Home
Resource
Scientist as subject: how researcher behaviors influence psychological knowledge
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(3.38 MB)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Fox, Nicholas W.. Scientist as subject: how researcher behaviors influence psychological knowledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-axyv-n686

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitleScientist as subject: how researcher behaviors influence psychological knowledge
NameFox, Nicholas W. (author); Jussim, Lee (chair); Selby, Edward (internal member); Contrada, Richard (internal member); Corker, Katherine (outside member); Rutgers University; School of Graduate Studies
Date Created2019
Other Date2019-05 (degree)
SubjectMetascience, Psychology, Science -- Research, Psychology -- Research
Extent1 online resource (xi, 144 pages) : illustrations
DescriptionBackground:
Interacting with the published literature (“knowledge consumption”) and publishing new scientific findings (“knowledge production”) are two key moments in the scientist’s search for truth, and bias in either of these can distort what is known about an area of research. This dissertation details three studies conducted on researchers in psychology that together provide evidence of scientists’ behaviors influencing these key moments of knowledge production and knowledge consumption.
Methods:
Psychologists were recruited to participate in each study (N = 215 and N = 587). Studies used custom web tools and social network methods to collect unique datasets on psychologists’ social networks and how they approach the scientific literature. The analytic approach differed based on each study. For studies on knowledge consumption, Gini coefficients and measures of unpredictability were calculated to better understand the dynamics of the published literature. For studies on knowledge production, the generalized network scale up method was used to estimate the size of the population of current users of questionable research practices, and regression was used to better understand the relationship between attitudes and stigma against certain psychologists.
Results:
The presence of download counts (an operationalization of influential metadata) with scientific literature resulted in larger inequality of downloads, meaning potential readers were more likely to download articles that had been previously downloaded by others. Download count presence also resulted in a higher unpredictability of success. The proportion of psychologists who currently use questionable research practices was estimated as 18.18% by direct estimate and 24.4% by the social network scale up estimate. Finally, these researchers were found to be a stigmatized sub-population of psychologists, which could either help or hinder efforts to reduce this population size.
Conclusions:
There is evidence that psychologists may inadvertently bias the knowledge they generate and consume in several different ways. While this dissertation focused specifically on psychologists, there is potential for this work to be applied in other areas of scientific inquiry. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the scientist as a means of better understanding the science.
NotePh.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Genretheses, ETD doctoral
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-axyv-n686
LanguageEnglish
CollectionSchool of Graduate Studies Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024