Tekrarlanabilirlik: Pozitivist Sosyal Bilimlerin 21'inci Yüzyıl Krizi

Öz

Sosyal araştırmalarda tekrarlanabilirlik, evrensel ve kendi kendini destekleyen (doğrulayan) yöntem ile “hakikati” keşfetmeye yönelik pozitivist girişimin özünü oluşturur. Ancak, bilimin meşru temeli olarak kabul edilen bir meta-yargıç olarak tekrarlanabilirlik ilkesi, araştırma nesnesinin araştırmacıdan bağımsız olmadığı durumlarda belirli zorluklar ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Tekrarlanabilirlik krizi, sosyal psikoloji temelli çalışmaların tekrarı üzerine yapılan deneylerin başarısız olması sonucu ortaya çıkmış, süregelen bir metodolojik krizdir. Kriz, genel olarak tekrarlanabilirlik ilkesiyle çalışan tıbbi, doğal, sosyal ve diğer pozitivist bilimleri derinden sarsmıştır. Bu makalenin amacı, 20. yüzyıla damgasını vuran pozitivizm eleştirileri doğrultusunda sosyal bilimlerdeki en son metodolojik tartışma olarak tekrarlanabilirlik konusunu tespit etmek, pozitivist tekrarlanabilirlik ve evrensellik ilkelerini hangi düşünürlerin ve düşünce okullarının eleştirdiğini ortaya koymak ve bu ilkelerin 21. yüzyıl sosyal bilimlerde hala bir tartışma konusu olup olmadığını göstermektir. Çalışmanın sonucunda pozitivist iddiaların: tekrarlanma ve evrensellik ilkelerinin sosyolojide ontolojik, epistemolojik, bireysel ve yapısal yönlerden geçerliliğini yitirdiği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tekrarlanabilirlik
• tekrarlanabilirlik krizi
• pozitivizm
• evrensellik

Replicability: 21st Century Crisis of the Positivist Social Sciences

Öz

Replicability in social research forms the essence of the positivist attempt to discover the universal and self-supporting method of the exploration of “truth”. However, the principle of replication as a meta-judge which is regarded as the legitimate baseline of science raises certain difficulties where the object of research is not independent of the researcher. The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis that has emerged as a result of the failure of experiments on the repetition of social psychology-based studies. The crisis has deeply shaken the medical, natural, social, and further positivist sciences which in general work with the replicability principle. The aim of this paper is to identify the replicability issue as the latest methodological discussion in the social sciences in line with the critiques of positivism that marked the 20th century to demonstrate which scholars and schools of thought criticized the positivistic principles of replicability and universality, and to show whether these principles are still a topic of debate in 21st century social sciences. As a result of the study, it is concluded that positivist claims: replication and universality principles lose their validity in sociology due to ontological, epistemological, individual and structural aspects.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• replication
• replication crisis
• positivism
• universalism

Kaynakça

1. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. (2016, May 25). Nature. Retrieved: 05.07.2019. url: https://www.nature.com/news/ 1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970
2. Abramson, C.M. & Dohan, D. (2015). Beyond text: using arrays to represent and analyze ethnographic data. Sociological Methodology. 45(1):272–319
3. Aguinis, H. and Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strat. Mgmt. (40). pp.1291–1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
4. Amrhein, V. & Trafimow, D. & Greenland, S. (2018). Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication. The American Statistician. p.263.
5. Arslantürk, A. H. (1989). Batı Bilimi Sorgulanıyor. Bilim Adamları Sahtekarlık Yaparlar mı?. Hayatın Anlamı Nedir?. Retrieved: 05.07.2019. url: http://www.hayatinanlaminedir.com/bilim-adamlari-sahtekarlik-yaparlarmi/
6. Asendorpf, J. B., & Conner, M., & De Fruyt, F., & De Houwer, J., & Denissen, J. J., & Fiedler, K., & Perugini, M. Brent W. Roberts, B. W., & Schmitt, M., &. Vanaken, M. A. G., & Weber, H., and Wicherts, J. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27(2), p.110.
7. Bayram, G. (February 14, 2016). Açık bilim ve bilimsel tekrarlanabilirlik. Evrensel. Retrieved: 07.06.2019. url: https://www.evrensel.net/yazi/75981/acik-bilim-ve-bilimsel-tekrarlanabilirlik
8. Biernacki, R. (2012). Reinventing Evidence in Social Inquiry: Decoding Facts and Variables. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Bilimsel Yayınların En Az Yarısı Yalan. (April 8, 2016). Yeni Söz. Retrieved: 24.06.2019. url: http://www.yenisoz.com.tr/ bilimsel-yayinlarin-en-az-yarisi-yalan-haber-11893

9. Brader, T., & Tucker, J. (2012). Following the Party's Lead: Party Cues, Policy Opinion, and the Power of Partisanship in Three Multiparty Systems. Comparative Politics, 44(4), 403-420. url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23211819. p.412.
10. Cartwright, N. (1997). Where do laws of nature come from?. Dialectica, 51(1), p.78.
11. Challenges in irreproducible research. (October 18, 2018). Nature. International Journal of Science. Retrieved: 07.06.2019. url: https://www.nature.com/collections/prbfkwmwvz
12. Clark, A. M. (1998). The qualitative‐quantitative debate: moving from positivism and confrontation to post‐positivism and reconciliation. Journal of advanced nursing, 27(6), pp.1242-1249.
13. Collins, H. M. (1975). The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology, 9(2):205-224.
14. Collins, H. M. (1998). The meaning of data: open and closed evidential cultures in the search for gravitational waves. Am. J. Sociol. 104(2). pp.293–338
15. Collins, R. (1999). Unrecognized cumulation. The American Sociologist. 30, 41-61 Daniel Kahneman “I placed too much faith in underpowered studies”. (2017). Hacker News. Retrieved: 22.06.2019. url https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712
16. Eden, D. (2002). From the editors: replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ’s publication policy. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 841-84
17. Fanelli, D. (2009). "How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data". PLOS One. 4(5): doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
18. Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University Press.
19. Freese, J. (2007). Replication standards for quantitative social science: Why not sociology?. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(2), p.154.
20. Freese, J. (2014): Why so much psychology? scatterplot, Retrieved: 24.06.2019 url: https://scatter.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/why-so-much-psychology/
21. Friedhoff, S., & Meier zu Verl, C., & Pietsch, C., & Meyer, C., & Vompras, J., & Liebig, S. (2013). Replicability and comprehensibility of social research and its technical implementation. p.27.
22. Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge. Polity Press
23. Gaston, J., & Zelditch, M. (1979). The Big Three and the Status of Sociology. Contemporary Sociology, 8(6), 789-793. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2064430. p.791.
24. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American sociological review, pp.781-795.
25. Gouldner, A. (1968): The sociologist as partisan: Sociology and the welfare state. American Sociologist 3(2), p.111.
26. Grange, J. (2015, September 14). My Voluntary Commitment to Research Transparency & Open Science. Retrieved: 11.07.2016. url: https://jimgrange.wordpress.com/tag/reproducibility/
27. Grange, J. (2017, March 16). Reproducibility Article in “The Conversation”. Retrieved: 11.07.2019. url: https://jimgrange.wordpress.com/category/reproducibility
28. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
29. Hagger, M.S. & Chatzisrantis, N.L.D. (2016). A Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego Depletion Effect. Perspect. on Psychol. Sci. 11(4):546-73
30. Hammersley, M. (1997). Qualitative data archiving: some reflections on its prospects and problems. Sociology 31(1):131–42
31. Harlow, H. F., & Dodsworth, R. O., & Harlow, M. K. (1965). Total social isolation in monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 54(1), 90.
32. Ioannidis, J.P. and Trikalinos, T.A. (2005). "Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: The Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomised trials". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58: pp.543–549.
33. Isaac, J. C. (2015). For a more public political science. Perspect. Politics 13(2). p.269.
34. Kaiser, J. (2015, November 9). Potti found guilty of research misconduct. Science. Retrieved: 05.07.2019. url: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/potti-found-guilty-research-misconduct
35. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personal. Soc. Psychol. B 2(3):196–217
36. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1991). Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy, 23(1), p.107.
37. Kroeze, J. H. (2012). Interpretivism in IS–a postmodernist (or postpositivist?) knowledge theory. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, Washington, August 9-12, p.5.
38. Law, J. (2009). Seeing like a survey. Cultural sociology, 3(2), pp.239-256.
39. Leonelli, S. (2018). Re-Thinking Reproducibility as a Criterion for Research Quality. url: http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/ 14352. p.11.
40. Lubis, F. O. (2017). Reviewing Bourdieu’s Critique of Opinion Polls and Notion Of Reflexivity In The Public Of Indonesia. Jurnal Politikom Indonesiana, 1(2), p.76.
41. Lucas, J. W. & Morrell K. & Posard, M. (2013). Considerations on the “Replication Problem” in Sociology. 44. pp.217-232
42. Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43(6), p.306.
43. Makel, M. C., Plucker, J. A., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 537–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460688
44. Matusov, E. (1996). Replicability in Research: The Crisis of Positivist Ideology in the Social Sciences. Theory & Psychology, 6(3), p.547.
45. McPherson, M. & Smith-Lovin, L. & Brashears, M.E. (2006). Social isolation in America: changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review. 71(3):353–75. Erratum. 2008. Am. Sociol. Rev. 73(6):1022
46. Mead, M. & Sieben, A. & Straub, J. (1973). Coming of age in Samoa. Penguin.
47. Merton R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
48. Milkowski, M., & Hensel, W.M. & Hohol, M. J. (2018) Replicability or reproducibility? On the replication crisis in computational neuroscience and sharing only relevant detail. 45: 163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-018-0702-z. p.163.
49. Murphy, K.R. & Aguinis, H. J. (2019). HARKing: How Badly Can Cherry-Picking and Question Trolling Produce Bias in Published Results?. 34: 1-17. url: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7. p.3.
50. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303. p.73.
51. On the emptiness of failed replication. (2014). Neuroskeptic. Retrieved: 22.06.2019. url: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/07/07/emptiness-failed-replications/#.XQ4LaegzaUl Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). Retrieved: 07.06.2019. url: https://osf.io/ezcuj/wiki/home/
52. Peels, R. (2019). Replicability and replication in the humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review. 4(2), 1-12
53. Peng, R. D. (2011). Reproducible research in computational science. Science, 334(6060), pp.1226-1227.
54. Peterson, D. & Freese, J. (2017). Replication in social science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, pp.147-165.
55. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. London. 1992. p.66.
56. Popper, K. R. (1963). Science as falsification. Conjectures and refutations, p.36.
57. Pusztai, L., & Hatzis, C., & Andre, F. (2013). Reproducibility of research and preclinical validation: problems and solutions. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 10(12), p.720.
58. Radder, H. (1996). In and About the World: Philosophical Studies of Science and Technology. State University of New York Press.
59. Reed, I. (2008). Justifying sociological knowledge: From realism to interpretation. Sociological Theory, 26(2), p.120.
60. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2010). Growth in a Time of Debt. American economic review, 100(2), 573-78.
61. Reinhart, M. (2016). Reproducibility in the Social Sciences. Reproducibility: Principles, Problems, Practices, and Prospects, 407–423.doi:10.1002/9781118865064.ch19. p.419.
62. Riley, D. (2007). The paradox of positivism. Social Science History, 31(1), p.120.
63. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), p.97.
64. Seife, C. (2015). Research misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: out of sight, out of mind, out of the peer-reviewed literature. JAMA internal medicine, 175(4), p.569.
65. Seyedsayamdost, H. (2015). On normativity and epistemic intuitions: Failure of replication. Episteme, 12(1), p.2.
66. Sherif, B. (2001). The ambiguity of boundaries in the fieldwork experience: Establishing rapport and negotiating insider/outsider status. Qualitative inquiry, 7(4), p.437.
67. Simon, M.K. & Goes, J. (2012): Dissertation and Scholarly Research: Recipes for Success: 2013 Edition, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, USA.
68. Simonsohn, U. & Nelson, L.D. & Simmons, J.P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer problem. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 143(2):534–47
69. Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society open science, 3(9), 160384.
70. Taylor, C. & Gibbs, G.R. & Lewins, A. (2005): Quality of qualitative analysis. Available at onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/qualitative_analysis.php. Testing the reproducibility of social science research. (2019, July 10). ScienceDaily. Retrieved: 11.07.2019 url: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180827121303.htm
71. The Cyril Burt Affair. (2018, April 29). Human Intelligence. Retrieved: 05.07.2019. url: https://www.intelltheory.com/burtaffair.shtml The science ‘reproducibility crisis’ – and what can be done about it. (2017, March 15). Retrieved: 11.07.2019. url: http://theconversation.com/the-science-reproducibility-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-74198
72. Travis, G. D. L. (1981). Replicating replication? Aspects of the social construction of learning in planarian worms. Soc. Stud. Sci. 11(1):11–32
73. Uscinski, J. E. & Butler, R. W. (2013). The epistemology of fact checking. Critical Review, 25(2), p.172.
74. Vanpaemel, W. & Vermorgen, M. & Deriemaecker, L. & Storms, G. (2015). "Are we wasting a good crisis? The availability of psychological research data after the storm". Collabra. 1 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1525/collabra.13.
75. Veer, R. V. D. & IJzendoorn, M. V. & Valsiner, J. (1994). Reconstructing the mind. Replicability in Research on Human Development. Ablex Publishing Corporation. p.72.
76. Wang, Z. & Solloway, T. & Shiffrin, R. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(26), 9431-9436.
77. Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 3(1), 1.
78. Watts, A. (2017, March 6). Science Has a Reproducibility Crisis. Retrieved: 11.07.2019. url: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/06/science-has-a-reproducibility-crisis/
79. Wikipedia contributors. (2019, June 28). Piltdown Man. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved: 05.07.2019. url: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piltdown_Man&oldid=903827001
80. Young, C. & Horvath, A. (2015). Sociologists need to be better at replication. orgtheory.net, Aug. 11. Retrieved: 25.06.2019. url: https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/sociologists-need-to-be-better-at-replication-a-guestpost-by-cristobal-young/
81. Daniel Kahneman “I placed too much faith in underpowered studies”. (2017). Hacker News. Retrieved: 22.06.2019. url https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712