Research misconduct complaints and institutional logics: The case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society, 2020, Pelosi et al

Andy

Senior Member (Voting rights)
A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society’s decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.
Paywall, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1359105320963542
Sci hub, https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1359105320963542

Institutional Logics, the British Psychological Society and Hans Eysenck
https://davidfmarks.com/2020/10/29/...itish-psychological-society-and-hans-eysenck/
 
An unfortunate implication of the Society’s stance is that a large number of
questionable publications will remain in the scientific literature with no obvious remedy in
sight. This seems incompatible with a serious intent to act in the best interests of public health
and broader society and to address psychology’s credibility crisis.
('the Society' is The British Psychological Society); much the same attitude as Cochrane, BMJ, the Lancet.........
 
Everything I have seen on the subject suggests to me that those claims, and many more derived from them, are widely believed in UK medicine and psychology, hence a likely strong resistance to having to deal with this. It's blatant that the whole thing was fraudulent but professionals, institutions even, actually ate the onion and continue to believe in the lies, as they are in line with a long tradition of similar beliefs.

How does a system working in a tightly insulated thought bubble deal with an ideology it truly believes in and reconciles the fraudulent research that underlies it? Why, by waiting it out, it seems, hoping it just magically goes away and they can just continue promoting those beliefs.

Escalation of commitment is very unforgiving, it often places people in situations where they have to choose between firm personal convictions, delusional but nonetheless very strong, and professional obligations. It's very hard to resist the former, few people ever do. Hence why pseudoscience has to be resisted from the start, the asymmetry of bullshit is universal, it's a guest that never leaves without being kicked out.
 
Back
Top Bottom