Rating scales institutionalise a network of logical errors and conceptual problems in research practices: A rigorous analysis showing ways to tackle psychology’s crises

Frontiers in Psychology

article

Jana Uher¹ 

[1] School of Human Sciences, University of Greenwich;London School of Economics

关键词: dynamic systems;    culture;    Metatheory;    critical analysis;    Complexity;    subjectivity;    semantic;    Semiotic;    Language;    Fallacies;    Introspection;    transdisciplinary paradigm;    Philosophy of science;    Qualitative;    process;    Irreversibility;    sign;    sign-mediated interactions;    Conceptual analysis;    Equifinality;    Multifinality;    intra-individual variation;    Idiographic;    Uniqueness;    cultural;    Reductionism;    Metatheoretical analysis;    Person-oriented analysis;    meaning;    reflexivity;    Reflection;    Operationism;    ergodic;    category mistake;    Dialectics;    dialogic;    complementarity;    methodology;    methodocentrism;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1009893

学科分类：社会科学、人文和艺术（综合）

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

This article explores in-depth the metatheoretical and methodological foundations on which rating scales—by their very conception, design and application—are built and traces their historical origins. It brings together independent lines of critique from different scholars and disciplines to map out the problem landscape, which centres on the failed distinction between psychology’s study phenomena (e.g., experiences, everyday constructs) and the means of their exploration (e.g., data, scientific constructs)—psychologists’ cardinal error. Rigorous analyses reveal a dense network of 12 complexes of problematic concepts, misconceived assumptions and fallacies that support each other, making it difficult to be identified and recognised by those (unwittingly) relying on them (e.g., reductionism, logical errors of operationalism, constructification, naïve use of language, quantificationism, statisticism, result-based data generation, misconceived nomotheticism). The popularity rating scales for efficient quantitative data generation, uncritically interpreted as psychological measurement, institutionalised these problems in many research practices and perpetuate psychology’s crises (e.g., replication, confidence, validation, generalisability). The article provides an in-depth understanding that is needed to get to the root of these problems, which preclude not just measurement but also the scientific exploration of psychology’s study phenomena and thus its development as a science. From each of the 12 problem complexes; specific theoretical concepts, methodologies and methods are derived as well as key directions of development. The analyses, based on three central axioms for transdisciplinary research on individuals—complexity, complementarity and anthropogenicity, highlight that psychologists must advance an explicit metatheory and unambiguous terminology as well as concepts and theories that conceive individuals as living beings, open self-organising systems with complementary phenomena and dynamic interrelations across their multi-layered systemic contexts, thus theories processes, relations, dynamicity, subjectivity, emergence (catalysis) and transformation. Philosophical-theoretical foundations of methods and approaches suited for exploring these phenomena must be developed together with methods of data generation and methods of data analysis that are appropriately adapted to the peculiarities of psychologists’ study phenomena (e.g., intra-individual variation, momentariness, contextuality). Psychology can profit greatly from its unique position at the intersection of many other disciplines and can learn from their advancements to develop approaches that are suited to tackle its crises holistically.

【 授权许可】

CC BY