Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T05:35:15.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Structural problems require structural solutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Nina Strohminger Open the ORCID record for Nina Strohminger [Opens in a new window]  and
Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò
Nina Strohminger
Affiliation:
Legal Studies and Business Ethics Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA humean@wharton.upenn.edu; www.ninastrohminger.com
Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA Olufemi.Taiwo@georgetown.edu; www.olufemiotaiwo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chater & Loewenstein criticize behavioral scientists' reliance on individual-level (“i-frame”) analysis, observing that this impoverishes policy interventions and stymies scientific progress. We extend their analysis to argue that structural factors bias and perpetuate behavioral science toward the i-frame. Addressing this problem fully will require structural changes to the training, peer review, and granting structures that confront research scientists.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e175
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adam, D. (2019). Science funders gamble on grant lotteries. Nature, 575(7785), 574–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, E. (2019). How to make innovative research the norm. Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, 1(1), 19–23.Google Scholar
Avin, S. (2019). Mavericks and lotteries. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 76, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Currie, A. (2019). Creativity, conservativeness & the social epistemology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 76, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farah, M. J., & Hook, C. J. (2017). Trust and the poverty trap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 114(21), 5327–5329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldon, D. F., Litson, K., Jeong, S., Blaney, J. M., Kang, J., Miller, C., … Roksa, J. (2019). Postdocs’ lab engagement predicts trajectories of PhD students’ skill development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 116(42), 20910–20916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heesen, R., & Bright, L. K. (2021). Is peer review a good idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, M. W., & Torrez, B. (2020). A psychology of power that is embedded in societal structures. Power, Status and Hierarchy, 33, 86–90.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lauer, M. S. (2021). Long-term trends in the age of principal investigators supported for the first time on NIH R01-equivalent awards. NIH Extramural Nexus. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2021/11/18/long-term-trends-in-the-age-of-principal-investigators-supported-for-the-first-time-on-nih-r01-awards/Google Scholar
Lauer, M. S., & Roychowdhury, D. (2021). Inequalities in the distribution of national institutes of health research project grant funding. eLife, 10, e71712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luukkonen, T. (2012). Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykes, M. B. (2017). Community-based and participatory action research: Community psychology collaborations within and across borders. In Bond, M. A., Serrano-García, I., Keys, C. B., & Shinn, M. (Eds.), APA handbook of community psychology: Methods for community research and action for diverse groups and issues (pp. 43–58). American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Morton, J. M. (2017). Reasoning under scarcity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(3), 543–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, J. M., & Paul, S. K. (2019). Grit. Ethics, 129(2), 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. (2005). Bridges to independence: Fostering the independence of new investigators in biomedical research.Google Scholar
Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S., & Green, D. P. (2021). Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 533–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowbottom, D. P. (2022). Peer review may not be such a bad idea: Response to Heesen and Bright. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 73(4), 927–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, A. F., & Wilder, D. (2018). Action research in social psychology. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. K. (2019). Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: The impact of professionalization, peer-review, and big science. Synthese, 196(10), 3915–3932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar