The Scientific Method in Psychology and Validating New Knowledge

Today we looked at the first part of the research methods specification, linking this to a look-back over the anomalistic psychology topic.

You need to know the 'major features of science, including:

• replicability 
• objectivity 
• theory construction 
• hypothesis testing (falsifiability) 
• the use of empirical methods'

We defined these and wrote an example of 'good...' and 'bad...' from psychology / parapsychology.

We then looked at 'validating new knowledge and the role of peer review'.

Essentially, scientists make each other aware of their theoretical and experimental research through scientific journals. Most of these have a small circulation so are very expensive and are bought by university libraries. Journal articles on research studies typically have the following structure (which you may be tested on in your unit 4 exam):

• Abstract - a summary of the rest of the article, to allow researchers to quickly decide if it is relevant to them.
• Introduction including a literature review - the background to the study, including theories and previous research findings.
• Method - details of participants and how they were sampled, procedures including standardised instructions, materials used (e.g. questionnaires used) and ethical concerns. This should allow a full replication.
• Results - summary graphs and tables (full data usually available on request) and statements of the results of statistical tests.
• Discussion - of what the findings mean, of issues with the research and recommendations for future research.

Most journals operate a system for checking that research meets high standards of methodology (e.g. good control of variables) and has accurate statistical testing through a process called 'peer review'. The editors will select a panel of experts in the relevant research (the 'peers' of the researcher submitting the article) to make this decision.

Make sure you can answer these questions:

1. What does it mean to ‘validate new knowledge’? 
2. How does peer review work? 
3. Give an example of pseudoscientific research where new knowledge is not validated or subject to peer review. 
4. What are the drawbacks of peer review?