Research method of social science、Research process and research results，It is a classic topic often discussed by scholars in various countries，It seems to never be out of date。Social science research in each era is facing complex and profound challenges，In responding to the challenge、In the process of solving the problem，Social science accompanied by social practice has also gained development and progress。

Recent，Researcher Philipp Schoenegger, a researcher at the London School of Political Economics and Economics, and Raimund Pils, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Salzburg, Austria, discussed that social sciences are facing social sciences worldwide today. Challenge，Innovatively put forward a suggestion，part of the "discussion" part of "discussion) in social sciences。This "Revolutionary" method of "revolutionary"，It is tantamount to pouring cold water for the classic "eight -strand literary" writing of the social sciences，Treating controversy and discussion within a certain range。The reporter's challenge facing social sciences、Coping strategy and the role of the "discussion" part of the social science paper，Interview with Pierce。

　　bet365 live casino games

In Picus，Social science research is currently facing three major crises，The Replication Crisis、The theory Crisis and the applicable crisis (The Applicability Crisis)。These crises are interrelated，The effectiveness of threatening social scientific research、reliability and practicality。

First, repeat crisis，It is difficult to reproduce the previous research results，This problem has attracted the attention of many experts。The results of research from the "Many Labs Replication Project" and other studies can be seen，Only half or less than half of the research results can be repeated，This makes people Bet365 lotto review question the reliability of research results。Followed by the theoretical crisis，It shows that social science lacks comprehensive、Cumulative theoretical framework。Fundamental speaking，The theory of social sciences often completes generalization and application，This weakens its practicality and reliability。Finally, a applicable crisis，that is, scientific discovery can only be repeated in a small area，Can't apply it in a larger range，This is doubtful that the degree of utility or the degree of operation of the scientific suggestion proposed by the scholar。These crises have caused a huge impact，They weaken the public's trust in social sciences，Limit the ability of scholars to propose various suggestions，It may cause waste of research resources。

Sha Xiaoge and Pierce in its research results "Social Sciences in Crisis: Social Sciences in Crisis: On the Proposed Elimination of the Discussion Section"，The above problems occurred，One of the reasons is the existence of possession bias，The possibility of publishing the results of statistical significant research significance is more likely to be published。Another reason is that "research and practice with suspicion of immorality" is common，Including a selective analysis of certain variables、Extra collection of data after the analysis is completed、Relax experimental conditions, etc.。

Pierce said，To cope with the crisis，The academic world has started several reform measures，Including the fundamental problem through the development of "open science"，Dedicated to improve the transparency and reliability of research practice。One of the most prominent solutions is "preregishration"，Researchers need to publicly outline the research design before conducting research、Research assumptions and analysis plans。This method helps reduce improper research practice。What needs attention is，These improper research practice is often not the intention of researchers，They may sometimes do not realize that the relevant operations do not meet the specifications。"Pre -registration" requires researchers to promise Bet365 lotto review to implement the pre -determined plan，instead of tampering with data or a selection of report results，thereby improving the replication and integrity of the research。

Another solution is "Registration Report"。Under this scheme，People will focus on research themes and research methods，instead of research results。Research assumptions and research design will be reviewed by peers，If the evaluation result is reasonable，So no matter how the research results，All will be accepted and published。This method will focus on the results of "exciting" research to rigor、Design good research itself，Promoting a more stable scientific exploration。And this approach ensures that the results of "failure" in the statistical sense can still be published，thereby reducing the existing deviation。

other，People are still vigorously promoting optimization of statistical education and methodology。Related reform aims to deepen researchers' understanding of statistical principles and research methods，to improve the overall quality。Related measures have achieved some results。For example，Pre -registration and registration reports are becoming more and more welcome to various journals，Researchers' understanding of the importance of research methods and statistical literacy is constantly increasing。These are gradually improving the quality of social science research，Change research culture。

　Cancel the "Discussion" section to increase credibility

Pierce told reporters，In the past few years，The above attempts have made great progress，But this is not enough。For example，In the field of marketing research，From the papers published by "Consumer Research Magazine" and other journals，Only about 11%of the research results can be repeated。Therefore，He and Xiao Niger proposed a new method，Cancel the "Discussion" part of the paper，Take it alone as a paper。Current，The authors of social science papers will mostly discuss some explanation research results，This part is the breeding of "Cognitive Biases" and "Incensalign"。In this section，The author may pay more attention to the discovery of those bet365 best casino games views that support its views、Data and Explanation，Ignore those content that is contrary to its views。If the author does not accurately state the real results and limitations of its research，The results of its research will inevitably be questioned。Therefore，Remove the "Discussion" part can make the paper more accurate、credible。

Sha Xiaoge and Pierce think，Another key point is to make the research process more professional。Usually，A research team needs to complete all research matters without any details，Including research design、Collect data、Analysis data, etc.，Then strive to combine research with past and future theories and practice，This "one -stop" method will reduce the research efficiency and affect the research results。Therefore，They propose to split the above tasks，Let researchers be able to exhibition director，Some researchers can only be responsible for the empirical part，If collecting and analyzing data，Focus on research and data itself; another part of researchers can independently interpret the research results，combined with the actual situation，Focus on deep analysis of comprehensive criticality of research。This division of labor can improve research efficiency and research quality。

Pierce pointed out in an interview，Since the 1960s，Sociologists and economists have noticed that scientific research cooperation usually comes from science itself，This discovery was further clarified in subsequent social science research，That is, the social behavior of scientists in self -interest has shaped the scientific specification。Scholars' motivation is often not only seeking truth，It also includes promoting career development、Get academic recognition、Get R & D funds, etc.，These motivations sometimes conflict with the core goals of scientific research，It may also affect the results of the research。Therefore，If the scholar's personal goals and scientific research are more widely understood, the target is unified，can promote the scientific process。Pass review is a good example。Under the peer review system，The paper Bet365 lotto review needs to be strictly reviewed by experts who have not participated in research to publish。But someone may have doubts: doing so will increase the difficulty of scholars' publishing papers，Affecting his career，Why do scholars have to accept such censorship? The answer is: Published on high standards of peer evaluation journals to publish papers belonging to scholars' achievements，Can improve its prestige in the academic world。This will link academic incentives with the goals of scientific research，The direction of the two is consistent。

Pierce said，Let another scholar review、Challenge the prejudice and blind spots of the original research，is a "confrontation mode"，This "confrontation mode" should be strengthened。Therefore，In the structure of Sha Xiaoge and his proposal，Interpretation results and collection data are two independent teams。This forms a healthy tension relationship，The team responsible for interpretation did not participate in the original research，Generally there is no prejudice for data，Can analyze the research results critically，Even questioning the results of the research。This method helps to restore the public’s trust in social sciences。In the era of the flood of error information today，Accurate、Transparent research report is important。This model can also create new motivation for academic publishing。In this mode，Researchers will not only get incentives for providing new data，And will achieve a critical analysis of existing data，to form a culture that values ​​the results of comprehensive review research and critical thinking，This will have a profound impact on the overall quality and reliability of social scientific research。

　　Breaking the "Eight Stocks" of Social Sciences caused discussions

The proposal of Sharneg and Pierce is proposed，Immediately caused many discussions in the academic circles。Professor Russell Poldrack, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, agrees with this proposal，And said that he was willing to read the assumptions of the results in the introduction part of the introduction，This can show its research bet365 best casino games motivation，But there is no interest in guessing in the "Discussion" section。He thinks，If the research results bring new ideas，Then researchers should carry out more work to verify，Then produce a related paper。

Dorothy Bishop, an honorary professor at the University of Oxford University of Development of Nervous and Psychology, is unwilling to take it for this。She thinks，Discussion part should play two roles，First, the relationship between the result and the hypothesis concisely and concisely，First, the relationship between the result and the hypothesis concisely and concisely。She also saw the problems raised by Sharne and Pierce，The "Discussion" part of the paper is often easy to exaggerate the research results，Learning to waste time to study it is very attractive but wrong。But in her opinion，Because someone abuses the "Discussion" section，I think this part should be deleted，Due to sorrow，Not to mention that there are other ways to solve related problems。

Bil Sharp said，The point of view of Shaosh and Pierce made her feel uneasy，Because they seem to be an opposition to researchers using the paper to explain the new ideas in the research process。She thinks，It should fully encourage researchers to explain the creative insights obtained in the study，Because the development of science is a gradual step，Some insights may be very valuable for other people engaged in the research of this topic，Maybe they will be interested in more research here。If the researchers can only propose those viewpoints that have been verified by mature experiments，That may slow down the development speed of science，Reduce the possibility of new scientific discovery。other，This will also make academic research a isolated activity，Because everyone will only staggers on their own road，No more attention to communication。

Shawineg and Pierce also acknowledge，The main cost of deleting the "discussion" part is that it may lose the author's understanding advantage of discussing his data，These are third -party researchers who cannot detect immediately，This is especially true when involving complex Bet365 lotto review data sets。Packing the "Discussion" part of outsourcing to third parties may miss the important differences and insights that only the original author can provide。They know that their suggestions are quite bold，But at the same time, I also think，The academic community needs to discuss bold ideas to improve the status quo of social scientific research。And their proposal is not an independent solution，Need to work with other reforms (especially reforms under the Open Scientific Movement)。Cancellation of the "Discussion" part needs to change the research specification，They hope that this proposal can trigger a wider discussion，and the development of social scientific research and the way of spreading meaningful reforms。