Psychology today has come a long way since its conception, but it is still plagued by many different factors. Fraud and QRP’s are big problems for the scientific psychology community. Do we as psychology researchers generally know what constitutes QRP’s and how to recognize them? Human factors will always play a role in scientific practice in my opinion, so addressing problems like QRP’s shouldn’t solely focus on trying to dehumanize psychology. Instead, there should be a revaluation of science education, where there is a bigger focus on the actual practice of being a researcher and the dangers you’ll face in the field. However, in educational programs like the Research Master Psychology, you already see some of the same problems and incentives emerge, creating a climate in which quantity is valued over quality. These issues are shortly addressed in my paper.
Here is a summary of the discussion we had in class on the 16th of October!
Eline, Ruben, Yongqi & Sam
Hey guys, like many others, I believe that the current state of “good vs bad science” is a consequence of perverse incentives (something wrong with the system) in the scientific world, more then there being too many bad apples. Marketization, publication pressure, internal competition etc. can all lead to a wrong focus in science where QRP’s and fraud show their face, whereas attaining a better understanding and to educate should predominate. My question to you is, Where do you think a change in the current work environment of science should take place? Is the first step to a better, more objective, and more truthfull science the responsibility of universities? Should funding institutions take a first step? Should scientific papers take action? Is it all the pesonal responsibility of each and every individual researcher? Or does a better scientific environment start with more collaborative and international initiatives?
I ask, because I find it very hard to think of a good place to start from within a system that seems locked in a certain place.