas that may challenge established norms. The last decade saw an unprecedented science-engineering project, with strict rules on preregistration, statistical testing, result-independent guaranteed publication, replication, and openness badging being enforced by psychological journals. These normative methodologies seek to prevent failure (negative deviance) rather than promote success (positive deviance), and run counter to the historical development of successful science. By narrowly focusing on research data, while avoiding theoretical bias, they are inadequate for tackling, often intractable, scientific problems. Instead, unconventional, exceptional, and even initially implausible hypotheses should be fostered. A novel connection is drawn between positive deviance and the unplanned, haphazard evolution of successful science. Hypotheses compete for the highest fitness while probing an ever-changing, infinitely wide, empirical and theoretical landscape. The winner constitutes the positive deviant, but always remains subject to future competition. Losing negative deviants, which may share characteristics with winners, become irrelevant, sometimes long after their inception, and eventually sink into oblivion. Normative methodologies aim to curb negative deviants at their source, but also cut off positive deviants and may freeze successful science. More room for deviance and a theory primacy are advocated, allowing research to generate discovery and innovation in psychological science.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680241235120","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Successful science needs deviant ideas that may challenge established norms. The last decade saw an unprecedented science-engineering project, with strict rules on preregistration, statistical testing, result-independent guaranteed publication, replication, and openness badging being enforced by psychological journals. These normative methodologies seek to prevent failure (negative deviance) rather than promote success (positive deviance), and run counter to the historical development of successful science. By narrowly focusing on research data, while avoiding theoretical bias, they are inadequate for tackling, often intractable, scientific problems. Instead, unconventional, exceptional, and even initially implausible hypotheses should be fostered. A novel connection is drawn between positive deviance and the unplanned, haphazard evolution of successful science. Hypotheses compete for the highest fitness while probing an ever-changing, infinitely wide, empirical and theoretical landscape. The winner constitutes the positive deviant, but always remains subject to future competition. Losing negative deviants, which may share characteristics with winners, become irrelevant, sometimes long after their inception, and eventually sink into oblivion. Normative methodologies aim to curb negative deviants at their source, but also cut off positive deviants and may freeze successful science. More room for deviance and a theory primacy are advocated, allowing research to generate discovery and innovation in psychological science.
积极的偏差是成功科学的基础:规范性方法论有可能把婴儿和洗澡水一起扔掉
成功的科学需要可能挑战既定规范的离经叛道的想法。在过去的十年中,心理学期刊实施了前所未有的科学工程,对预先注册、统计测试、独立于结果的保证发表、复制和开放性徽章进行了严格的规定。这些规范性方法旨在防止失败(消极偏差)而非促进成功(积极偏差),与成功科学的历史发展背道而驰。由于狭隘地关注研究数据,同时避免理论偏见,这些方法不足以解决往往难以解决的科学问题。相反,应该鼓励非常规的、特殊的、甚至最初难以置信的假设。积极的偏差与成功科学的无计划、杂乱无章的进化之间存在着一种新的联系。在探索不断变化、无限宽广的经验和理论领域时,各种假说都在为获得最高的适应性而竞争。获胜者是积极的偏离者,但始终受制于未来的竞争。失利的消极离经叛道者可能与获胜者具有相同的特征,但却变得无关紧要,有时甚至在其诞生很久之后,最终被人们遗忘。规范性方法旨在从源头上遏制消极偏差,但也会切断积极偏差,并可能冻结成功的科学。我们提倡为偏差留出更多的空间,并将理论放在首位,让研究产生心理科学的发现和创新。
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
Review of General Psychology
Review of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Review of General Psychology seeks to publish innovative theoretical, conceptual, or methodological articles that cross-cut the traditional subdisciplines of psychology. The journal contains articles that advance theory, evaluate and integrate research literatures, provide a new historical analysis, or discuss new methodological developments in psychology as a whole. Review of General Psychology is especially interested in articles that bridge gaps between subdisciplines in psychology as well as related fields or that focus on topics that transcend traditional subdisciplinary boundaries.
×
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