There has been growing concern about the integrity of science. Faith in science by the general public has been declining as they see topic after topic become politicized in the media. Scientists themselves have begun questioning common practices, which has led to the open science movement to make our methods more transparent. Recently Logan Steele and I published a commentary in SIOP‘s Industrial and Organizational Psychology about our concern that sometimes people mix science and activism, often based on political ideology. This not only adds bias into the scientific process, but it undermines credibility during a time of increasing science skepticism. In other words activism is a deterrent to good science.
The Scientific Process
Science is an approach to knowledge that is based on preplanned and standardized procedures that is designed to remove subjective bias as much as possible. In a properly conducted experiment, for example, we collect data under conditions that treats every possible outcome equally. If we want to see if a new drug is effective, for example, we conduct a trial in which we randomly assign patients to receive that drug or a placebo (a sugar pill). Using double blind procedures, neither the patient nor the person providing the drug knows which pill the patient receives. If done properly by following the clinical trial protocol, bias is minimized.
Sometimes protocols break down when people insert their personal beliefs and preferences into an investigation. Early in my career I led a clinical trial of a new mental health treatment. The protocol assigned every-other patient to be sent to one of two facilities to see which was more effective. This was an important study because, similar to drug trials, we were comparing a new kind of treatment provided at one facility to standard treatment at the other. Unfortunately the study was compromised because the clinical staff who were responsible for patient intake inserted their personal beliefs into the study. They decided to disregard the protocol and send only those patients who they believed would most benefit from the new treatment to that facility. This completely undermined the study, making the findings meaningless. Luckily we discovered what they were doing and were able to make a course correction.
Activism Is a Deterrent to Good Science
As Logan and I explained in our paper, activism and science are incompatible. Activism is about doing your best to promote a particular solution to a social problem, with many activists subscribing to a particular political point of view. An activist is not a scientist wanting to understand a particular phenomenon, nor should they be. Activists are people with an agenda to change the world in a way they believe will be of benefit to society. Their goal is not a search for truth, but rather to impact policy at the government, corporate, or personal levels. This contrasts with a scientist whose studies must be designed to minimize subjectivity and bias, including political bias, as much as possible. To do otherwise risks undermining the integrity and credibility of science. Integrity is undermined when personal biases and preferences creep into the investigation, as happened in our mental health treatment study. Credibility is compromised when consumers of research realize that there is an activist agenda underlying research.
Choose One or the Other
The motives of activists and scientists are different and incompatible. Activism is a form of political action where activists are advocating to pass a new law or fund a particular program to solve a social problem. An activist might make use of science to bolster an argument, but the person advocating should not be the same person doing the research. People would rightly be skeptical of a study done by an activist because of a concern about objectivity, just as they would be skeptical of a company’s own study showing their product is superior to the competition. Scientists on the other hand want to know the truth. What are the intended and unintended consequences of passing a law or funding a program? They do their best to remain neutral and report findings regardless of study outcome. An activist-scientist has a conflict of interest. It is hard to remain a neutral scientist while advocating for a particular point of view. Activists might make use of science to inform the solutions they propose, but that science should be done by someone else. When they are mixed, activism is a deterrent to good science.
Image generated by DALL-E 4.0. Prompt: Two people standing back to back, both deep in thought. One has a lab coat on. The other is dressed in a t-shirt and jeans.
SUBSCRIBE TO PAUL’S BLOG: Enter your e-mail and click SUBSCRIBE
Hi Paul, your blog post raises an interesting question about the distinction made between science and activism, but I think I disagree with your central premise, even though I haven’t read the full IOP article. If I/O psychologists conduct research with the explicit goal of improving workplace policies and practices, doesn’t that inherently make us “activists” by your definition? How do you distinguish between research aimed at informing policy and activism, particularly in applied fields like I/O psychology where improving organizational practices is a core purpose of our work?
Hi Ben:
There can be a fine line between disseminating our results and advocating. As a consultant I might be asked about employee well-being. I would explain that research has identified relevant workplace factors and how they might apply them. But I don’t tell them what they have to be doing or criticize them for how they treat their employees. That’s when I cross the line of being a scientist who provides a balanced explanation of what we currently know (or think we know), or being a person with an agenda that I am pushing on others. That’s not to say no one should be an activist or advocate. It is just when you do that, you risk losing your objectivity and credibility.
Hi Paul, I definitely see your argument for more political & controversial topics on remaining an impartial scientist, but I also see Ben’s argument as an I/O practitioner. I certainly make a conscious effort to be a bridge between the science-practice gap whenever possible. I think there are times when being an advocate/activist bolsters our credibility – for example, making evidence-based recommendations for enhancing team performance rather than a two-hour MBTI workshop, or implementing valid selection assessments over Buzzfeed-type “Hogwarts house” personality types.
I think being a subject matter expert in the I/O science and using our knowledge and skillsets to drive changes at the organization-level or person-level is part of our responsibility as scientist-practitioners. If we’re not the people to push back against these practices, then who’s going to do it?