4 March 2020 – 16:15-17.45
Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen (Seminar room 1, 1st floor).
Reactivity in research process occurs when the researcher or research situation influences what the research participants say and do, thereby affecting the inferences that may be drawn from the data describing these sayings and doings.
In this lecture, Prof. Uljana Feest (Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany) discusses reactivity in psychological experiments and Prof. David Teira (UNED, Spain) talks about reactivity in the context of medical experiments. The talks are followed by discussion.
The lecture is generously funded by The Nordic Research Councils in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NOS-HS) and part of the project “Types of Reactivity in the Human Sciences,” see https://sites.google.com/view/thereactivityproject/home.
Uljana Feest (Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany):
Experimental Artifacts and the Reactivity of Psychological Phenomena
Reactivity in psychological research has long been treated as potential source of artifacts: human beings react to experimental design, to experimenter, etc. in certain kinds of ways. There has been a long-standing worry within psychology that this kind of reactivity might potentially lead to distorted data and biased results. This suggests that worries about reactivity rely on a particular assumption about human psychology, namely that there is a certain way in which properties or phenomena are, independently of the investigation, and that it’s the aim of empirical research to get at those “pure” states in an undistorted way.
However, on the flipside it is also a fundamental fact about human beings that we react to social and physical stimuli, a fact that is itself worthy of empirical investigation. For example, we know from Gestalt Psychology that the way in which a given stimulus is perceived is highly dependent on the context in which it is presented. Likewise, research on implicit bias has found that test performance is influenced by specifics of the experimental set-up (e.g., the race or gender of the experimenter). In turn, both of these facts may well reflect mechanisms that are operative outside the lab.
I will argue that if we aim for ecologically valid and socially relevant psychological research, we need to take reactivity phenomena seriously and incorporate them into our systematic explorations of the subject matter. My account will be embedded in a systematic discussion of the notion of the relationship between facts and artifacts in psychological research.
David Teira (UNED, Spain) (joint with Niccolò Tempini, Exeter)
When patients revolt against medical experiments
Pharmaceutical authorities rely on a particular type of experiment (the randomized clinical trial) to test the safety and efficacy of new medical treatments. These experiments should be free from any bias introduced by the participants. For instance, patients often enrol in the trial seeking access to drugs not yet available on the market. Making sure that all these preferences do not shape the outcome of the test is crucial for its credibility. For that reason, treatments are often masked –“blinded” – so that neither physicians nor patients in the trial know who is receiving what treatments. For fifty years, blinding has worked reasonably well, even if patients disliked it.
But this has changed thanks to the internet, boosting patients' reactivity: if they dislike the experimental protocl, they can now coordinate to revolt against it. Trial participants were so far strangers often scattered all over the world, without any connection with each other. But now, thanks to digital platforms, trial participants meet online and compare treatments and outcomes, potentially unblinding the test. Can we stil rely on randomized clinical trials if patients revolt against the protocols? Can we design alternative tests, where their preferences are incorporated? What's the future of drug testing in the age of social media?
https://sites.google.com/view/thereactivityproject/home
This is the first workshop in a series of three workshops on Reactivity in the Human Sciences generously funded by The Joint Committee for Nordic research councils in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NOS-HS). The workshop will focus on reactivity during the research process as exemplified by a research participant replying in ways she assumes will please the interviewer; filling out a survey in ways that accord with her conception of what are socially acceptable answers; or changing her behavior because the experimenter is a woman. Discussions of reactivity abound in the social science methodology literature, but in philosophy it has received comparatively less attention. The workshop will encourage further philosophical engagement with the topic.
Questions to be addressed include, but are not limited to:
Uljana Feest (Leibniz Universität Hannover)
Maria Jiménez-Buedo (UNED, Spain)
Inkeri Koskinen (University of Helsinki)
Corrado Matta (Linnæus University)
David Teira (UNED, Spain)
Julie Zahle (University of Bergen)
Up to four contributed papers will be accepted for presentation at the workshop. We invite submission of abstracts of maximum 1000 words. In particular, we encourage submissions from early career scholars and/or from scholars in the Nordic countries. Please send an abstract no later than November 1 2019 to Julie.Zahle@uib.no. Travel expenses within Europe and accommodation will be covered. If you have any questions, please contact Julie Zahle at Julie.Zahle@uib.no.
Submission Deadline: November 1, 2019
Notifications: December 1, 2019
Workshop: March 5-6 2020
Solstrand - a conference center located on the shore of Bjørneforden about 30 km from Bergen city
Marion Godman (University of Copenhagen)
Caterina Marchionni (University of Helsinki)
Julie Zahle (University of Bergen)