Interdisciplinarity can aid the spread of better methods between scientific communities

P. Smaldino, Cailin O’Connor
{"title":"Interdisciplinarity can aid the spread of better methods between scientific communities","authors":"P. Smaldino, Cailin O’Connor","doi":"10.1177/26339137221131816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why do bad methods persist in some academic disciplines, even when they have been widely rejected in others? What factors allow good methodological advances to spread across disciplines? In this paper, we investigate some key features determining the success and failure of methodological spread between the sciences. We introduce a formal model that considers factors like methodological competence and reviewer bias toward one’s own methods. We show how these self-preferential biases can protect poor methodology within scientific communities, and lack of reviewer competence can contribute to failures to adopt better methods. We then use a second model to argue that input from outside disciplines can help break down barriers to methodological improvement. In doing so, we illustrate an underappreciated benefit of interdisciplinarity.","PeriodicalId":93948,"journal":{"name":"Collective intelligence","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collective intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26339137221131816","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Why do bad methods persist in some academic disciplines, even when they have been widely rejected in others? What factors allow good methodological advances to spread across disciplines? In this paper, we investigate some key features determining the success and failure of methodological spread between the sciences. We introduce a formal model that considers factors like methodological competence and reviewer bias toward one’s own methods. We show how these self-preferential biases can protect poor methodology within scientific communities, and lack of reviewer competence can contribute to failures to adopt better methods. We then use a second model to argue that input from outside disciplines can help break down barriers to methodological improvement. In doing so, we illustrate an underappreciated benefit of interdisciplinarity.
跨学科可以帮助更好的方法在科学界之间传播
为什么在某些学科中,即使坏方法在其他学科中被广泛拒绝,它们仍然存在?是什么因素使得好的方法进步能够跨学科传播?在本文中,我们研究了决定科学之间方法传播成败的一些关键特征。我们引入了一个正式的模型,该模型考虑了方法能力和审稿人对自己方法的偏见等因素。我们展示了这些自我偏好偏差如何在科学社区中保护糟糕的方法,以及缺乏审稿人能力如何导致无法采用更好的方法。然后,我们使用第二个模型来论证来自外部学科的输入可以帮助打破方法改进的障碍。在这样做的过程中,我们说明了一个被低估的跨学科的好处。
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
×
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