Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide

Reflexivity is the act of examining one's own assumption, belief, and judgement systems, and thinking carefully and critically about how these influence the research process. The practice of reflexivity confronts and questions who we are as researchers and how this guides our work. It is central in debates on objectivity, subjectivity, and the very foundations of social science research and generated knowledge. Incorporating reflexivity in the research process is traditionally recognized as one of the most notable differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research centres and celebrates the participants' personal and unique lived experience. Therefore, qualitative researchers are readily encouraged to consider how their own unique positionalities inform the research process and this forms an important part of training within this paradigm. Quantitative methodologies in social and personality psychology, and more generally, on the other hand, have remained seemingly detached from this level of reflexivity and general reflective practice. In this commentary, we, three quantitative researchers who have grappled with the compatibility of reflexivity within our own research, argue that reflexivity has much to offer quantitative methodologists. The act of reflexivity prompts researchers to acknowledge and centre their own positionalities, encourages a more thoughtful engagement with every step of the research process, and thus, as we argue, contributes to the ongoing reappraisal of openness and transparency in psychology. In this paper, we make the case for integrating reflexivity across all research approaches, before providing a ‘beginner's guide’ for quantitative researchers wishing to engage reflexively with their own work, providing concrete recommendations, worked examples, and reflexive prompts.     

CREATION AND EVOLUTION: ANOTHER ROUND IN AN ANCIENT STRUGGLE

Abstract. Creation and evolution were historic allies against eternalism. However, Darwinism seemed to undercut cosmological theism and human dignity, and modern reconcilers of evolution and theology have not convinced opponents that they can preserve these concerns. Creationists find divine handiwork in natural order and freedom in human uniqueness. For them, even entropy and continuity of kinds are emblematic of the unity of nature and the needfulness of salvation. Anti-evolutionists' impatience and frustration are not well answered by dogmatic or mythicized science. Neither is creation well served by reduction to merely empiric facts. Because creationism and evolutionism rest on the unabstractable categories of contingency and necessity, neither will disappear.     

Perseverative responding in a violation-of-expectation task in 6.5-month-old infants

In the present research, 6.5-month-old infants perseverated in a violation-of-expectation task designed to examine their reasoning about width information in containment events. After watching a familiarization event in which a ball was lowered into a wide container, the infants failed to detect the violation in a test event in which the same ball was lowered into a container only half as wide as the ball (narrow-container test event). This negative result (which was replicated in another experiment) was interpreted in terms of a recent problem-solving account of infants' perseverative errors in various means-end tasks (Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (2000). Perseveration and problem solving in infancy. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 27, pp. 135-180). San Diego, CA: Academic Press). It was assumed that the infants in the present experiments (1) did not attend to the relative widths of the ball and container in their initial analysis of the narrow-container test event, (2) categorized the event as similar to the familiarization event shown on the preceding trials, and (3) retrieved the expectation they had formed for that event ("the ball will fit into the container"), resulting in a perseverative error. This interpretation was supported by additional experiments in which different modifications were introduced that led to non-perseverative responding, indicating that 6.5-month-old infants could detect the violation in the narrow-container test event. The present findings are important for several reasons. First, they provide the first demonstration of perseverative responding in a violation-of-expectation task. Second, they make clear the breadth and usefulness of the problem-solving account mentioned above. Finally, they add to the evidence for some degree of continuity between infants' and adults' problem-solving abilities.     

Reasoning about containment events in very young infants

The present research examined very young infants' expectations about containment events. In Experiment 1, 3.5-month-old infants saw a test event in which an object was lowered inside a container with either a wide opening (open-container condition) or no opening (closed-container condition) in its top surface. The infants looked reliably longer at the closed- than at the open-container test event. These and baseline data suggested that the infants recognized that the object could be lowered inside the container with the open but not the closed top. In Experiment 2, 3.5-month-old infants saw a test event in which an object was lowered either behind (behind-container condition) or inside (inside-container condition) a container; next, the container was moved forward and to the side, revealing the object behind it. The infants looked reliably longer at the inside- than at the behind-container test event. These and baseline results suggested that the infants in the inside-container condition realized that the object could not pass through the back wall of the container and hence should have moved with it to its new location. Experiments 3 and 4 extended the results of Experiments 1 and 2 to 2.5-month-old infants. Together, the present results indicate that even very young infants possess expectations about containment events. The possible origins and development of these expectations are discussed in the context of Baillargeon's model (Advances in infancy research 9 (1995) 305. Norwood, NJ: Ablex) of infants' acquisition of physical knowledge, and of Spelke's proposal (Cognition 50 (1994) 431) that, from birth, infants interpret physical events in accord with a solidity principle.     

Kommentare zu ?Ambivalenz weiterschreiben��

The authors comment on the results of the Zürich symposium with varied weighting. Ambivalence is brought into relation with a hypothetical genesis of human thinking and understood as a reflection of the fundamental dialogical structure, which owes itself to an exchange of symbolic messages. A further consideration describes that the ??valley of the uncanny??, whose connection to death Lilly Gast has shown, could also have a fundamental connection with sexuality bared of all bonds, which releases the same fears as death. A difficulty would lie in the inflationary use of the term: every ambiguousness or diversity would sometimes generally be subsumed under ambivalence and therefore all selectivity would become lost. Also discussed is the ambivalence of the term, or the question, whether the term has not lost significance. Finally its relevance in pediatric and adolescent-specific perspectives will be examined.