02-12-2014, 11:47 PM
(02-11-2014, 11:43 PM)rie Wrote:I was actually looking into this subject a few years back. The biases also include assumptions which tend to not be included in research data and can be difficult to elicit. At one point, I was intuitively intrigued with Gordon Rugg's "Verifier Approach", because the suggestion was to become more conscious of what constitutes knowledge behind our compelling claims. Unless we are willfully hiding that knowledge, the resulting elicitation of basis in experience would yield the same ends as "transparency".(02-11-2014, 06:46 PM)zenmaster Wrote:(02-11-2014, 05:52 PM)rie Wrote: We have a list of problems and no suggestions of alternatives or potential ways to improve research... nor acknowledgment of the benefits of research. Suggestions?I don't think we have a well defined list of problems.
No we don't, we have personal catalyst around the issue of research/researchers/psychologists (or what is externalized as such).
Put this into historical context, you do see the area of research changing. We speak of quantitative/modernist paradigm of research but not about lesser know, alternative paradigms that came out as a response to the limitations of modernist/reductionistic paradigm. Like paradigms that are 100x more transparent about biases, both personal and theoretical.