IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/w7e8q_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Breakdowns in Scientific Practices: How and Why some Accepted Scientific Claims may have Little Actual Support

Author

Listed:
  • White, Mark
  • Stovner, Roar Bakken

    (Oslo Metropolitan University)

Abstract

This paper considers the reasonableness of conclusions drawn from empirical psychological science. Drawing on validity and institutional theories, our conceptual model views research methods as institutionalized approaches to supporting the (implicit) inferential argument that is used to validate conclusions. Breakdowns occur when researchers falsely believe that a method strongly supports the inferential argument, but where little support is provided. We identify two characteristics of methods that promote breakdowns and show that these characteristics explain breakdowns of two common methods, null hypothesis significance testing and cutoffs for fit indices. Last, we outline alternative methods that can support the same inferences but are less prone to breakdowns. Further, we discuss broadly how to reduce breakdowns in scientific practice.

Suggested Citation

  • White, Mark & Stovner, Roar Bakken, 2023. "Breakdowns in Scientific Practices: How and Why some Accepted Scientific Claims may have Little Actual Support," OSF Preprints w7e8q_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:w7e8q_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/w7e8q_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/646f474c9a89e200a71c43ad/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/w7e8q_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:w7e8q_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.