Call for Proposals
Perspectives on Psychological Science Special Issue: Theory in Psychological Science
Updated Deadline for Proposals: September 15, 2019
Perspectives on Psychological Science is pleased to announce a call for proposals for a special issue focused on theory in current psychological scientific research. The issue will guest edited by Drs. Travis Proulx and Richard Morey of Cardiff University and overseen by Perspectives Associate Editor Dr. Richard Lucas of Michigan State University.
In his influential statement on psychological theorizing, Paul Meehl offered a stinging critique of progress within the psychological sciences. On the 40th anniversary of his landmark assessment, this special issue will provide a fundamental reassessment of theory-building in contemporary psychological research. We encourage bold contributions relevant to the totality of psychological science. Authors should offer incisive critiques based within the most recent perspectives on research and statistical methods, along with broader assessments grounded in contemporary philosophy of science. These reassessments should converge on a central question: Is Meehl’s characterization of the lack of scientific progress still relevant? To answer this question, authors should address the most enduring criticisms.
First, authors should assess the repeated claim that psychological theories are mainly descriptions of effects with little explanatory value. If this is so, why, and what have been the consequences? If not, have psychologists addressed this concern, or developed novel criteria for accumulative progress? More generally, what should psychological theories look like, and what function should they perform in a healthy psychological science?
Second, authors should address the concern that statistical methods have replaced theory-building in directing psychological research programs. In the wake of the “replication crisis”, have debates over ‘p-curves’ and appropriate p-values supplanted discussions of knowledge accumulation, or contributed to these efforts?
Proposal and Manuscript Submission
Proposals should include manuscript title, author names and affiliations, and a 500-word (maximum) abstract of the proposed submission. Abstracts should explain how the proposed paper will address the goals of the special issue. Proposals and all inquiries should be sent to [email protected]. Potential contributors whose proposals have been approved will be invited to submit a full manuscript via the online submission system. Please note that all papers will be peer-reviewed and there is no guarantee of acceptance.
The deadline for the submission of proposals has been extended to September 15, 2019 and the deadline for completed manuscripts will be February 1, 2020.
Background
40 years ago, Paul Meehl published his provocative critique of psychological science, “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology.” As the title implies, Meehl characterised the preceding decades of psychological research as lacking the accumulation of empirical knowledge typical of mature sciences. He identified two primary causes. First, “soft psychology” had become populated with insubstantial theories that were quick to garner attention, then fade slowly without adding to the sum of scientific knowledge. Second, the deficit in generative psychological theories stemmed mainly from tests of statistical hypotheses inappropriately standing in for tests of substantive theory.
In the succeeding 40 years, it could be argued that the trends that Meehl described appear to have accelerated. What was once dozens of early theories have become hundreds of overlapping theory brands, emphasizing descriptions of effects over proposed causal mechanisms. The recent “replication crisis” may have additionally accelerated these trends, with re-emphasized focus on “null-hypothesis” testing of effects, debates over acceptable p-values and methods of assessing p-values, with further p-values supplanting more basic questions of theory-construction and evaluation.
Nevertheless, these assessments rest on assumptions that may not be shared by all practitioners of psychological science. More recent perspectives have highlighted the potential knowledge accumulation of non-paradigmatic theories, or descriptive modelling techniques more suitable to contextually bound psychological phenomena. It may also be that progress can be construed outside of accumulated knowledge, and in terms of public engagement through media and applied fields. As perceptions of a psychological science in crisis are now being transformed into concrete policy changes, it is crucial that we understand the nature of that crisis, if there is one.
