Retractions op Stapel, one down…
december 6, 2011 2 reacties
Het eerste onderzoek van de frauderende Prof. Stapel is ingetrokken. Science beet het spits af. Het gaat om een artikel dat verscheen in maart van dit jaar. Dit vrij korte bericht kwam in een ‘letter’ in het blad.
Our Report “Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination” (zie plaatje) reported the effects of the physical environment on human stereotyping and discriminatory behavior. On 31 October 2011, the University of Tilburg held a press conference to announce findings of their investigation into possible data fraud on the part of author Stapel. These findings of the university’s interim report included fabrication of data in this Science paper. Therefore, we are retracting the paper, with apologies from author Stapel. Coauthor Lindenberg was in no way involved in the generation of the data, and agrees to the retraction of the paper.
Dit is het gewraakte onderzoek. De eerste in een lange, lange rij.
Meer info vind u hier
Dutch Researcher Retracts First Paper, Offers ‘Apologies’, John Travis [scienceinsider webpagina]
Met co-auteur Lindenberg aan het woord.
There was no reason to be suspicious in any way about what he presented to me as the results of the experiments he conducted,” Lindenberg noted in the e-mail sent soon after the university released its report. “I still believe that the possibility that disorder affects discrimination is an important idea and worthy of being tested in a way that is beyond suspicion. In fact, I believe that the series of experiments we planned also got to the heart of the possible mechanism. That this series seemingly has not been properly executed or (at least in part) even not executed at all, is therefore a doubly distressing fact.”
In een editorial in Science werd ook op de zaak ingegaan.
Addressing Scientific Fraud, Jennifer Crocker, M. Lynne Cooper Science 2 December 2011:Vol. 334 no. 6060 p. 1182
DOI: 10.1126/science.1216775 [abstract] Paywall.
Science drops other shoe in Stapel case, retracts recent paper on chaos [retractionwatch]
Crocker and Cooper point out that Stapel was unmasked by “people close to the perpetrator.” That’s fair enough. But they go on to say that “other researchers” had been raising questions about Stapel’s work. Which prompts us to pose some possibilities: If other researchers were concerned about his results, and peer reviewers are “other researchers,” then either the peer reviewers for the APA journals weren’t doing a good job, or they weren’t the right reviewers.
The Chump Effect, Reporters are credulous, studies show, Andrew Ferguson, The Weekly Standard [webpagina]
Did Stapel fake his research? Did he and his students really make all those people fill out forms for an apple? Did Stapel really cross-tabulate the data? Did he really park his car on the sidewalk?
Who cares? The experiments are preposterous. You’d have to be a highly trained social psychologist, or a journalist, to think otherwise. Just for starters, the experiments can never be repeated or their results tested under controlled conditions. The influence of a hundred different variables is impossible to record. The first group of passengers may have little in common with the second group. The groups were too small to yield statistically significant results. The questionnaire is hopelessly imprecise, and so are the measures of racism and homophobia. The notions of “disorder” and “stereotype” are arbitrary—and so on and so on.
Yet the allure of “science” is too strong for our journalists to resist: all those numbers, those equations, those fancy names (say it twice: the Self-Activation Effect), all those experts with Ph.D.’s! […]
Stapel’s professional treachery is a scandal, too. But the biggest scandal is that the chumps took him seriously in the first place.