Michael Vincent

And the appropriation of the ideal of 'objectivity'!

Yes! Hard to tear my eyes away from the news from the States. Horrible to see the language of 'gold standard science' appropriated like this. It could be a whole other chapter again on policing misconduct 🤔

Something for us to keep discussing @markhooper.bsky.social ?

I've heard of attempts to 'prove' that methodological objections are used to avoid publishing politically sensitive work, but a bit of googling just now didn't produce anything, so maybe my informant hallucinated it...

I think competition for 'turf' between research psychology, clinical psychotherapy, and emerging research/clinical neuroscience (all extremely different perspectives) might produce some good examples in the near future?

Haha, yes! Fascinating idea, and consistent with the nod to Kuhn in our paper. 'Physics envy' comes to mind. And being asked by my psych colleagues 'where's your data?'

Research integrity, thick and thin - Synthese We contrast two value-schemas of research integrity. One is the ‘thick’ ethos of an immersed and ethical researcher. The other is the ‘thin’ rules, responsibilities, and metrics that we use to communi...

“Nothing we say here is against the use of proxies, which are useful, necessary, and unavoidable. The risks occur when we blindly pursue the proxy itself, use the wrong proxies, or mistake the proxy for the thing itself.”

Michael Vincent‪ & @markhooper.bsky.social’s new work on research integrity.

Research integrity, thick and thin - Synthese We contrast two value-schemas of research integrity. One is the ‘thick’ ethos of an immersed and ethical researcher. The other is the ‘thin’ rules, responsibilities, and metrics that we use to communi...

We discuss cultural change initiatives to promote #researchintegrity. We distinguish 2 schemas of research integrity:
👉The thick, lived kind
👉The thin, rule-based kind.
We need both. What’s interesting is trying to understand how they relate. Had fun writing this!
link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Thank you for engaging with us @markrubin.bsky.social , I'm glad you found the paper interesting!

Has anybody here read the book? I've met Stephen Macedo, he seems like a pretty decent guy, I'd take what he has to say seriously.