Caelin White

Questions and Answers (19) View all

• Answer added in Social Psychology
  3 Call for a new system of organizing research in psychology
  By Caelin White · University of Manitoba
  Caelin White · University of Manitoba

  We can't make use of it because it still needs to be developed. That's why I posted this comment; I was hoping someone would take this idea and run wi... [more]

  We can't make use of it because it still needs to be developed. That's why I posted this comment; I was hoping someone would take this idea and run with it.
  Following
• Question asked in Social Psychology
  3 Call for a new system of organizing research in psychology
  The breadth of research in psychology is rapidly expanding in the absence of an effective system for comprehensively organizing this research. One con... [more]
  The breadth of research in psychology is rapidly expanding in the absence of an effective system for comprehensively organizing this research. One consequence of this lack of organization is that it is becoming progressively more difficult for psychologists to conduct thorough, efficient literature reviews on any given topic. This is because: (a) many topics in psychology span a wide variety of different areas within the discipline of psychology and also extend beyond the discipline to include those such as medicine, biology, ecology, etc.; (b) operational definitions of the same variable can often vary across these different research areas and disciplines; and (c) the measures used to assess these variables also vary as a function of research area or discipline. As a result of this lack of information about the status of research on a given topic, many researchers are conducting research that has already been done. The end result of all of this is that research in psychology is not nearly as efficient as it could be. The following are just my initial thoughts about a possible solution to this problem. My hope is that others can/will expand on and refine it: I propose some type of centralized online registration system where each researcher in psychology registers his or her study by identifying his or her (1) independent variables(s), (2) dependent variables, (3) measures used, (4) primary hypotheses, and (5) secondary hypotheses (if applicable). The results or outcomes of each study are not relevant to this registration process, since (a) study registration would take place before the study is even conducted and (b) the main purpose of the registration system would be to help researchers identify studies that have already been completed, or are currently being completed, and that involve the specific variables in which they are interested, as well as the measures used to assess them. In effect, this centralized online system would be a comprehensive database of all the studies in psychology (both published and unpublished) that have already been conducted. Similar to how the Cochrane Collaboration requires systematic reviewers to register their studies prior to conducting them, this system would make it possible for ALL psychologists to register their studies by including information on the five elements listed above. Perhaps this system could piggyback on an existing online system or various research databases (e.g., PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus) could be modified to accommodate such a system. The benefits of having such a research registration system include: more simplified and comprehensive literature searches; fewer, if any, redundant studies on the same topic (this, of course, does not refer to replications); more efficient systematic reviews and meta-analyses; less-biased systematic reviews and meta-analyses (through identification of grey literature); a more efficient psychological science! Does anyone have any thoughts/comments/questions on psychology developing such a study registration system?
  By Caelin White · University of Manitoba
  Following
• Answer added in Social Psychology
  35 Intellectuals and Social retardation.
  Caelin White · University of Manitoba

  Joke: What's the definition of an "extroverted scientist"? He looks at YOUR shoes when he is talking to you. My hunch is that this phenomenon, if it ... [more]

  Joke: What's the definition of an "extroverted scientist"? He looks at YOUR shoes when he is talking to you. My hunch is that this phenomenon, if it truly exists, exists because of a combination of factors. First, I think there is likely a selection process whereby certain scientific areas attract the socially awkward. There are certain fields that repel extroverts and these tend to be disciplines that require long hours alone in a lab or in front of a book or a computer. Areas like mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Conversely, jobs in areas that require socializing and interaction with others tend to repel introverts. Areas like fine arts, business, and law. And so one would logically expect a process whereby a field collects personalities that are better adapted to the nature of the work. Second, my hunch is that it is also possible that areas of the brain (e.g. hemispheres) involved in the processing of social information (and thus contributing to one's social intelligence) may be quite distinct from brain areas that are involved in complex and abstract reasoning. In other words, it is perhaps unlikely, and thus uncommon, for a brain to be equally well developed in these two distinct areas since cognitive resources can only be invested in one or the other. In line with this last idea, it seems to me that there tend to be three types of people: (1) those who are moderately socially intelligent as well as moderately good scientific thinkers; (2) those who are brilliant scientific thinkers and who are also socially inept; and (3) those who are highly socially outgoing but have a difficult time with complex, abstract reasoning. There are always exceptions of course (people who are strong in both), and these people tend to make great ambassadors for science because they are strong scientific thinkers and can engage others in the discipline. Of course, they are quite rare and, in my mind, their exception tends to prove the rule. Of course, everything I've said is totally anecdotal and I'm just thinking out loud, so feel free to challenge this.
  Following