Research and science are both predicated on vertical movement. By this, I mean that they are social enterprises that advance as new studies are constructed on top of older studies, using similar methods and past findings to guide new research so as to understand natural phenomena more thoroughly. As Newton famously remarked, "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." Is this the way psychological research works, though? In some cases, certainly. There are methods that are commonly used in different labs (e.g., visual perception research, fMRI research, etc.) so that ideas may stack on top of one another and higher understanding can be reached. In many instances, however, this is obviously not the case. Dr. Kevin King, a researcher at the University of Washington, is doing some fascinating work with the construct of "impulsiveness" and how it relates to alcohol use (just ask Rachel Kramer!) He is examining how different psychologists operationalize the impulsiveness and whether those working definitions across studies really examine the same thing or not. In many cases, the answer is a resounding no.
This is pretty damning if the field hopes to progress. If psychology does not move vertically by using the same methods to study constructs, then it moves laterally. The notion that scientific inquiry of a psychological nature is situated within and upon past research is a bit of a falsity, since past studies were not necessarily examining the same construct. That is, findings sit next to each other, but their stacking upon one another is merely an illusion. Other sciences use precise and similar ways of carrying out research. This constitutes a move in the vertical direction, which allows us to better understand the true state of nature. Psychology will remain hindered to the extent that it does not follow this trend.
No comments:
Post a Comment