The institutional impact of research challenges and constraints on psychology and other social and behavioral sciences

• Published in: New ideas in psychology Vol. 70; p. 101014
• Main Authors: Sanbonmatsu, David M., Cooley, E. Hanna, Posavac, Steven S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.08.2023
• Subjects: Fragmentation; Inequities in science; Research consensus; Science stereotypes; Social and behavioral science; Social and behavioral science; Science stereotypes; Research consensus; Inequities in science; Fragmentation
• ISSN: 0732-118X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101014

Psychology and other social and behavioral disciplines are severely limited by the extraordinary complexity of the phenomena of study and numerous legal, ethical, and logistical constraints. In this article, we examine the impact of these research challenges on the institutional standing of and support for our disciplines. The immense challenges of human research have contributed to unfavorable stereotypes of the capabilities of social and behavioral scientists and fostered self-censure of our fields. Low consensus for research questions, frameworks, and approaches, and frustration with the limitations of studies have fragmented disciplines such as sociology and anthropology. The numerous obstacles and impediments have led to the subordination of social and behavioral science which has been maintained through policies, practices, ideologies, and stereotypes favoring the natural sciences. Psychologists and other social and behavioral scientists need to recognize the limitations of their research enterprise imposed by the complexity of the study phenomena and stop disparaging their work. Moreover, they need to recognize the potential for conflict and division because of the low consensus in our fields and act collectively to promote social and behavioral science.