見出し画像
Photo by syuka_sakura

Beth Morlingさん招待講演 Q&A

kaihiraishi

2021年8月開催の日本社会心理学会第62回大会において、Beth Morilng先生（デラウェア大学）に "Teaching social psychology after the replication crisis" （「再現性危機後の社会心理学教育」）と題して講演していただきました。

Morilng先生は、再現性問題も踏まえた心理学研究法の教科書 "Research Methods in Psychology" を執筆されています。また「オープンサイエンスと新しい統計について心理学の教師が知っておくべきこと」という論文（Morling & Calin-Jageman, 2020）は、心理学教育担当者が今知っておくべき内容をコンパクトにまとめてくれています。

Morilng先生から質問、コメントにお返事をいただきましたので、ここで公開します。なおMorilng先生には社会心理学と社会の関係についても回答をいただいています。こちらからご覧下さい。

Comments & Questions

Asako Miura (Osaka University)
Thank you very much for your wonderful lecture.
I have realized that psychology education has become a very difficult job since the replicability problem became apparent. Of course, as a researcher, it is important to accumulate knowledge while confirming replicability. The problem here is how to deal with findings that have not been confirmed to be replicable, or findings that have already been reported to have low replicability. The fact that the results of a social psychology experiment on a certain social phenomenon are not replicated does not mean that there is no such phenomenon. I am afraid that if we choose topics based on replicability verification, we will run out of things to teach. This is especially the case when the purpose is not to teach research skills, but to provide a liberal arts education. Of course, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between the two. After listening to the question and answer session, I think that all we can share such a fuzzy and gloomy feeling... (for this reason, I answered "a) in the third question.)

Reply
I agree. When a particular study is not replicated, it doesn't need to mean that the original study was flawed or wrong. It's just that now we have two estimates of some effect. Maybe there is a way to teach students what our major theories say (for example, cognitive dissonance theory, attribution theory, and so on) as a way to open their minds to new ways of thinking, and then separately walk them through a few studies, discussing the extent to which the studies have been replicated. Usually in my own content courses, I jump right to the studies, but perhaps I should talk more about the theoretical basis first.

Sayaka Suga (Keio University)
I sometimes have to teach research methods in psychology to sociology, anthropology, and other students who are more interested in fieldwork than experimentation. Often I have a hard time getting their attention.
When teaching research methods in psychology to those not majoring in experimental psychology, what do you think should be emphasized to get them interested in experimental methods in psychology?

Reply
I can sympathise with your question, Suga-san! How is it possible that people everywhere are not fascinated by the psychologist's methods? Over the last years, I have actually become more tolerant of and excited by the qualitative and survey methods used by anthropologists and sociologists--I think this kind of "thick description" is difficult to do and extremely valuable as a source of information. For example, in cultural psychology we rely a lot on qualitative studies and ethnographies for inspiration and theory-building. And in fact I think the qualitative methods are less vulnerable to critiques such as this one by Tal Yarkoni (https://psyarxiv.com/jqw35/, but see also https://psyarxiv.com/tm8jy/)

Anyway, I am digressing. I am not exactly sure what might work to get them interested in experimental methods (because I am not super familiar with Japanese students outside of psychology), but perhaps an appeal to practical interventions might work. For example, I'm thinking of this big (U.S.) study by Katy Milkman et al. on how to get people to get vaccinated (for the flu, in this case). The researchers needed a strong, experimental, controlled design to test which of the different techniques would work the best and also to estimate accurately how well each persuasion technique would work (https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/Penn-Behavior-Change-for-Good-strategies-boost-vaccination-rates). They used randomly assigned text messages and tested thousands of people. It might also help to appeal to these students' interests. At least in the U.S., the anthropology and sociology students have strong social justice interests. This means that we might be able to "hook" them with studies on sexism, prejudice, or racism (for example).

In general it might be beneficial to acknowledge our non-psychology students as experts who can help the whole class appreciate a balance of both qualitative and quantitative studies for understanding the things that interest us. We need both kinds of data--they can work together (at least, in a best-case scenario).

Sometimes I intentionally tease or provoke my sociology/anthro majors by saying that qualitative methods don't get much respect from psychologists. They enjoy fighting back (but these are Americans, and it might not work the same in your classroom!). It helps everyone appreciate what different kinds of methods have to offer us.

Twitter

Twitter上でのコメントにもいくつかお返事いただきました。なおMorlingさんは自動翻訳で読んでいらっしゃいます。行き違いがあるなら翻訳機械の所為とお考え下さい。 

Reply
I agree! It was fun to be "with" my colleagues in Japan, but I did miss seeing everyones faces in person.

Reply
Thank you! I believe that Japan is the inventor of emojis and small icons (like those used in the Olympics), and I learned from that! I think that logos help our students understand these concepts, too. I wish my logos could be as elegant as those created in Japan.

Reply
It was interesting for me to read this opinion about changes in academic preparation and the attractiveness of academic jobs compared to industry jobs.

Reply
I agree--I feel there is a big project ahead for us, to comb carefully through the introductory texts, thinking about the evidence of replicability of the major studies.

Morlingさんからのご回答は以上になります。あの監獄実験ですら何処まで信じてよいのか分からないような状況で、心理学の何を教えるのか、心理学を教えることにどのような意味を見出すのか、私たちが考えていく一助となれば幸いです。


この記事が気に入ったらサポートをしてみませんか？