Red - AO2/3 - Evaluation
When psychological journal articles are published, they have an abstract - a brief summary of the research, outlining the aim, hypothesis, method, results and conclusion. This helps the reader decide whether the research is relevant to what they're trying to find out, and whether they should read on.
Psychological research has practical applications and practical implications. Practical implications are what we can infer and interpret from the results of the research - what it adds to our understanding of a field of psychology. Practical applications are how the findings and conclusions can be used in a real-life scenario - ways in which the research can beneficially change how people behave.
Peer Review
The peer review process involves other knowledgeable psychologists studying similar topics reviewing the researcher, assessing the credibility, the legitimacy and the accuracy of the research. This serves several purposes.
- To verify the academic integrity of the researcher - that they aren't plagiarising other academics, and are giving appropriate credit to the authors of their sources.
- To check that appropriate statistical tests have been used for the level of the data and experimental design chosen.
- To check that legitimate, valid conclusions and interpretations have been drawn from the results - ascertaining that results have not been misinterpreted.
- To make sure that findings are novel and contribute to a broader body of knowledge in its field - rather than a simple replication of research already carried out in the same social and historical context.
- To make sure that the researcher is not making unjustified claims about the importance and social significance of their research.
- To make sure that any ethical issues that arose over the course of the research were handled appropriately, and that the BPS ethical guidelines were adequately followed.
- To ensure that all research is reviewed by fellow experts, maintaining academic standards of research - so poor quality research is not published in reputable journals.
- Peer review is time consuming and expensive - it can take months or years for research to be reviewed and published, delaying the publication of important findings.
- Reviewers usually work in the same field as the author of the research - there could be an incentive to delay the publication of their rivals' important findings, especially when financial research grants are at stake.
- There is a bias towards more well-respected and prestigious institutions and researchers - papers from these are more likely to be approved simply due to the renown of the institution or individual, even if they are of no higher standard of academic integrity than research from a less prestigious one.
- There is a tendency to favour the scientific status quo - research which supports the commonly accepted scientific theories and approaches at the time of its review is more likely to be considered valid and to be approved than research which challenges the established scientific consensus. Peer review may slow down the revolution from one scientific paradigm to another.
- Review may be biased through the reviewer's personal, subjective views differing from those expressed in the submitted report - e.g, if the reviewer is convinced that intelligence is highly genetic, they may look unfavourably upon research that suggests a role for environmental factors in intelligence, and reject research papers that suggest this.
- The "file drawer phenomenon" - peer review tends to favour positive results that support the hypothesis rather than those which challenge the hypothesis or support a null. Many negative or null findings are simply not published - left in the researcher's file drawer. This biases our understanding of a topic towards supporting theories that might not consistently be supported by research, but only the supporting evidence is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment