什么是复制危机?

Uljana Feest
{"title":"什么是复制危机?","authors":"Uljana Feest","doi":"10.1017/psa.2024.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In recent debates about the replication crisis, two positions have been dominant: One that focuses on methodological reforms and one that focuses on theory-building. This paper takes up the suggestion that there might be a deeper difference in play, concerning the ways the very subject matter of psychology is construed by opposing camps, i.e., in terms of stable effects vs in terms of complexity. I argue that both gets something right, but neither is sufficient. My analysis suggests that the context-sensitivity of the psychological subject matter needs to be front and center of methodological and theoretical efforts.","PeriodicalId":508051,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is the Replication Crisis a Crisis Of?\",\"authors\":\"Uljana Feest\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/psa.2024.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In recent debates about the replication crisis, two positions have been dominant: One that focuses on methodological reforms and one that focuses on theory-building. This paper takes up the suggestion that there might be a deeper difference in play, concerning the ways the very subject matter of psychology is construed by opposing camps, i.e., in terms of stable effects vs in terms of complexity. I argue that both gets something right, but neither is sufficient. My analysis suggests that the context-sensitivity of the psychological subject matter needs to be front and center of methodological and theoretical efforts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508051,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2024.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2024.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在最近关于复制危机的辩论中,有两种立场占据主导地位:一种侧重于方法论改革,一种侧重于理论建设。本文认为,这其中可能存在更深层次的分歧,即对立阵营对心理学主题的理解方式,即稳定效应与复杂性。我认为,两者都有正确之处,但都不够充分。我的分析表明,心理学主题的语境敏感性需要成为方法论和理论工作的前沿和中心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What is the Replication Crisis a Crisis Of?
In recent debates about the replication crisis, two positions have been dominant: One that focuses on methodological reforms and one that focuses on theory-building. This paper takes up the suggestion that there might be a deeper difference in play, concerning the ways the very subject matter of psychology is construed by opposing camps, i.e., in terms of stable effects vs in terms of complexity. I argue that both gets something right, but neither is sufficient. My analysis suggests that the context-sensitivity of the psychological subject matter needs to be front and center of methodological and theoretical efforts.
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