I’m sure there’s more here that we agree about than not. Just trying to clear up that I never said ‘make rules’.
-
-
Yes the metaphor is problematic. But what I was alluding to is that Ivan made a great historical point about how proceduralisation comes with the growth in science, as an effect of managing the sheer number of papers that come out.....
-
And that because of this, and because we forget the process that leads to the development of a procedure, things become bureaucratized whether we like it or not. So we need to be careful about how our procedures and labels regulate. Because they will regulate, in spite of us.
-
Thanks for clarifying Joshua. I realize it's a realistic stance. Given reality, imho it's extra important to push back against tendencies to proceduralize science. I'm concerned that vital values & principles of fundamental & applied science won't be safeguarded by bureaucrats.
-
Pasting this here for others following the thread (discussion continues on the other parallel thread):https://twitter.com/IrisVanRooij/status/1106481180168372224 …
-
The frightening that I think Ivan showed is that bureaucratization happens as part of the reform process. I think he's right and historically you see this in all reform processes. Take the French Revolution! We need to keep working to make ensure procedures don't reify too much..
-
...and more importantly we need to train students to continue this work. And theorists need to be allowed in and to be involved in the reform process. Looking forward to posting Ivan's talk soon.
-
I am very much looking forward to watching it! (cc
@ivanflis) -
I agree my analogy wasn't quite right. I have to dial out soon and do some (much less interesting) work, but what I was getting it as that I think we need to find a way to make the reforms that are happening to the experimental sciences coexist alongside theoretical work... /1
- 26 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Fwiw I don't think a majority unskilled in theoretical research should have the largest weight in designing "gardens" where theoretical research is "allowed" to take place guided by its own principles and insights (=/= rules, because rules suffocate theoretical research).
-
To be honest, to me it reads like giving theoretical research "freedom" behind fences. Seems the wrong way around. I hope we can let go of the idea of wanting to police and package science in templates, at all. As I noted, it severely limits our abductive abilities.
-
Completely agree in not curbing freedoms. I'm finding thinking about this historically to be very enlightening tho. Problem is that freedoms also get curbed when practice solidifies into routine. Police metaphor is bad, but design thinking might not be.https://twitter.com/JCSkewesDK/status/1106481690904592385 …
-
I do agree that routine practices taint freedom, however, building walls to contain knowledge is never a good idea. For the same reason that habit or routine deteriorates research, establishing rigid boundaries is likely to result in inbreeding of ideas.
-
Closed scientific cultures are stuck reinventing the wheel and rarely produce real innovation.
-
I worry that history teaches that rigid boundaries - or even just institutions - grow on their own. The positive side is that historians can help pull them down. I'd argue for getting involved in critical design of institutions, while teaching students to be skeptical of them.
-
For example - I loved and still value my BPsych. What I don't love was the RIGID focus on APA guidelines. As in, we'd lose grades if our references weren't perfect APA style.
-
And now I use a registered report format in my students BSc theses. But we also discuss what the downsides of the format might be. And I emphasise why it is appropriate for their particular project.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.