Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorSchönegger, Philipp
dc.contributor.authorPils, Raimund
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-10T10:30:06Z
dc.date.available2023-08-10T10:30:06Z
dc.date.issued2023-08-09
dc.identifier.citationSchönegger , P & Pils , R 2023 , ' Social sciences in crisis : on the proposed elimination of the discussion section ' , Synthese , vol. 202 , 54 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04267-3en
dc.identifier.issn0039-7857
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 290723572
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 42dabd1e-9f1e-49a6-933e-8a0036b7f430
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85168280122
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/28131
dc.description.abstractThe social sciences are facing numerous crises including those related to replication, theory, and applicability. We highlight that these crises imply epistemic malfunctions and affect science communication negatively. Several potential solutions have already been proposed, ranging from statistical improvements to changes in norms of scientific conduct. In this paper, we propose a structural solution: the elimination of the discussion section from social science research papers. We point out that discussion sections allow for an inappropriate narrativization of research that disguises actual results and enables the misstatement of true limitations. We go on to claim that removing this section and outsourcing it to other publications provides several epistemic advantages such as a division of academic labour, adversarial modes of progress, and a better alignment of the personal aims of scientists with the aims of science. After responding to several objections, we conclude that the potential benefits of moving away from the traditional model of academic papers outweigh the costs and have the potential to play a part in addressing the crises in the social sciences alongside other reforms. As such, we take our paper as proffering a further potential solution that should be applied complimentarily with other reform movements such as Open Science and hope that our paper can start a debate on this or similar proposals.
dc.format.extent23
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofSyntheseen
dc.rightsCopyright © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.en
dc.subjectPhilosophy of the social sciencesen
dc.subjectScience reformen
dc.subjectOpen scienceen
dc.subjectIcentive structuresen
dc.subjectAdversarial collaborationen
dc.subjectBD Speculative Philosophyen
dc.subjectH Social Sciences (General)en
dc.subjectT-NDASen
dc.subjectMCCen
dc.subject.lccBDen
dc.subject.lccH1en
dc.titleSocial sciences in crisis : on the proposed elimination of the discussion sectionen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Philosophyen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04267-3
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record