Appraisal of Research Depends Upon its Conceptualization

Abstract

Smedslund and Ross (2014) have offered us an interesting opinion article concerning the usefulness of empirical research for psychological practice. Appraisal of research is obviously contingent upon the way it is conceptualized and although the authors are involved with rather different kinds of practical problems they nevertheless conceptualize research in exactly the same way. This entails a possible mismatch between questions asked and methods used to answer them. I will try to add to the discussion by examining more closely how the authors conceptualize research and discuss the problems of mismatch between questions, methods, methodology, and epistemology. I claim that the authors' view of research misses some important aspects of scientific reasoning and follows an unjustified epistemological position. Part of the arising controversy is a rather natural consequence of this but could be overcome by reconsidering the aims of science and getting epistemology, methodology and questions in line. Although I focus on the specific article and the authors' positions, I hold that the issues discussed are common and general.

Advice from the editor’s desk: an introductory guide to success in education publishing

“…Conceptual frameworks that are used guide our practical methodologies, shape our research questions, inform our analysis and interpret our findings (Aitchison and Lee, 2006; Maxwell, 2012; Oppong, 2013). Conversely, the practical execution of our research tests, challenges and refines our conceptual frameworks, leading to new insights, understandings and theoretical developments (Clark, 1994; Herek, 2011; Tammik, 2014). It is important to understand that the convergence of conceptual approaches with practical aspects in scholarly education research articles is the crux of research activities where theory meets action.…”