Search

The current critical situation illustrates the lack of effectiveness of the regulatory and institutional framework developed since the creation of the United Nations and, especially, since the end of the Cold War, for the prevention and resolution of conflicts and to guarantee respect for International Humanitarian Law. (IHL). The recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have so far had no tangible effects on the ground. The ICC faces a credibility crisis if the proceedings it has initiated fail to come to a conclusion, and is being attacked very harshly by several of the most important political actors on the international scene. In these circumstances, countries that truly support effective compliance with IHL should make common cause and clarify their position vis-à-vis those that do not comply and those that uphold them, in a uniform manner and without double standards. Direct humanitarian aid is very important to create appropriate conditions, but it is not the determining factor in conflict prevention and resolution. For prevention, robust political actions, preventive diplomacy, are necessary, with sufficient advance notice. Resolution requires long and deep processes, which go far beyond humanitarian action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the reliability and validity of psychology measurement practices has been called into question, as part of an ongoing reappraisal of the robustness, reproducibility, and transparency of psychological research. While useful progress has been made, to date, the majority of discussions surrounding psychology’s measurement crisis have involved technical, quantitative investigations into the validity, reliability, and statistical robustness of psychological measures. This registered report offers a seldom-heard qualitative perspective on these ongoing debates, critically exploring members of the general public’s (i.e., non-experts) lay perceptions of widely used measures in psychology. Using a combination of cognitive interviews and a think aloud study protocol, participants (n = 23) completed one of three popular psychology measures. Participants reflected on each of the measures, discussed the contents, and provided perceptions of what the measures are designed to test. Coding of the think aloud protocols showed that participants across the measures had issues in interpreting and responding to items. Thematic analysis of the cognitive interviews identified three dominant themes that each relate to lay perceptions of psychology measurements. These were: (1) participants’ grappling with attempting to ‘capture their multiple selves’ in the questionnaires, (2) participants perceiving the questionnaire method as generally ‘missing nuance and richness’ and (3) exposing the ‘hidden labour of questionnaires’. These findings are discussed in the context of psychology’s measurement reform.

In recent years, the reliability and validity of psychology measurement practices has been called into question, as part of an ongoing reappraisal of the robustness, reproducibility, and transparency of psychological research. While useful progress has been made, to date, the majority of discussions surrounding psychology's measurement crisis have involved technical, quantitative investigations into the validity, reliability, and statistical robustness of psychological measures. This registered report offers a seldom-heard qualitative perspective on these ongoing debates, critically exploring members of the general public's (i.e., non-experts) lay perceptions of widely used measures in psychology. Using a combination of cognitive interviews and a think aloud study protocol, participants (n = 23) completed one of three popular psychology measures. Participants reflected on each of the measures, discussed the contents, and provided perceptions of what the measures are designed to test. Coding of the think aloud protocols showed that participants across the measures had issues in interpreting and responding to items. Thematic analysis of the cognitive interviews identified three dominant themes that each relate to lay perceptions of psychology measurements. These were: (1) participants' grappling with attempting to 'capture their multiple selves' in the questionnaires, (2) participants perceiving the questionnaire method as generally 'missing nuance and richness' and (3) exposing the 'hidden labour of questionnaires'. These findings are discussed in the context of psychology's measurement reform. Highlights: In recent years, there have been concerns surrounding the robustness, reliability, and validity of psychological measurement practices. This study uses cognitive interviews and a think-aloud protocol with lay (i.e., non-expert) people to explore public perceptions of popular psychology measures. Generally, lay people experience issues with completing some of psychology's most popular measures and find them to lack nuance. These results demonstrate the value of adopting qualitative methods in the reappraisal of psychology's measurement crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical studies in agricultural economics usually involve policy implications. In many cases, such studies rely on proprietary or confidential data that cannot be published along with the article, challenging the replicability and credibility of the results. To overcome this problem, the use of synthetic data—that is, data that do not contain a single unit of the original data—has been proposed. In this note, we illustrate the utility of synthetic data generation methods for replication purposes using a range of methods from agricultural production analysis. More specifically, we compare input elasticities and technical efficiency scores based on different farm‐level production data between original data and synthetic data. We generate synthetic data using a non‐parametric method of classification and regression trees (CART) and parametric linear regressions. We find synthetic data result in elasticities and technical efficiency distributions that are very similar to the original data, especially when generated with CART, and conclude with implications for the research community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are APA journal articles getting longer or shorter over time? Earlier work that examined changes over time in article length in 24 APA journals (1986–2005) found that pages per article increased over time for the average journal, peaking around 2001, and then plateaued thereafter. But have these trends continued during the past 14 years? The current research extends prior work by adding additional years (1986–2019) and four additional journals (28 journals, 34 years, and 865 total observations). Multilevel growth curve analyses revealed a cubic effect of time on average article length, showing an increase in the 1980s and 1990s, a plateau or slight decline in the 2000s, and a slight increase again in the 2010s. Journal impact factors (JIFs) moderated linear growth over time; journals with higher JIFs had larger linear increases in article length. Exploratory multilevel interrupted time-series analyses suggested that the average linear increase in pages per article over time was greater after the start of psychology's credibility crisis (2012–2019) than before it (1986–2011), which may relate to an increased emphasis on reporting details and transparency. We discuss implications for article length in the contexts of publishing and psychology's ongoing credibility crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We empirically reveal how environmental experts interpret the objectivity norm while navigating the authority paradox. The paradox here is that while there is a need for objective scientific advice, such advice is only to be acquired from experts and expert agencies whose objectivity and, hence, authority are contested. Viewed through the lens of practice, we identify what practitioners at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency understand by objectivity. Using this paradigmatic case, we show how practitioners renegotiate the meaning of objectivity while seeking to engage with new policy actors and extended peers in an independent, rigorous and legitimate manner. Successfully navigating the authority paradox is related to skilfully representing and adapting to various meanings of objectivity. Experts and experts agencies accordingly need reflexive skills to recognise which meanings of objectivity they ascribe to and which ones are invoked in public debates. Environmental experts who are able to loosely connect diverse objectivity conceptions are more likely considered as trustworthy and authoritative partners in environmental science-policy interfaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]