FRAUD, FREUD, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?:

Fraud Scandal Fuels Debate Over Practices of Social Psychology: Even legitimate researchers cut corners, some admit (Christopher Shea, 11/13/11, Chronicle of Higher Education)

The discovery that the Dutch researcher Diederik A. Stapel made up the data for dozens of research papers has shaken up the field of social psychology, fueling a discussion not just about outright fraud, but also about subtler ways of misusing research data. Such misuse can happen even unintentionally, as researchers try to make a splash with their peers--and a splash, maybe, with the news media, too. [...]

Even before the Stapel case broke, a flurry of articles had begun appearing this fall that pointed to supposed systemic flaws in the way psychologists handle data. But one methodological expert, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, of the University of Amsterdam, added a sociological twist to the statistical debate: Psychology, he argued in a recent blog post and an interview, has become addicted to surprising, counterintuitive findings that catch the news media's eye, and that trend is warping the field.

"If high-impact journals want this kind of surprising finding, then there is pressure on researchers to come up with this stuff," says Mr. Wagenmakers, an associate professor in the psychology department's methodology unit.

Bad things happen when researchers feel under pressure, he adds--and it doesn't have to be Stapel-bad: "There's a slippery slope between making up your data and torturing your data."

Posted by oj at November 20, 2011 8:16 AM
Tweet   

Follow @brothersjudd