On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are going to be talking about something called the “replication crisis.”

Most people will not be familiar with this since it has been happening in academia but we promise it is not only quite intriguing and full of juicy details but it also has some pretty big implications for the larger society.

So what is the replication crisis?

In the past 15 years or so it has been discovered that many research findings in major academic journals actually don’t hold up to scrutiny.

When an academic publishes a study they are required to describe their research methodology in detail. If another researcher tries to conduct the same study using the same methodology, this is an attempt at “replication.” If the replication finds the same results, this is further evidence that the original study was on to something. If they don’t find the same results, it suggests that the original study may not have found the thing that it had claimed to find.

In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article that got a lot of attention titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

In it he wrote that:

“There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. . . this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

Then, in 2011, there was a significant controversy over a paper by social psychologist Daryl Bem that claimed that people can have “precognition,” or ESP, and backed up this claim using the accepted methods of his field of psychology. This led many researchers to question dominant research methods, how the peer review process could fail so miserably, and whether this problem was much bigger than a few papers.

In 2015, researchers published an article in the prestigious journal Sciencein which they detailed their attempts to reproduce 100 psychology studies. Alarmingly, they found that they were only able to successfully replicate 39 of those studies. Other similar efforts since then have also shown that many major published studies that have become accepted facts cannot be replicated and should be called into question.

Over the past few years, academic fields have been grappling with the replication crisis and debating ways to strengthen the guardrails in academic research and publishing so that fewer flawed studies become accepted knowledge.

On this Utterly Moderateepisode we are joined by Rutgers University psychologist and friend of the show Dr. Lee Jussim to discuss all of this.

Don't forget to subscribe to our FREE NEWSLETTER!

The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions.

Episode Audio:
“Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive)
“Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive)
“Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones)


“By Grace” by Podington Bear (Free Music Archive)
“Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist’s permission)

On this episode of the <a href="https://www.connorsforum.org/podcast">Utterly Moderate Podcast</a> we are going to be talking about something called the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/">“replication crisis.”</a>
Most people will not be familiar with this since it has been happening in academia but we promise it is not only quite intriguing and full of juicy details but it also has some pretty big implications for the larger society.
So what is the replication crisis?
In the past 15 years or so it has been discovered that many research findings in major academic journals actually don’t hold up to scrutiny.
When an academic publishes a study they are required to describe their research methodology in detail. If another researcher tries to conduct the same study using the same methodology, this is an attempt at “replication.” If the replication finds the same results, this is further evidence that the original study was on to something. If they don’t find the same results, it suggests that the original study may not have found the thing that it had claimed to find.
In 2005, <a href="https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/john-ioannidis">John Ioannidis</a>, a professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article that got a lot of attention titled, <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124">“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”</a>
In it he wrote that:
<blockquote>
“There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. . . this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”
</blockquote>
Then, in 2011, there was a significant controversy <a href="https://slate.com/health-and-science/2017/06/daryl-bem-proved-esp-is-real-showed-science-is-broken.html">over a paper</a> by social psychologist Daryl Bem that claimed that people can have “precognition,” or ESP, and backed up this claim using the accepted methods of his field of psychology. This led many researchers to question dominant research methods, how the peer review process could fail so miserably, and whether this problem was much bigger than a few papers.
In 2015, researchers published an article in the <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4716">prestigious journal Science</a> in which they detailed their attempts to reproduce 100 psychology studies. Alarmingly, they found that they were only able to successfully replicate 39 of those studies. Other similar efforts since then have also shown that many major published studies that have become accepted facts cannot be replicated and should be called into question.
Over the past few years, academic fields have been grappling with the replication crisis and debating ways to strengthen the guardrails in academic research and publishing so that fewer flawed studies become accepted knowledge.
On this <a href="https://www.connorsforum.org/podcast">Utterly Moderate</a> episode we are joined by Rutgers University psychologist and friend of the show <a href="https://psych.rutgers.edu/faculty-profiles-a-contacts/128-chair-lee-jussim">Dr. Lee Jussim</a> to discuss all of this.
Don't forget to subscribe to our <a href="https://connorsforum.substack.com/">FREE NEWSLETTER</a>!
<hr>
The <a href="https://www.connorsforum.org/">Connors Forum</a> is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions.
<hr>
Episode Audio:
<ul>
<li>“Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (<a href="https://freemusicarchive.org/">Free Music Archive</a>)</li>
<li>“Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (<a href="https://freemusicarchive.org/">Free Music Archive</a>)</li>
<li>“Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through <a href="https://taketones.com/">TakeTones</a>)</li>
<li>
“By Grace” by Podington Bear (<a href="https://freemusicarchive.org/">Free Music Archive</a>)
</li>
<li>“Happy Trails (To You)” by <a href="https://www.ridersinthesky.com/">the Riders in the Sky</a> (used with artist’s permission)</li>
</ul>
<hr><hr>

The Utterly Moderate Podcast is the official podcast of Connors Institute for Nonpartisan Research and Civic Engagement at Shippensburg University.

The core mission of the Connors Institute is to disseminate high-quality nonpartisan information to the public.

Utterly Moderate is hosted by Lawrence Eppard, a researcher, university professor, and director of the Connors Institute. On each episode, Eppard is joined by a guest (or two or three!) who helps listeners understand important topics by focusing on just the weight of the empirical evidence and none of the unneeded opinions or political agendas. We are aggressively nonpartisan in our approach.

Be sure to visit us at ConnorsInstitute.org to learn more about all that we do!

The <a href="https://connorsinstitute.org/podcast">Utterly Moderate Podcast</a> is the official podcast of <a href="https://connorsinstitute.org/">Connors Institute for Nonpartisan Research and Civic Engagement at Shippensburg University</a>.
The core mission of the Connors Institute is to disseminate high-quality nonpartisan information to the public.
Utterly Moderate is hosted by Lawrence Eppard, a researcher, university professor, and director of the Connors Institute. On each episode, Eppard is joined by a guest (or two or three!) who helps listeners understand important topics by focusing on just the weight of the empirical evidence and none of the unneeded opinions or political agendas. We are aggressively nonpartisan in our approach.
Be sure to visit us at <a href="https://connorsinstitute.org/">ConnorsInstitute.org</a> to learn more about all that we do!

Utterly Moderate Podcast

The <a href="https://connorsinstitute.org/podcast">Utterly Moderate Podcast</a> is the official podcast of <a href="https://connorsinstitute.org/">Connors Institute for Nonpartisan Research and Civic Engagement at Shippensburg University</a>.
The core mission of the Connors Institute is to disseminate high-quality nonpartisan information to the public.
Utterly Moderate is hosted by Lawrence Eppard, a researcher, university professor, and director of the Connors Institute. On each episode, Eppard is joined by a guest (or two or three!) who helps listeners understand important topics by focusing on just the weight of the empirical evidence and none of the unneeded opinions or political agendas. We are aggressively nonpartisan in our approach.
Be sure to visit us at <a href="https://connorsinstitute.org/">ConnorsInstitute.org</a> to learn more about all that we do!

Advertisement