(1)
After reading the Giner-Sorolla’s paper, my general impression is that they do display a valid argument. My favorite point they made was when they said, “psychologists must master the art of presenting perfect-looking results just to survive in the profession” (Giner-Sorolla, 2012). This made me think back to all of the literature reviews, resources, research studies, etc. I have read in prior psychology classes. I feel this statement was pretty accurate, as readers are trusting the data being presented. Readers are looking for sources that are trustworthy, so their data can be accurate.
I think they make practical suggestions pertaining to the broader information sharing. I do not feel like there is a great way to present the “ugly” data. Therefore, being transparent about the data is the best thing researchers could do. It is important for their data to stay as accurate and credible as possible. Otherwise, they risk the chance of losing their credibility. Once researchers question a psychologists ability to pertain correct analyzation, it could hurt their reputation, specifically in the industry.
(2)
One way to improve psychological science is to present all data and hold researchers ethically accountable for misleading information. Manipulating data including withholding data, is still manipulation. My general impression of this article brings up the question of what is factual, what is being withheld, and what is sugar coated? As a student, we rely on our resources to be accurate with their information since we use this information to sometimes back up our own statements with quotes. Collecting data and sharing accurate evidence to support a theory is the ethical thing to do. “Making the final word in psychology depend on the outcomes of many labs, instead of just one, is a safeguard against outright fraud.” (Giner-Sorolla, 2012).
In reference to suppressing “ugly” and “messy” data, there is not a good way to provide the data except as it is. The author provides practical suggestions. One suggestion, also realistic, is to throw aesthetics out of the window and provide readers with all raw data. In my opinion, this would be very rewarding knowing that one of my articles that I provided accurate data and honest findings, could help accelerate the discovery of a life-saving medicine; Therefore, this would be important to share all results. With all the obstacles that a researcher already might face to get accurate data, another practical example, the author pointed out that “science helps us overcome bias.” (Giner-Sorolla, 2012). Researchers should utilize these techniques just like they do when they get someone to sign an agreement before a study.
IN 5-6 LINES, RESPOND TO THIS TWO DISCUSSION BOARD
