Some of the biggest names in behavioral science stand accused of faking their results. We talk to whistleblowers, reformers, and a co-author who got caught up in the chaos.
My view is that it is because the social sciences have been trying really hard to become actual sciences but they just aren’t. Their data is not of the same quality. They do not operate in objective reality much of the time.
You cannot isolate a human or societal trend to manipulate the variable and gather data the same way you can in, say, chemistry. Humans and our societies are too complex, too ambiguous, and are characterized by too many interdependencies and causal relationships to study the same way.
And the reality is much of what we do does not conform to a clear, sound logic. So I think attempts at analyzing the data to discern causal relationships is also fatally fraught.
These are philosophical subjects that can sometimes be grounded in science. Not the other way around.
A slightly different view - social science could be "actual science," but no one ever takes the time to replicate the studies, so we are left trusting them on faith.
As a result, they can pass standards almost like a kind of sophistry. If they are plausible, they pass.
Contrast this to someone publishing an article about nuclear fission or a new drug breakthrough. Someone else will immediately try to replicate the study.
I think another thing is that with folks like Ariely having massive cross-over appeal (consulting gigs, book deals, etc.), there will probably be more of this in the coming years. The incentives are just too strong, and there are no checks.
Interesting topic. My take is cheating in academia occurs because of systemic pressure to perform or a reward system based on positive outcomes. Or, bigger than both those is it might be some type of imposture syndrome.
An omission in this otherwise good piece: after listening, one is left with the impression that Prof Bazerman has regrets but might not be wholly taking responsibility for his actions. In fact, he wrote an entire book about this topic, called Complicit, in which he examines the topic and devotes a chapter to his role the fraudulent paper examined here. Seems worthy of a mention.
A pandemic of fraud? It cannot exist with the truth. Except for perhaps a few specialties, academics is rather useless. One can survive quite well without academia's propaganda.
My view is that it is because the social sciences have been trying really hard to become actual sciences but they just aren’t. Their data is not of the same quality. They do not operate in objective reality much of the time.
You cannot isolate a human or societal trend to manipulate the variable and gather data the same way you can in, say, chemistry. Humans and our societies are too complex, too ambiguous, and are characterized by too many interdependencies and causal relationships to study the same way.
And the reality is much of what we do does not conform to a clear, sound logic. So I think attempts at analyzing the data to discern causal relationships is also fatally fraught.
These are philosophical subjects that can sometimes be grounded in science. Not the other way around.
A slightly different view - social science could be "actual science," but no one ever takes the time to replicate the studies, so we are left trusting them on faith.
As a result, they can pass standards almost like a kind of sophistry. If they are plausible, they pass.
Contrast this to someone publishing an article about nuclear fission or a new drug breakthrough. Someone else will immediately try to replicate the study.
I think another thing is that with folks like Ariely having massive cross-over appeal (consulting gigs, book deals, etc.), there will probably be more of this in the coming years. The incentives are just too strong, and there are no checks.
Interesting topic. My take is cheating in academia occurs because of systemic pressure to perform or a reward system based on positive outcomes. Or, bigger than both those is it might be some type of imposture syndrome.
An omission in this otherwise good piece: after listening, one is left with the impression that Prof Bazerman has regrets but might not be wholly taking responsibility for his actions. In fact, he wrote an entire book about this topic, called Complicit, in which he examines the topic and devotes a chapter to his role the fraudulent paper examined here. Seems worthy of a mention.
A pandemic of fraud? It cannot exist with the truth. Except for perhaps a few specialties, academics is rather useless. One can survive quite well without academia's propaganda.