Psychology is in a state of flux. Ever since the prominent Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel admitted in 2011 to fabricating and manipulating the data in his work, the field’s research methods have been in the spotlight. The debate has focused on whether replication is a way to confirm accuracy. In theory, if a study was done properly, a research group should be able to reliably repeat it and get the same results. This view has long been a cornerstone of the scientific method. But is it realistic? If the answer is no, what does that mean for the field…
Read the rest of this article at PrimeMind.
Follow Simon on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, RSS, or join the mailing list.
Cookie ComplianceThis site contains cookies. If you have ever used the internet before then you probably knew that already and ate them long before you arrived here. If you are allergic to cookies please leave now.