Academia faces a deepening crisis of credibility. Problems emerged at the time of the replication crisis – a crisis, beginning in psychology, in which large amounts of academic papers could not be replicated – yet recent developments have confirmed this trend. Single datasets seem to show ambiguous findings. In a 2018 paper, 29 expert teams used a single dataset to
I thought of a bit of a whacky proposal a few months ago. I think that we could pay professors in binary options which payout only if the research replicates. If you produce work that is shoddy, then your options will fall drastically in price.
The political asymmetry is self-reinforcing and is likely to get worse. A lot of researchers hold findings that conform to their ideology to a lower standard. The solution might be Open Science.
Good to see commentary like this from an academic. Many of the social sciences papers I see (via weekly roundups from Psypost) are obviously politically motivated.
An example this week was some analysis of ‘extreme’ speech that arises in online epistemic bubbles. Predictably they looked at far right and incel spaces. I am still to see any studies of the violent language in trans activist spaces.
As well as obvious political bias the other aspect that leaps out is quality. Another paper sought to examine the role of the female orgasm in enduring relationships. The subjects of the study were college students. Also known as kids.
Your piece uncovers some of the dynamics afoot here and I’m grateful for that.
Why the crisis of academic credibility may not have a solution
Nice! Love to see this issue getting attention.
I thought of a bit of a whacky proposal a few months ago. I think that we could pay professors in binary options which payout only if the research replicates. If you produce work that is shoddy, then your options will fall drastically in price.
The political asymmetry is self-reinforcing and is likely to get worse. A lot of researchers hold findings that conform to their ideology to a lower standard. The solution might be Open Science.
I go back to this, the academic hoax pulled by James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlqU_JMTzd4&t=833s
Good to see commentary like this from an academic. Many of the social sciences papers I see (via weekly roundups from Psypost) are obviously politically motivated.
An example this week was some analysis of ‘extreme’ speech that arises in online epistemic bubbles. Predictably they looked at far right and incel spaces. I am still to see any studies of the violent language in trans activist spaces.
As well as obvious political bias the other aspect that leaps out is quality. Another paper sought to examine the role of the female orgasm in enduring relationships. The subjects of the study were college students. Also known as kids.
Your piece uncovers some of the dynamics afoot here and I’m grateful for that.
Time to re-build. E.g., the new University of Austin.