Editorial: Replication and Reliability in Behavior Science and Behavior Analysis: A Call for a Conversation
Year: 2019
Type: editorial
Abstract: replication crisis" are not unique to any discipline but have become part of the science enterprise writ large.Tincani and Travers (this issue) adopt this perspective in pointing out that workers in behavior science and behavior analysis are subject to many of the same contingencies that have produced the "replication crisis" in general, and in Psychology in particular.Lilienfeld's (2017) analysis of the contingencies that contributed to the "replication crisis" takes a matching law approach to the problem.In Lillenfeld's view, behavioral scientists are faced with a continuous choice between two concurrent schedules: the reinforcers available from careful, scholarly science and those from participating in the "grant culture" of contemporary research, which he defines as a management system in which researchers are rewarded for grant dollars generated while their scholarly achievements are largely ignored by university administrators.Reinforcers available from careful, scholarly science are large, but they are delayed and often ephemeral.For individual scientists, these include the satisfaction of contributing to a scientific enterprise and the muted respect of colleagues.For the discipline, rigorous science may be relatively immune to replication failures.By contrast, individuals who participate in the "grant culture" of contemporary research gain relatively immediate and tangible reinforcers such as pay raises and continued employment.But for the discipline the consequences are unfortunate.Grant cycles are generally short (1-5 years) and granting agencies demand pilot data to secure a grant, and a bevy of publications based on the funded research.Per Lillienfeld, such academic and economic short-termism becomes a powerful motivator for questionable research practices (QRPs) (John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012), fraud, confirmation bias, hyperspecialization and a dis-incentive for creativity, intellectual risk-taking, deep thinking, and replication.Note that the "grant culture" Lillienfeld (2017) calls out is but a subset of a larger movement toward short-term "accountability" (some would say "countability") 1 in all areas of academia and education that has produced a variety of corrosive practices such as the now discredited "value-added" models of K-12 teacher evaluation (Wasserstein, lazer & Goldhaber 2016;Goldhaber, 2015); unreliable, invalid and biased university instructor end of semester evaluations (Boysen, 2015;
Source: Perspectives on Behavior Science
Author: Donald A. Hantula
Institution: Temple University
Language: English
Subfield: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Field: Psychology
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,090
OpenAlex ID: W2921027019