Bruger:Crimse/sandkasse
Fra Wikipedia, den frie encyklopædi
[redigér] Controversy as a science
A common criticism of psychology concerns its fuzziness as a science. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn suggested in 1962 that psychology is in a pre-paradigmatic state, lacking the agreement on facts found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics. Because some areas of psychology rely on "soft" research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have claimed that psychology is not as scientific as psychologists assume. Methods such as introspection and psychoanalysis, used by some psychologists, are inherently subjective. Objectivity, validity, and rigor are key attributes in science, and some approaches to psychology have fallen short on these criteria. On the other hand, greater use of statistical controls and increasingly sophisticated research design, analysis, and statistical methods, as well as a decline (at least within academic psychology departments) in the use of less scientific methods, have lessened the impact of this criticism to some degree.
En almindelig kritik af psykologien er dens uklare videnskabelige status. Fordi nogle psykologiske felter anvender såkaldt bløde forskningsmetoder, såsom spørgeskemaer og kvalitative observationsstudier, og anvender metoder som introspektion og psykoanalyse, der er subjektive af natur, kritiseres psykologien af nogle for ikke at leve op til videnskabsbegreber, der vægter objektivitet og reliabilitet højt.
Debates continue, however, such as the questioned effectiveness of probability testing as a valid research tool. The concern is that this statistical method may promote trivial findings as meaningful, especially when large samples are used.[1] Psychologists have responded with an increased use of effect size statistics, rather than sole reliance on the traditional p<.05 decision rule.
In recent years and particularly in the U.S., there has been increasing debate about the nature of therapeutic effectiveness and the relevance of empirical examination for psychotherapy.[2] One argument states that some therapies are based on discredited theories and are unsupported by empirical evidence of their effectiveness. The other side points to recent research suggesting that all mainstream therapies are of about equal effectiveness, while also arguing that controlled studies often do not take into consideration real-world conditions (e.g. the high co-morbidity rate or the experience of clinicians), that research is heavily biased towards CBT methodologies, and that it typically under-represents minority groups.
I de senere år, har der udviklet sig en omfattende debat omkring effektiviteten af psykoterapi i det hele taget, og forskelle i forskellige terapeutiske metoder effekt i særdeleshed [3][4]. Kritikerne hævder, at mange metoder baserer sig på forældede teorier og mangelfuld empirisk dokumentation af effekt. Omvendt argumenterer andre for, at eksperimentelle undersøgelser af terapieffekt overvurderer manualiserede og standardiserede terapiformer så som kognitiv terapi, og at der ofte anvendes et for snævert og positivistisk evidensbegreb, når psykologiens effektivitet søges målt.
- ↑ Cohen, J. (1994). The Earth is round, p < .05. American Psychologist, 49,.
- ↑ Elliot, Robert. (1998). Editor's Introduction: A Guide to the Empirically Supported Treatments Controversy. Psychotherapy Research, 8(2), 115.
- ↑ Zachariae, Bobby, "Evidensbaseret psykologisk praksis", Psykolog Nyt nr. 12, 2007. Hentet 2007-08-18.
- ↑ Nielsen, Kurt, "Om evidens i psykologi", Psykolog Nyt nr. 14, 2007. Hentet 2007-08-18.

