Illusory essences

Reference: Brick, C., et al. (2020). Illusory essences: A bias holding back theorizing in psychological science.

Abstract: The reliance in psychology on verbal definitions means that psychological research is unusually moored to how humans think and communicate about categories. Psychological concepts (e.g., intelligence; attention) are easily assumed to represent objective, definable categories with an underlying essence. Like the 'vital forces' previously thought to animate life, these assumed essences can create an illusion of understanding. We describe a pervasive tendency across psychological science to assume that essences explain phenomena by synthesizing a wide range of research lines from cognitive, clinical, and biological psychology and neuroscience. Labeling a complex phenomenon can appear as theoretical progress before sufficient evidence that the described category has a definable essence or known boundary conditions. Category labels can further undermine progress by masking contingent and contextual relationships and obscuring the need to specify mechanisms. Finally, we highlight examples of promising methods that circumvent the lure of essences and we suggest four concrete strategies to identify and avoid essentialist intuitions in theory development.

My notes: An excellent pre-print that tackles a key problem across science and one that seriously affects many areas of design research, including cognitive studies of 'fixation' and 'ideation' and, of course, neurological studies aiming to discover "the essence of design activity". Worth a careful read. These days I usually only scan papers and would only read the section I'm most interested in (methods, literature, findings, or discussion). I enjoyed going through this paper slowly and absorbing its content, especially the well-framed challenges and questions to think about how we conduct and interpret research.

Tools to think: writing, sketching, programming, dialogue

Reference: Davis, M. (2013). Research Writing in Design. Design and Culture, 5(1), 7-12.

My notes: Many controversies bubble around the topic of writing and design. It is ironic of course that this brief paper from 2013 by a respected professor in the field has a total of 2 (two) citations until 2020. Some opposition to (academic) writing (and reading) in design comes from a certain resistance to the written text dominating other types of outputs including images, sound, video, etc. To me, this is a straw-man fallacy since it presents an either/or argument. In my own experience, writing has been instrumental from a young age as a tool for thinking. Likewise drawing (not the artistic variety), programming (not the engineering variety), and over the years I have also realised how fundamental is holding a rich dialogue to help me think. In that spirit, I fully agree with Meredith here, we should all read and write more and we should all be teaching more writing including academic writing to design students. But not "just" academic writing as it is taught across academic programmes, we need to work on "designerly" ways of teaching writing.

A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research

Reference: Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political analysis, 14(3), 227-249.

Abstract: The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive “cross-cultural” communication in political science.

I found the book version of this paper by the same authors very interesting. Although my main interests or experiences don't include Political Science, the ideas by these authors apply to any disciplinary traditions. The way they dissect the similarities and differences across ways of doing research (cultures) has helped me significantly to shape my collaborations.

The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities

Reference: Walker, T. C. (2010). The perils of paradigm mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper. Perspectives on Politics, 8(02), 433-451.

Abstract: A common theme in the Centennial Issue of the American Political Science Review was how subfields have grown more specialized and insulated from one another. In this essay I argue that this trend has been hastened by the inappropriate incorporation of paradigm mentalities, first presented by Thomas Kuhn and later developed by Imre Lakatos. I show how paradigm mentalities help justify rigid opposition to theoretical alternatives and limit critical insight. While paradigm mentalities may be fitting for disciplines that demonstrate Kuhn's concrete scientific achievements, they constrain the study of political science and international relations in particular. I begin with a primer that compares Kuhn and Lakatos to Karl Popper. Next, I point to harmful consequences resulting from applying paradigm mentalities to the study of international relations. Among these is the tendency to act as if realism has earned the status of a paradigm and then invoke criteria of incommensurability and “subsumption” to deflect criticism. I conclude by discussing how Popper's model of science provides a better platform for the study of politics by encouraging theoretical and methodological pluralism.

Notes: Analysis of uncritical use of "paradigm" in political science, very relevant to design and creativity research. Authors argues against wanting to develop and subscribe to a single framework, I would probably argue that his concerns apply more to disciplinary vs. cross-disciplinary research. Some elements I'd say do need to be agreed upon as to enable dialogue. Great paper, well articulated and useful views. It also helps to annotate the use of "paradigms" in daily life and the risks of doing that. I remember Kuhn did publish a chapter called "Second thoughts" where he addresses some of the points made by Walker here, including his view that social sciences can and do have several valid "paradigms" simultaneously. I do find interesting how 'catchy' the word is and how widespread it has become (and alas lost all meaning). Why does that happen to certain concepts and not others?