A well-known quant psychologist was fought to have been making up data for years. I have little doubt that this is standard operating procedure in quant political science, but no one cares about their findings.
Fraud and Quant Methods
(3611 posts) (1 voice)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
so much for not being able to predict behavior - I read this article on the subway this morning and predicted you would post this!
Posted 1 year ago # -
The issue is why didn't you post it?, since you knew this was a topic of considerable discussion on PSJR. It seems lying, concealment, and fraud are quant norms.
Posted 1 year ago # -
How is qualitative research any less susceptible to fraud?
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ Qualitative research is inherently fraudulent because it ain't objective.
Posted 1 year ago # -
How is qualitative research any less susceptible to fraud?
Because qual work in almost every instance deals with a small # of cases, it is very easy to verify qual data and findings. I do it all the time.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Qualitative research is inherently fraudulent because it ain't objective.
There is no such thing as "objective" social science research. With qual researchers their biases are transparent and can be judged by readers.
With quant researchers the biases are hidden/obscured in the coding decisions that no one every sees -- this is why the psychologist in question could lie/deceive for so long. Again, this is most certainly the norm in quant political science. We'd be foolish to think otherwise.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Please show an example of your work, since "you do it all the time," and demonstrate iron clad proof that there is no possibility of fraud in it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
People think I am GAG, so let's use his book for this experiment: Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the Empire of Capital.
Posted 1 year ago # -
People think I am GAG, so let's use his book for this experiment: Urban Sprawl, Global Warming, and the Empire of Capital.
Posted 1 year ago # -
A well-known quant psychologist was fought to have been making up data for years. I have little doubt that this is standard operating procedure in quant political science, but no one cares about their findings.
Your methodological skills are outstanding! Take an N of 1 (in another discipline) and extrapolate to an entire population, simply based on a hunch. Bravo!
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ Qualies do it all the time. Hah.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Everyone knows the l limits of both methods. In *theory*, I can believe that qualitative methods could be less subject to error and fudging the numbers. But until qualitative scholars begin to post ALL of their interviews, archival work from where there data is drawn, etc. then they are just as subject to claims of fraud as quants are. I am always irritated by qualitative folks that complain about transparency issues in quant studies but then refuse to make their own notes and interviews, etc publicly available and then insist we all take their word for it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Seems like qual and quant work can both be fraudulent. Careful description of method and replicability standards are the key.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ this.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that people in political science are actually making up data? Most quantitative analyses in political science are based on large, widely-used data sets (e.g., the ANES in American or the COW data set in IR), which ARE checked by others. Given that the norm today is to post replication data/code as well, it's even easier to check quant data. And yes, there are plenty of disputes about data sets in quantitative political science.
Moreover, the type of analysis (quantitative or otherwise) that lends itself to faking is one in which data are self-collected for a narrow purpose. This would, of course, be more common in psychology, where experiments occur more frequently. If I'm going to write a new psychology paper, I'll probably conduct my own experiment instead of using someone else's data. So I have no reason to check what they've done. In political science, this is much less common. In fact, I would say that the most likely political scientists to collect their own data would be those doing qualitative field work. If I say that I interviewed some tribe in sub-Saharan Africa and this set of quotes supports my research, there is no way you're going to be willing/able to verify that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ This
Posted 1 year ago # -
Most quantitative analyses in political science are based on large, widely-used data sets (e.g., the ANES in American or the COW data set in IR), which ARE checked by others.
We've had this discuss before, and this claim is patently false. Look at any quant journal and many/most articles are based on privately and controlled data. But as a quant, we know the truth doesn't matter to you.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I can believe that qualitative methods could be less subject to error and fudging the numbers.
End of discussion. Thank you!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ Great example of qual "research" in action. Dr. Hubris wrote, "In *theory*, I can believe that qualitative methods could be less subject to error and fudging the numbers." Those first two words are of course crucial to the meaning of the sentence. But in order to get it to say what you want it to say, rather than what it actually means, you conveniently snipped those two words off and quoted the second part of the sentence. Journalists and talk-show hosts, of course, do this all the time. But we can and should expect more of academic political scientists.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^^Do you really think that qual researchers can't omit important facts that are contradictory to their theory?
Posted 1 year ago # -
What is the point of this discussion? What does anyone hope to achieve here?
Posted 1 year ago # -
DNFT
Posted 1 year ago # -
Go to YouTube and search "drinking out of cups." The answer is there.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Do you really think that qual researchers can't omit important facts that are contradictory to their theory?
What quals cannot do is misrepresent facts. Whereas quants can do so by miscoding cases to serve their desired end. This is what the psychologist in question did for years, and political science quants most assuredly do on a regular basis.
Posted 1 year ago # -
What is the point of this discussion? What does anyone hope to achieve here?
That quant political science is not rife with fraud and deception.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Those first two words are of course crucial to the meaning of the sentence.
Why?
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ Hang on. The words "That quant" are really important? Are we talking about a particular individual here?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Lets all get along. We are a big happy family who likes to research. The one thing that can bring us together is: governmentality.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"In *theory*, I can believe that qualitative methods could be less subject to error and fudging the numbers."
What does "in theory" mean in this context?
Posted 1 year ago #