Improving Scientific Reproducibility with Applied Philosophy of Science

用应用科学哲学提高科学再现性

• 批准号: 2398550
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Bristol
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2398550
• 关键词: Improving; Scientific; Reproducibility; Applied; Philosophy

Concerns about the replicability of research have continued to interest researchers across a number of scientific disciplines, particularly during the last decade. Within psychology, numerous explanations for low replicability have been proposed. Most notable are the problems of current publication standards, which disincentivise the publication of null findings, as well as incentivising the use of questionable research practices (QRPs). Estimates of the prevalence of QRPs have suggested that they may be alarmingly common within psychology. However, researchers themselves, as well as independent judges, often rate the use of most QRPs as defensible in certain situations. One pertinent and hitherto unanswered question is how these QRP justifications fit into the wider epistemological frameworks which underpin the practices of many researchers. The question of epistemic justification for QRPs comprises one part of a wider topic that is particularly deserving of examination: to what extent do psychology researchers actually take note of, and account for, the difficulties of causal inference in their field? It has been suggested that insufficient adherence to an appropriate and well-defined epistemology is an important contributory factor to the poor replicability of findings in social psychology. While both interesting and plausible, this is no more than speculation at present. Consequently, I am proposing a project which will explore the extent to which a lack of epistemological consideration may be hindering the replicability of research, and how it can be improved. This project is both novel and ambitious insofar as, while authors have theoretically discussed how research could be improved with philosophy of science, the topic has yet to be addressed experimentally. I am proposing to collect qualitative and quantitative data on researchers' beliefs and opinions, collaboratively analyse logical consistencies with philosophers of science, and apply the ideas generated in randomised control trials aimed at testing if research practices can be improved.

特别是在过去十年中，对研究可复制性的关切继续引起许多科学学科研究人员的兴趣。在心理学中，人们对低可复制性提出了许多解释。最值得注意的是目前的出版标准的问题，这抑制了无效结果的出版，以及鼓励使用有问题的研究实践（QRP）。对QRP流行程度的估计表明，它们在心理学中可能非常普遍。然而，研究人员自己以及独立的法官，往往认为在某些情况下使用大多数快速反应程序是可以辩护的。一个相关且迄今为止尚未解答的问题是，这些QRP理由如何融入支撑许多研究人员实践的更广泛的认识论框架。QRP的认知论证问题包含了一个更广泛的主题的一部分，这个主题特别值得研究：心理学研究者在多大程度上注意到并解释了他们领域中因果推理的困难？有人认为，不充分坚持一个适当的和明确的认识论是一个重要的因素，社会心理学的研究结果的可复制性差。虽然这既有趣又合理，但目前这只不过是猜测。因此，我提出了一个项目，将探讨在何种程度上缺乏认识论的考虑可能会阻碍研究的可复制性，以及如何可以改善。这个项目既新颖又雄心勃勃，因为虽然作者在理论上讨论了如何用科学哲学来改进研究，但这个话题还有待于实验解决。我建议收集关于研究人员的信念和观点的定性和定量数据，与科学哲学家合作分析逻辑推理，并应用随机对照试验中产生的想法，旨在测试研究实践是否可以改进。