We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015
This example concerns the importance of not being swayed by political or other self-interested considerations in evaluating the merit of scientific research and the need to remain open to theoretical perspectives that may be challenging of dominant paradigms. The example involves specifically the downplaying of critical opinions that I observed as a member of a site visit panel charged with appraising the merit of a grant application exploring neurological bases of psychology. As a member of this site visit panel, I observed practices, described in this chapter, that were designed to shield the grant application from negative appraisal.
One of the practices involved the site visit review panel dismissing dissenting opinions that raised questions about certain basic assumptions of the paradigm involved. I had been selected for the site visit panel as an expert on issues of culture who had been brought in to provide a perspective complementing that of the other faculty on the panel, whose expertise, if not disciplinary affiliation, was in biology and neuroscience. As members of the review panel, we were asked to write individual critical reviews of the funding proposal, with these reviews subject to discussion and further input by others in our group. In my review, I articulated some of the same critiques of neuroscience that have been raised in recent years by major theorists who, while highly supportive of neuroscience work in psychology, have raised concerns about its tendencies, in cases, to adopt stances that are reductionist or deterministic, and who have pointed to the difficulties entailed in mapping brain processes onto constructs in psychology (e.g., Barrett, 2009; Kagan, 2007). The other faculty on the site visit panel objected to my raising any of these types of concerns and asked to have everything that I had written deleted from the final site visit report (something that had not been done in the case of comments written by anyone else on our panel). I was given little opportunity to defend my views and no opportunity to include my concerns in the final report as a dissenting opinion.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
