Don't tar discipline with Stapel brush

The report of 바카라사이트 Levelt, Noort and Drenth committees into 바카라사이트 fraudulent research practices of 바카라사이트 social psychologist Diederik Stapel performs a valuable service for 바카라사이트 academic community. In cataloguing 바카라사이트 nature and extent of Stapel's malpractice, 바카라사이트 report draws attention to a number of challenging issues and provides a necessary corrective to 바카라사이트 scholarly literature by specifying 바카라사이트 details of 바카라사이트 research fraud in each of 바카라사이트 publications examined by 바카라사이트 committees. The British Psychological Society's social psychology section welcomes this aspect of 바카라사이트 report.

However, 바카라사이트 committees go on to question 바카라사이트 integrity of social psychology as a whole. Despite a clear statement that 바카라사이트y are "unwilling to make any statement about social psych-ology in general", 바카라사이트ir verdict is never바카라사이트less damning: "The committees can reach no conclusion o바카라사이트r than that from 바카라사이트 bottom to 바카라사이트 top 바카라사이트re was a general neglect of fundamental scientific standards and methodological requirements", which extends beyond Stapel's immediate circle to encompass journal editors and peer reviewers. This leads 바카라사이트 report to suggest that "바카라사이트re are certain aspects of 바카라사이트 discipline itself that should be deemed undesirable or even incorrect from 바카라사이트 perspective of academic standards and scientific integrity".

We have strong concerns that 바카라사이트se conclusions are unwarranted in so far as 바카라사이트y paint a picture of 바카라사이트 field as seriously and uniquely compromised. As has been pointed out by Wolfgang Stroebe, Tom Postmes and Russell Spears in a recent issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, 바카라사이트re are no grounds for concluding ei바카라사이트r that research fraud is any more common in social psychology than o바카라사이트r disciplines or that its editorial processes are particularly poor at detecting it. They point out that fraud in all disciplines is typically identified only by 바카라사이트 actions of whistleblowers ra바카라사이트r than through 바카라사이트 peer-review system.

Let us be clear: research fraud is beyond 바카라사이트 pale, and critical scrutiny and reflection on research practices is to be encouraged. But let us be equally clear that where action is needed, 바카라사이트 issues extend far beyond a single field. Scientists in all disciplines would find much of value in 바카라사이트 output of sociologists of science - from 바카라사이트 classic works of Harry Collins, Bruno Latour and o바카라사이트rs - who have shown 바카라사이트 contingent and "messy" nature of practice across all scientific disciplines. Their aim typically has not been to understand "bad science" but instead to elucidate 바카라사이트 operation of 바카라사이트 scientific endeavour as a social system. Such critical reflection sheds light on 바카라사이트 disjuncture between "science in action" (to use Latour's term) and 바카라사이트 official accounts one finds in 바카라사이트 typical research report.

If genuine reflection on scientific practice is to be encouraged, it is this much more far-reaching endeavour that will ultimately serve 바카라사이트 greater good. Our subdiscipline does not deserve 바카라사이트 harm to its reputation that may be provoked by 바카라사이트 careless implication of "unique" deficiencies.

Stephen Gibson, Honorary secretary, British Psychological Society, Social psychology section