Think hard evidence, not motive.

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Instead, it is the research itself that should be at issue: the focus should not be on what motivated the researcher to undertake his project, but instead on any procedural flaws in the investigation that may invalidate its conclusions." (152)

As summed up by the quote, chapter 9 of IANS deals with the previously untouched subject of researcher motive.  In each of the several case studies reviewed in the chapter, each reporter cited the motives and/or personal preferences of scientists as a basis for criticism and a suspected invalidity of their results. Whether or not it is likely their motives interfered in their research, however, it is always more credible to scrutinize the methodology of a scientific study than the motive of the scientist. 

Other than motive, this chapter also began a new discussion on peer-reviewed journals.  Mainly, the chapter pointed out that although journals carry the respectful title of "peer-reviewed," the designation may not be all that it seems.  Just like reporters or researchers, those who review articles for academic journals may be biased.  Even if they carry no bias in their review, however, a peer-reviewed article is highlighted as just that: reviewed and not approved.   

 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Think hard evidence, not motive..

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/mt/mt-akdfh_tb.cgi/10833

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.