Breznau, Nate; Rinke, Eike Mark; Wuttke, Alexander; Nguyen, Hung H. V.; Adem, Muna; Adriaans, Jule; Alvarez-Benjumea, Amalia; Andersen, Henrik K.; Auer, Daniel; Azevedo, Flavio; Bahnsen, Oke; Balzer, Dave; Bauer, Gerrit; Bauer, Paul C.; Baumann, Markus; Baute, Sharon; Benoit, Verena; Bernauer, Julian; Berning, Carl; Berthold, Anna; ... (2022). Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America - PNAS, 119(44), e2203150119. National Academy of Sciences NAS 10.1073/pnas.2203150119
|
Text
pnas.2203150119.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (3MB) | Preview |
This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.
Item Type: |
Journal Article (Original Article) |
|---|---|
Division/Institute: |
03 Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Institute of Political Science |
UniBE Contributor: |
Auer, Daniel |
Subjects: |
300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 320 Political science 300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology |
ISSN: |
0027-8424 |
Publisher: |
National Academy of Sciences NAS |
Language: |
English |
Submitter: |
Daniel Auer |
Date Deposited: |
16 Dec 2022 10:30 |
Last Modified: |
18 Dec 2022 02:07 |
Publisher DOI: |
10.1073/pnas.2203150119 |
PubMed ID: |
36306328 |
BORIS DOI: |
10.48350/175914 |
URI: |
https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/175914 |
Actions (login required)
 |
Edit item |