Daniel Leising, Isabel Thielmann, A. Glöckner, Anne Gärtner, Felix D. Schönbrodt
{"title":"迈向更好的人格科学的十步——回复评论","authors":"Daniel Leising, Isabel Thielmann, A. Glöckner, Anne Gärtner, Felix D. Schönbrodt","doi":"10.5964/ps.7961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We respond to the comments (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227) on our “Ten Steps” paper (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6029), focusing on the most prominent themes: (1) What motivates scientists?, (2) Consensus-building (Is our field ready? May there be adverse side-effects? How shall we do it?), (3) How may institutional change be facilitated?, (4) Diversity (of participants, stimuli, methodology, measures, and among researchers), (5) The reliability of our proposed scoring system, and (6) The real-world relevance of personality research. We stand by our call for more concerted consensus-building and offer a few clarifications in this regard. We also issue four specific calls to action to our colleagues in the field: (a) specify legitimate paths to greater consensus, (b) explicate what constitutes good “qualitative” research, (c) help establish a widely used, public domain item database, and (d) determine what the most important contemporary goals of personality research are.","PeriodicalId":74421,"journal":{"name":"Personality science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ten steps toward a better personality science – a rejoinder to the comments\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Leising, Isabel Thielmann, A. Glöckner, Anne Gärtner, Felix D. Schönbrodt\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/ps.7961\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We respond to the comments (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227) on our “Ten Steps” paper (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6029), focusing on the most prominent themes: (1) What motivates scientists?, (2) Consensus-building (Is our field ready? May there be adverse side-effects? How shall we do it?), (3) How may institutional change be facilitated?, (4) Diversity (of participants, stimuli, methodology, measures, and among researchers), (5) The reliability of our proposed scoring system, and (6) The real-world relevance of personality research. We stand by our call for more concerted consensus-building and offer a few clarifications in this regard. We also issue four specific calls to action to our colleagues in the field: (a) specify legitimate paths to greater consensus, (b) explicate what constitutes good “qualitative” research, (c) help establish a widely used, public domain item database, and (d) determine what the most important contemporary goals of personality research are.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7961\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ten steps toward a better personality science – a rejoinder to the comments
We respond to the comments (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227) on our “Ten Steps” paper (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6029), focusing on the most prominent themes: (1) What motivates scientists?, (2) Consensus-building (Is our field ready? May there be adverse side-effects? How shall we do it?), (3) How may institutional change be facilitated?, (4) Diversity (of participants, stimuli, methodology, measures, and among researchers), (5) The reliability of our proposed scoring system, and (6) The real-world relevance of personality research. We stand by our call for more concerted consensus-building and offer a few clarifications in this regard. We also issue four specific calls to action to our colleagues in the field: (a) specify legitimate paths to greater consensus, (b) explicate what constitutes good “qualitative” research, (c) help establish a widely used, public domain item database, and (d) determine what the most important contemporary goals of personality research are.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
