方法的多样性可以促进心理学研究的进步

Alan E. Kazdin
{"title":"方法的多样性可以促进心理学研究的进步","authors":"Alan E. Kazdin","doi":"10.1016/j.appsy.2007.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Wachtel identified four interrelated constraints on research: biases against theory and description, emphasis on productivity, grant funding that may unwittingly foster the previous two constraints as well as limit the focus of research, and limits of experimental methods. The present comments focus on two main issues. First, heavy and almost exclusive reliance on research in the quantitative tradition is an unnecessary constraint. The tradition is infrequently questioned not only because of the contributions we enjoy from it (e.g., evidence-based everything), but also because it is so pervasive that it is the water in which we swim. There is nothing fishy about that tradition, but other traditions (e.g., single-case and qualitative research) would greatly expand and complement the yield and generate as well as test theory in new ways. Second, progress in research is an important topic by itself and warrants analysis. It would be useful to characterize areas where progress has been extraordinary or slow with the hope of learning what might be done to accelerate progress.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":84177,"journal":{"name":"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology","volume":"12 1","pages":"Pages 27-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.appsy.2007.07.001","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological diversity can augment progress in psychological research\",\"authors\":\"Alan E. Kazdin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.appsy.2007.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Wachtel identified four interrelated constraints on research: biases against theory and description, emphasis on productivity, grant funding that may unwittingly foster the previous two constraints as well as limit the focus of research, and limits of experimental methods. The present comments focus on two main issues. First, heavy and almost exclusive reliance on research in the quantitative tradition is an unnecessary constraint. The tradition is infrequently questioned not only because of the contributions we enjoy from it (e.g., evidence-based everything), but also because it is so pervasive that it is the water in which we swim. There is nothing fishy about that tradition, but other traditions (e.g., single-case and qualitative research) would greatly expand and complement the yield and generate as well as test theory in new ways. Second, progress in research is an important topic by itself and warrants analysis. It would be useful to characterize areas where progress has been extraordinary or slow with the hope of learning what might be done to accelerate progress.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":84177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 27-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.appsy.2007.07.001\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184907000029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184907000029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

Wachtel确定了四个相互关联的研究限制:对理论和描述的偏见,对生产力的强调,可能无意中助长前两个限制并限制研究重点的资助,以及实验方法的限制。目前的评论集中在两个主要问题上。首先,对定量传统研究的严重和几乎完全的依赖是一种不必要的限制。这一传统很少受到质疑,不仅是因为我们从中享受到的贡献(例如,一切都是基于证据的),还因为它无处不在,就像我们游泳的水一样。这一传统没有什么可疑之处,但其他传统(例如,单一案例和定性研究)将极大地扩展和补充成果,并以新的方式产生和检验理论。其次,研究进展本身就是一个重要的话题,值得分析。说明进展特别或缓慢的领域的特点,以期了解可以采取哪些措施来加速进展,这将是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methodological diversity can augment progress in psychological research

Wachtel identified four interrelated constraints on research: biases against theory and description, emphasis on productivity, grant funding that may unwittingly foster the previous two constraints as well as limit the focus of research, and limits of experimental methods. The present comments focus on two main issues. First, heavy and almost exclusive reliance on research in the quantitative tradition is an unnecessary constraint. The tradition is infrequently questioned not only because of the contributions we enjoy from it (e.g., evidence-based everything), but also because it is so pervasive that it is the water in which we swim. There is nothing fishy about that tradition, but other traditions (e.g., single-case and qualitative research) would greatly expand and complement the yield and generate as well as test theory in new ways. Second, progress in research is an important topic by itself and warrants analysis. It would be useful to characterize areas where progress has been extraordinary or slow with the hope of learning what might be done to accelerate progress.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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