- Joined
- Nov 25, 2015
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 59
Last edited:
2
- Thread starter chrostopherhenandex
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,501
- Reaction score
- 4,350
Looks interesting, but unfortunately it’s behind a paywall...
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 19,133
- Reaction score
- 26,558
I'm more worried about the pseudoscience that diploma mills pump out with their poorly trained grads than I am any bogeyman about social justice research. The former is damaging to our patients, the latter is not really happening on any demonstrable level.
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
- Reaction score
- 2,643
Looks interesting but, like ClinicalABA said, it's paywalled. And ike WisNeuro I'm not worried about the 'science' in the long run. The issue is cheapening it not by research but by excluding the science from any training of professionals - without that what we represent as a discipline is far more limited.
Part of the reason I'm not worried about replication issues- that is science. It happens. It is bound to happen when novelty is prioritized and repetition is viewed as minimal. The pressure to grind out significance is real, and it happens a lot. If folks want to fight this, there needs to be a more active resistance to the insistence that more publications per year is better. Rate of submission is rising substantially in the last 5 years as deans, provosts, and chairs expect more and more of their junior faculty. Whenever you heavily incentivize production, you will have people who will cheat it. You will also have people 'surprised' when things don't replicate.
That said, I don't agree with your premise that we pick 'social justice' OR 'science'. Social justice is informed by science. I could give thousands of examples, but I'll give just one to demonstrate it. Take a look at gay/lesbian parents adopting children. The research is clear that there is ZERO negative (sexual abuse is actually less prevalent). Position statements and awareness campaigns to promote what we know about child rearing helps ensure appropriate policy reflective of science. If your position is that we shouldn't advocate social justice positions without scientific support, sure- that's reasonable although it's a bit of a straw man. I'm not sure that's the standard position of social justice divisions or members... It isn't for the one I'm a member of / the one I'm chair the APA convention for.
Part of the reason I'm not worried about replication issues- that is science. It happens. It is bound to happen when novelty is prioritized and repetition is viewed as minimal. The pressure to grind out significance is real, and it happens a lot. If folks want to fight this, there needs to be a more active resistance to the insistence that more publications per year is better. Rate of submission is rising substantially in the last 5 years as deans, provosts, and chairs expect more and more of their junior faculty. Whenever you heavily incentivize production, you will have people who will cheat it. You will also have people 'surprised' when things don't replicate.
That said, I don't agree with your premise that we pick 'social justice' OR 'science'. Social justice is informed by science. I could give thousands of examples, but I'll give just one to demonstrate it. Take a look at gay/lesbian parents adopting children. The research is clear that there is ZERO negative (sexual abuse is actually less prevalent). Position statements and awareness campaigns to promote what we know about child rearing helps ensure appropriate policy reflective of science. If your position is that we shouldn't advocate social justice positions without scientific support, sure- that's reasonable although it's a bit of a straw man. I'm not sure that's the standard position of social justice divisions or members... It isn't for the one I'm a member of / the one I'm chair the APA convention for.
Last edited: