REVIEW PAPER
Basic problems of scientific research in psychology
 
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland
Submission date: 2020-05-09
Acceptance date: 2020-06-12
Online publication date: 2020-07-21
Publication date: 2020-07-21
 
Health Psychology Report 2020;8(4):373–384
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The article discusses the “immersion” of scientific and professional activities (assessment, consulting and psy-chotherapy) of psychologists from four perspectives: methodological, institutional, social practice and ethical. In scientific research, the primary importance is attached to testable empirical psychological theory. In particular, it has been emphasized that professional practice only makes sense and is ethical if it is supported by the results of basic research conducted by research psychologists.
 
REFERENCES (42)
1.
Ajdukiewicz, K. (1974). Pragmatic logic. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel.
 
2.
Alberts, B. (2013). Editorial: Impact factor distortions. Science, 340, 787. https://doi.org/10.1126/scienc.... 1240319.
 
3.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing (6th ed.). Washington, DC: AERA, APA, NCME.
 
4.
American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-0....
 
5.
APA (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psy-chological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code... [ac-cessed April 18, 2020].
 
6.
APA (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
 
7.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745....
 
8.
Bechtoldt, H. P. (1959). Construct validity: a critique. American Psychologist, 14, 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00403....
 
9.
Boring, E. (1923). Intelligence as the test tests it. New Republic, 36, 35–37.
 
10.
Bridgman, P. W. (1927). The logic of modern physics. New York: MacMillan.
 
11.
Brzeziński, J. (1993). Research process in psychology in the context of the researcher’s methodologi-cal consciousness. In J. Brzeziński, S. Di Nuovo, T. Marek, & T. Maruszewski (Eds.), Creativity and consciousness: Philosophical and psychological dimensions (pp. 155–183). Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
 
12.
Brzeziński, J. (2013). Methodological awareness and ethical awareness in the context of university education (on the example of psychology). In B. Bokus (Ed.), Responsibility. A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 261-277). Warszawa: Lexem.
 
13.
Brzeziński, J. M. (2016). Towards a comprehensive model of scientific research and professional practice in psychology. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 4, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2....
 
14.
Chambers, C., & Munafo, M. (2013). Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration. Re-trieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sci... [accessed October 13, 2014].
 
15.
Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-0....
 
16.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
 
17.
Cronbach, L. J, & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00409....
 
18.
Doliński, D. (2018). Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Social Psychological Bulletin, 13, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v1....
 
19.
DORA (2013). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Putting science into the assess-ment of research. Retrieved from www.ascb.org/files/SFDeclarati... [accessed April 7, 2020].
 
20.
Feest, U. (2005). Operationism in psychology: What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41, 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.2....
 
21.
Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8....
 
22.
Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
 
23.
IUPS, International Union of Psychological Science (2008). Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. Retrieved from https://www.iupsys.net/about/g... [accessed April 7, 2020].
 
24.
Jemielniak, D. (2020). Thick big data: Doing digital social sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 
25.
Karpe, K. (2017). O pogoni za wynikiem istotnym statystycznie. Konsekwencje rozpowszechnienia testowania istotności hipotezy zerowej w psychologii [In chase of statistically significant result. Consequences of widespread use of NHST (null hypothesis significance testing) in psychology]. Nauka, 1, 143–156.
 
26.
King, B. M., & Minium, E. W. (2003). Statistical reasoning in psychology and education (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
 
27.
Kmita, J. (1991). Essays on the theory of scientific cognition. Warszawa: PWN – Polish Scientific Pub-lisher; Dordrecht: Kluwer.
 
28.
Kubiak, J. (2019). Walka o punkty zabija naukę [The race for „points” is killing science]. PAUza Aka-demicka, 460, 3. Retrieved from http://pauza.krakow.pl/460_201... [accessed April 7, 2020].
 
29.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: The Chicago University Press.
 
30.
Miller, A. G. (ed.). (1972). The social psychology of psychological research. New York: The Free Press.
 
31.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/scienc....
 
32.
Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery [Adobe Digitals Editions version]. Retrieved from http://strangebeautiful.com/ot... [accessed April 7, 2020].
 
33.
Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
 
34.
Ritzler, B., Erard, R., & Pettigrew, G. (2002). Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses. A reply to Grove and Barden (1999) re: The admissibility of testimony under Daubert/Kumho anal-yses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8....
 
35.
Rosenthal, R. (1963). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: The experimenter’s hypothesis as unintended determinant of experimental results. American Scientist, 51, 268–283.
 
36.
Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. Ameri-can Psychologist, 57, 839–849. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-0....
 
37.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1966). Teachers’ expectancies: Determinants of pupils’ IQ gains. Psy-chological Reports, 19, 115–118. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.19....
 
38.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom. Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development (expanded edition). New York: Irvington.
 
39.
Rosenzweig, S. (1933). The experimental situation as a psychological problem. Psychological Review, 40, 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h00749....
 
40.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper.
 
41.
Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Quantifying construct validity: Two simple measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 608–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3....
 
42.
Zawadzki, B. (2006). Kwestionariusze osobowości. Strategie i procedura konstruowania [Personality questionnaires. Strategies and construction procedure]. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
 
eISSN:2353-5571
ISSN:2353-4184