What Behavioral Scientists Are Unwilling to Accept

L. Petrinovich
{"title":"What Behavioral Scientists Are Unwilling to Accept","authors":"L. Petrinovich","doi":"10.2458/jmmss.3061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Meehl (1986) published a brilliant paper with the title “What Social Scientists Don’t Understand.” I believe that that a better characterization of the situation is to broaden the reference class to include behavioral scientists in general. Also, I believe that most behavioral scientists do understand these issues at some level, but that they are not willing to accept the implications that an explicit understanding would force. Concern has been expressed, for the past 40 years or so, that the strategies of research design and statistical analysis used by behavioral scientists are woefully inadequate to support a progressive scientific enterprise. In this article I will summarize the nature of some of these concerns, and will identify some of the impediments that they impose to the development of progressive conceptual frameworks adequate to the task of achieving an understanding of the behavior of complex organisms in their environment. Although there has been little disagreement regarding the soundness of the methodological criticisms that have been made, there is little reason to believe that the methodological and statistical criticisms have had any great impact on the activities of either journal editors or research scientists. A review of these concerns is appropriate at this time because a number of articles have appeared recently that defend the status quo, and which are based either on faulty premises or a questionable view of the problems that impede scientific progress. And, hopefully, yet another critique might enhance the rate at which we arrive at a more satisfying state of affairs. Following this polemic I will suggest some orienting attitudes, research procedures, and analytic strategies that should lead us to a better understanding of the universe of events we, as behavioral scientists, are attempting to understand. These alternative views are based on current developments in the philosophy of science and entail the use of design and analytic strategies that are of sufficient complexity to permit advances in the understanding of the behavior of organisms in their environment.","PeriodicalId":90602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/jmmss.3061","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Meehl (1986) published a brilliant paper with the title “What Social Scientists Don’t Understand.” I believe that that a better characterization of the situation is to broaden the reference class to include behavioral scientists in general. Also, I believe that most behavioral scientists do understand these issues at some level, but that they are not willing to accept the implications that an explicit understanding would force. Concern has been expressed, for the past 40 years or so, that the strategies of research design and statistical analysis used by behavioral scientists are woefully inadequate to support a progressive scientific enterprise. In this article I will summarize the nature of some of these concerns, and will identify some of the impediments that they impose to the development of progressive conceptual frameworks adequate to the task of achieving an understanding of the behavior of complex organisms in their environment. Although there has been little disagreement regarding the soundness of the methodological criticisms that have been made, there is little reason to believe that the methodological and statistical criticisms have had any great impact on the activities of either journal editors or research scientists. A review of these concerns is appropriate at this time because a number of articles have appeared recently that defend the status quo, and which are based either on faulty premises or a questionable view of the problems that impede scientific progress. And, hopefully, yet another critique might enhance the rate at which we arrive at a more satisfying state of affairs. Following this polemic I will suggest some orienting attitudes, research procedures, and analytic strategies that should lead us to a better understanding of the universe of events we, as behavioral scientists, are attempting to understand. These alternative views are based on current developments in the philosophy of science and entail the use of design and analytic strategies that are of sufficient complexity to permit advances in the understanding of the behavior of organisms in their environment.
行为科学家不愿接受的
Meehl(1986)发表了一篇精彩的论文,题目是“社会科学家不理解的东西”。我认为,更好地描述这种情况的方法是扩大参考类别,将行为科学家包括在内。此外,我相信大多数行为科学家确实在某种程度上理解这些问题,但他们不愿意接受明确理解会带来的影响。在过去40年左右的时间里,人们一直担心行为科学家使用的研究设计和统计分析策略远远不足以支持进步的科学事业。在这篇文章中,我将总结其中一些问题的性质,并确定它们对发展足以理解复杂生物体在其环境中的行为的渐进概念框架造成的一些障碍。尽管对方法论批评的合理性几乎没有分歧,但几乎没有理由相信方法论和统计批评对期刊编辑或研究科学家的活动产生了重大影响。目前对这些问题进行审查是适当的,因为最近出现了一些捍卫现状的文章,这些文章要么基于错误的前提,要么基于对阻碍科学进步的问题的可疑看法。而且,希望另一种批评能提高我们达到更令人满意状态的速度。在这场争论之后,我将提出一些有针对性的态度、研究程序和分析策略,使我们更好地理解我们作为行为科学家试图理解的事件的宇宙。这些替代观点基于科学哲学的当前发展,需要使用足够复杂的设计和分析策略,以促进对生物体在其环境中行为的理解。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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