scholarly journals The hidden side of animal cognition research: Scientists’ attitudes toward bias, replicability and scientific practice

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0256607
Author(s):  
Benjamin G. Farrar ◽  
Ljerka Ostojić ◽  
Nicola S. Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Animal Cognition ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Animal Minds ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Replication Studies

Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field, but less so in their own work. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses. Researchers self-reported that most of their studies had been published, however they often reported that studies went unpublished because they had negative or inconclusive results, or results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves—however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, 73.0% of respondents suggested areas of animal cognition research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, which are available as part of an open dataset. However, many researchers appeared concerned with how to interpret negative results, publication bias, theoretical bias and reliability in areas of animal cognition research. Collectively, these data provide a candid overview of barriers to progress in animal cognition and can inform debates on how individual researchers, as well as organizations and journals, can facilitate robust scientific research in animal cognition.

scholarly journals The Hidden Side of Animal Cognition Research: Scientists’ Attitudes Toward Bias, Replicability and Scientific Practice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin George Farrar ◽  
Ljerka Ostojic ◽  
Nicola Clayton
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Animal Cognition ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Animal Minds ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Replication Studies

Animal cognition research aims to understand animal minds by using a diverse range of methods across an equally diverse range of species. Throughout its history, the field has sought to mitigate various biases that occur when studying animal minds, from experimenter effects to anthropomorphism. Recently, there has also been a focus on how common scientific practices might affect the reliability and validity of published research. Usually, these issues are discussed in the literature by a small group of scholars with a specific interest in the topics. This study aimed to survey a wider range of animal cognition researchers to ask about their attitudes towards classic and contemporary issues facing the field. Two-hundred and ten active animal cognition researchers completed our survey, and provided answers on questions relating to bias, replicability, statistics, publication, and belief in animal cognition. Collectively, researchers were wary of bias in the research field as a whole, but less so in their own work. Despite sometimes (39.7% of responses) or often (38.8% of responses) hoping for one result over another, researchers reported that they could often (45.8% of responses) or always (38.4% of responses) detach from any biases to perform objectively fair tests of animal cognition. Over 70% of researchers endorsed Morgan’s canon as a useful principle but many caveated this in their free-text responses, and researchers self-reported that a median of 80% of their studies had been published. Their free-text responses suggested a stronger publication bias against negative and inconclusive results, and results that questioned “preferred” theories. Researchers rarely reported having performed questionable research practices themselves — however they thought that other researchers sometimes (52.7% of responses) or often (27.9% of responses) perform them. Researchers near unanimously agreed that replication studies are important but too infrequently performed in animal cognition research, and 44.7% of researchers agreed that their own area (44.7% of responses), or other areas (73.0% of responses) of research could experience a ‘replication crisis’ if replication studies were performed. Consistently, participants’ free-text responses provided a nuanced picture of the challenges animal cognition research faces, and highlighted many possible improvements. Overall, these data provide a picture of active researchers’ beliefs about the animal cognition research processes that can be used to inform debates on where and how the field can improve.

scholarly journals Richard Waller and the Fusion of Visual and Scientific Practice in the Early Royal Society

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine M. Reinhart
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Royal Society ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Early Modern England ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Natural Philosopher ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Multiple Functions

Richard Waller, Fellow and Secretary of the Royal Society, is probably best remembered for editing Robert Hooke’s posthumously published works. Yet, Waller also created numerous drawings, paintings, and engravings for his own work and the Society’s publications. From precisely observed grasses to allegorical frontispieces, Waller’s images not only contained a diverse range of content, they are some of the most beautiful, colorful, and striking from the Society’s early years. This article argues that Waller played a distinctly important role in shaping the visual program of the Royal Society by virtue of his multiple functions as reliable administrator and translator, competent natural philosopher, and skilled image-maker. It analyzes Waller’s visual works in the context of his graphic training—in part influenced by his mother Mary More—and situates them within the context of English image-making traditions and Waller’s own natural philosophical interests. Examined as a functional whole, Waller’s career as a Fellow of the Royal Society emerges as an important case study in the fusion of visual and scientific practices in early-modern England.

scholarly journals Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Observations of Animal Minds

Philosophia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Parellada
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Analysis ◽  
Animal Cognition ◽  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Alarm Calls ◽  
Vervet Monkeys ◽  
Animal Minds ◽  
First Order

AbstractThe relation between conceptual analysis and empirical observations when ascribing or denying concepts and beliefs to non-human animals is not straightforward. In order to reflect on this relation, I focus on two theoretical proposals (Davidson’s and Allen’s) and one empirical case (vervet monkeys’ alarm calls), the three of which are permanently discussed and considered in the literature on animal cognition. First, I review briefly Davidson’s arguments for denying thought to non-linguistic animals. Second, I review Allen’s criteria for ascribing concepts to creatures capable of correcting their discriminatory powers by taking into account their previous errors. Allen affirms that this is an empirical proposal which offers good reasons, but not necessary or sufficient conditions, for concept attribution. Against Allen, I argue that his important proposal is not an empirical, but a conceptual one. Third, I resort to vervet monkeys to show that Allen’s criteria, and not Davidson’s, are very relevant for ascribing first-order and denying second-order beliefs to this species and thus make sense of the idea of animal cognition.

Scientific Reforms, Feminist Interventions, and the Politics of Knowing: An Auto‐ethnography of a Feminist Neuroscientist

Hypatia ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Giordano
Keyword(s):  
Science Studies ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Social Activism ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Feminist Science ◽  
Auto Ethnography ◽  
Doctoral Work ◽  
Cultural Contingency

Feminist science studies scholars have documented the historical and cultural contingency of scientific knowledge production. It follows that political and social activism has impacted the practice of science today; however, little has been done to examine the current cultures of science in light of feminist critiques and activism. In this article, I argue that, although critiques have changed the cultures of science both directly and indirectly, fundamental epistemological questions have largely been ignored and neutralized through these policy reforms. I provide an auto‐ethnography of my doctoral work in a neuroscience program to a) demonstrate how the culture of science has incorporated critiques into its practices and b) identify how we might use these changes in scientific practices to advance feminist science agendas. I critically analyze three areas in current scientific practice in which I see obstacles and opportunities: 1) research ethics, 2) diversity of research subjects and scientists, and 3) identification of a project's significance for funding. I argue that an understanding of the complicated and changing cultures of science is necessary for future feminist interventions into the sciences that directly challenge science's claim to epistemic authority.

A Replication of a Quasi-Experimental Approach to Estimating Middle School Structural Transition Effects on Student Learning Trajectories

2021 ◽  
pp. 089590482098779
Author(s):  
Allison Atteberry ◽  
Robbee Wedow ◽  
Nathan J. Cook ◽  
Andrew McEachin
Keyword(s):  
Middle School ◽  
Structural Transition ◽  
Experimental Approach ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
School Transitions ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Transition Effects ◽  
Causal Impact ◽  
Achievement Trajectories

Using a dataset that includes over 17 million students from across all 50 states, we estimate the causal impact of making structural transitions into middle school (in grades 4, 5, 6, or 7) on student math and reading achievement trajectories. This dataset provides an ideal opportunity to engage in the valuable scientific practice of conducting replication studies. Prior research on the impacts of middle school transitions is of high quality and rests on a strong causal warrant, but the study settings vary greatly and use data from a prior decade. We conduct a replication (i.e., using the same methods on different data) using larger, broader, and more recent data. We extend prior analyses in ways that may further strengthen the causal warrant. Finally, we explore heterogeneity of effects across subgroups and states, which may help reconcile differences in the magnitude of estimated effects across studies.

scholarly journals Reliability and validity of ICPC-2-R encoding by medical students

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (40) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle ◽  
Álvaro Damiani Zamprogno ◽  
André Filipe Lucchi Rodrigues ◽  
Lorena Camillato Sirtoli ◽  
Natália Josiele Cerqueira Checon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
International Classification ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Reason For Encounter ◽  
Community Physician ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Reasons For Encounter

Objective: To estimate how reliably and validly can medical students encode reasons for encounter and diagnoses using the International Classification of Primary Care, revised 2nd edition (ICPC-2-R). Methods: For every encounter they supervised during an entire semester, three family and community physician teachers entered the reasons for encounter and diagnoses in free text into a form. Two of four medical students and one teacher encoded each reason for encounter or diagnosis using the ICPC-2-R. In the beginning of the study, two three-hour workshops were held, until the teachers were confident the students were ready for the encoding. After all the reasons for encounter and the diagnoses had been independently encoded, the seven encoders resolved the definitive codes by consensus. We defined reliability as agreement between students and validity as their agreement with the definitive codes, and used Gwet’s AC1 to estimate this agreement. Results: After exclusion of encounters encoded before the last workshop, the sample consisted of 149 consecutive encounters, comprising 262 reasons for encounter and 226 diagnoses. The encoding had moderate to substantial reliability (AC1, 0.805; 95% CI, 0.767–0.843) and substantial validity (AC1, 0.864; 95% CI, 0.833–0.891). Conclusion: Medical students can encode reasons for encounter and diagnoses with the ICPC-2-R if they are adequately trained.

Instruments That Measure Nurses’ Knowledge About Diabetes: An Integrative Review

2013 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Ann Francisco
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Psychometric Testing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Integrative Review ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Prevalent Disease ◽  
Nurses Knowledge

Background and Purpose: Diabetes mellitus is an increasingly prevalent disease among hospitalized patients. Educators are challenged to build evidence-based programs for nurses based on sound nursing needs assessments using valid and reliable measures. The purpose of this integrative review is to examine instruments that measure nurses’ knowledge about diabetes. Methods: The Databases PubMed (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for articles published between 1983 and 2012 using the keywords: diabetes knowledge; diabetes mellitus; diabetes self-management, nurse, and nursing knowledge. Fifteen articles reflecting the psychometric properties of 7 published instruments were reviewed. Results: The most commonly used instruments are the Diabetes Basic Knowledge Test (DBKT) and Diabetes Self-Report Test (DSRT). Several replication studies using the DBKT and DSRT did not consistently report reliability and validity measures. Five additional investigator-developed tools also lack strong validity and reliability measures. Conclusions: The findings suggest the need for continued development and psychometric testing of instruments to measure nurses’ knowledge about diabetes.

Constructivism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Downes
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Social Constructivism ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Underlying Structure ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Scientific Representations ◽  
The World ◽  
The Way

Originally proposed by sociologists of science, constructivism or social constructivism is a view about the nature of scientific knowledge held by many philosophers of science. Constructivists maintain that scientific knowledge is made by scientists and not determined by the world. This makes constructivists antirealists. Constructivism here should not be confused with constructivism in mathematics or logic, although there are some similarities. Constructivism is more aptly compared with Berkeley’s idealism. Most constructivist research involves empirical study of a historical or a contemporary episode in science, with the aim of learning how scientists experiment and theorize. Constructivists try not to bias their case studies with presuppositions about how scientific research is directed. Thus their approach contrasts with approaches in philosophy of science that assume scientists are guided by a particular method. From their case studies, constructivists have concluded that scientific practice is not guided by any one set of methods. Thus constructivism is relativist or antirationalist. There are two familiar (and related) criticisms of constructivism. First, since constructivists are self-avowed relativists, some philosophers argue that constructivism fails for the same reasons that relativism fails. But many philosophers of science note that relativism can be characterized in various ways and that versions of relativism can be useful in the interpretation of science. Therefore, constructivism’s relativism does not by itself render it unacceptable. Second, constructivists are accused of believing that scientists literally ‘make the world’, in the way some make houses or cars. This is probably not the best way to understand constructivism. Rather, constructivism requires only the weaker thesis that scientific knowledge is ‘produced’ primarily by scientists and only to a lesser extent determined by fixed structures in the world. This interprets constructivism as a thesis about our access to the world via scientific representations. For example, constructivists claim that the way we represent the structure of DNA is a result of many interrelated scientific practices and is not dictated by some ultimate underlying structure of reality. Constructivist research provides important tools for epistemologists specializing in the study of scientific knowledge.

scholarly journals Core systems of geometry in animal minds

2012 ◽  
Vol 367 (1603) ◽  
pp. 2784-2793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth S. Spelke ◽  
Sang Ah Lee
Keyword(s):  
Animal Cognition ◽  
The Other ◽  
Model Systems ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Cognitive Systems ◽  
Abstract Concepts ◽  
Empirical Methods ◽  
Animal Minds ◽  
Symbolic Systems ◽  
Extended Surfaces

Research on humans from birth to maturity converges with research on diverse animals to reveal foundational cognitive systems in human and animal minds. The present article focuses on two such systems of geometry. One system represents places in the navigable environment by recording the distance and direction of the navigator from surrounding, extended surfaces. The other system represents objects by detecting the shapes of small-scale forms. These two systems show common signatures across animals, suggesting that they evolved in distant ancestral species. As children master symbolic systems such as maps and language, they come productively to combine representations from the two core systems of geometry in uniquely human ways; these combinations may give rise to abstract geometric intuitions. Studies of the ontogenetic and phylogenetic sources of abstract geometry therefore are illuminating of both human and animal cognition. Research on animals brings simpler model systems and richer empirical methods to bear on the analysis of abstract concepts in human minds. In return, research on humans, relating core cognitive capacities to symbolic abilities, sheds light on the content of representations in animal minds.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document