Kris Hardies
@krishardies.bsky.social
Scientist, accounting, philosophy of science
Thanks for sharing! Interesting piece.
November 7, 2025 at 6:56 PM
Thanks for sharing! Interesting piece.
Do you perhaps have a link to any such efforts? Or even better, critical discussions of such efforts?
Such repositories likely being a bad idea was 99% my motivation of writing the commentary :-) — "go look for a theory" (in psy/econ) is already some senior researchers' advice in this field.
Such repositories likely being a bad idea was 99% my motivation of writing the commentary :-) — "go look for a theory" (in psy/econ) is already some senior researchers' advice in this field.
November 7, 2025 at 6:48 PM
Do you perhaps have a link to any such efforts? Or even better, critical discussions of such efforts?
Such repositories likely being a bad idea was 99% my motivation of writing the commentary :-) — "go look for a theory" (in psy/econ) is already some senior researchers' advice in this field.
Such repositories likely being a bad idea was 99% my motivation of writing the commentary :-) — "go look for a theory" (in psy/econ) is already some senior researchers' advice in this field.
Yeah, I agree. I also have no problem of pushing back against reviewers. Although in this case, it seems quite clear I'll need to do something to get it published. Taking it to a different journal will only make it harder. As a preprint it will have very little impact. Dilemma's...
November 7, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Yeah, I agree. I also have no problem of pushing back against reviewers. Although in this case, it seems quite clear I'll need to do something to get it published. Taking it to a different journal will only make it harder. As a preprint it will have very little impact. Dilemma's...
They added that after I shared a draft of my commentary with them. It's better than nothing – ironically, it makes publication of the commentary harder. And we know how people are – "go look for a theory" in recent psy/econ papers is already advice given by some senior researchers in this field.
November 7, 2025 at 6:39 PM
They added that after I shared a draft of my commentary with them. It's better than nothing – ironically, it makes publication of the commentary harder. And we know how people are – "go look for a theory" in recent psy/econ papers is already advice given by some senior researchers in this field.
De combinatie lage kost voor de student en zeer brede toegang is gewoon vreemd (problematisch). HO in Scandinavië is gratis voor student maar wel (erg) selectief. Vgl. bijv. deze cijfers voor Zweden met VL waar bijna iedereen met diploma secundair aan HO start.
More upper-secondary school graduates chose higher education studies during the pandemic
The proportion of those who started higher education studies within one year increased considerably among pupils who graduated from a higher education preparatory upper secondary programme in spring 2...
www.scb.se
October 30, 2025 at 12:09 PM
De combinatie lage kost voor de student en zeer brede toegang is gewoon vreemd (problematisch). HO in Scandinavië is gratis voor student maar wel (erg) selectief. Vgl. bijv. deze cijfers voor Zweden met VL waar bijna iedereen met diploma secundair aan HO start.
Any thoughts, suggestions, feedback, help, .... very much appreciated!
@dingdingpeng.the100.ci @lakens.bsky.social @replicationindex.com @psych.peercommunityin.org @zpid.bsky.social @rickcarlsson.bsky.social @jamessteeleii.bsky.social @simine.com @eikofried.bsky.social
Thanks for sharing!
@dingdingpeng.the100.ci @lakens.bsky.social @replicationindex.com @psych.peercommunityin.org @zpid.bsky.social @rickcarlsson.bsky.social @jamessteeleii.bsky.social @simine.com @eikofried.bsky.social
Thanks for sharing!
October 30, 2025 at 10:33 AM
Any thoughts, suggestions, feedback, help, .... very much appreciated!
@dingdingpeng.the100.ci @lakens.bsky.social @replicationindex.com @psych.peercommunityin.org @zpid.bsky.social @rickcarlsson.bsky.social @jamessteeleii.bsky.social @simine.com @eikofried.bsky.social
Thanks for sharing!
@dingdingpeng.the100.ci @lakens.bsky.social @replicationindex.com @psych.peercommunityin.org @zpid.bsky.social @rickcarlsson.bsky.social @jamessteeleii.bsky.social @simine.com @eikofried.bsky.social
Thanks for sharing!
Another approach that I think could be useful is to run a survey among psychologists and have them evaluate the extent to which they believe that some of these theories are still taken seriously within their community or not.
This is easier said than done, especially for an outsider.
This is easier said than done, especially for an outsider.
October 30, 2025 at 10:33 AM
Another approach that I think could be useful is to run a survey among psychologists and have them evaluate the extent to which they believe that some of these theories are still taken seriously within their community or not.
This is easier said than done, especially for an outsider.
This is easier said than done, especially for an outsider.
I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to go about this!
In some cases, I guess there is sufficient evidence that has empirically discredited a specific theory ("terror management theory", for instance, I think).
So, if you know of such cases and can point me to useful references, please do!
In some cases, I guess there is sufficient evidence that has empirically discredited a specific theory ("terror management theory", for instance, I think).
So, if you know of such cases and can point me to useful references, please do!
October 30, 2025 at 10:33 AM
I'd appreciate any suggestions on how to go about this!
In some cases, I guess there is sufficient evidence that has empirically discredited a specific theory ("terror management theory", for instance, I think).
So, if you know of such cases and can point me to useful references, please do!
In some cases, I guess there is sufficient evidence that has empirically discredited a specific theory ("terror management theory", for instance, I think).
So, if you know of such cases and can point me to useful references, please do!
I received two thoughtful reviews and an R&R -- commentaries are not a thing in our field, so they get the same treatment as any other paper. One suggested way to increase the "contribution" of my commentary is to offer more extensive vetting of these theories (i.e. help identify "Zombie" theories).
October 30, 2025 at 10:33 AM
I received two thoughtful reviews and an R&R -- commentaries are not a thing in our field, so they get the same treatment as any other paper. One suggested way to increase the "contribution" of my commentary is to offer more extensive vetting of these theories (i.e. help identify "Zombie" theories).
(*) Yes, yes, I know, some of the entries in the repository aren't even theories, but effects/phenomena. You don't have to tell me!
October 30, 2025 at 10:33 AM
(*) Yes, yes, I know, some of the entries in the repository aren't even theories, but effects/phenomena. You don't have to tell me!
Some fields, like mine (accounting), look to fields like psychology for theoretical guidance. Accompanying a conceptual paper, these authors compiled this theory repository.
I don't think the repository will do our field any good, so I wrote a commentary: docs.google.com/document/d/1...
I don't think the repository will do our field any good, so I wrote a commentary: docs.google.com/document/d/1...
The assurance theory repository_A commentary_May 2025.docx
Some Theories Are Just Better: A Comment on Baaske, Carrillo, Gaynor, and Schmidt (2025) ABSTRACT: Baaske, Carrillo, Gaynor, and Schmidt (2025) present a conceptual framework of the assurance ecosyst...
docs.google.com
October 30, 2025 at 10:33 AM
Some fields, like mine (accounting), look to fields like psychology for theoretical guidance. Accompanying a conceptual paper, these authors compiled this theory repository.
I don't think the repository will do our field any good, so I wrote a commentary: docs.google.com/document/d/1...
I don't think the repository will do our field any good, so I wrote a commentary: docs.google.com/document/d/1...
My bad! I meant it as support for your argument(s) – even if a scientific community (re)discovers something that was already known in another community, that's still knowledge.
October 27, 2025 at 11:01 PM
My bad! I meant it as support for your argument(s) – even if a scientific community (re)discovers something that was already known in another community, that's still knowledge.
Agree with all you're saying here, but I do understand it a bit when it's directed at economists – even though other disciplines should probably update their stereotypes about ours.
You'll probably recognize the text in the picture ... we create knowlegde when we give it to more people!
You'll probably recognize the text in the picture ... we create knowlegde when we give it to more people!
October 27, 2025 at 5:53 PM
Agree with all you're saying here, but I do understand it a bit when it's directed at economists – even though other disciplines should probably update their stereotypes about ours.
You'll probably recognize the text in the picture ... we create knowlegde when we give it to more people!
You'll probably recognize the text in the picture ... we create knowlegde when we give it to more people!
And all while "laypeople mistake correlation for causation with large Ns" seems just as interesting (and closer to the actual evidence here – ignoring any potential data quality issues because I didn't see any screening or quality control).
October 25, 2025 at 10:18 AM
And all while "laypeople mistake correlation for causation with large Ns" seems just as interesting (and closer to the actual evidence here – ignoring any potential data quality issues because I didn't see any screening or quality control).
Something like these?
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
I don't know of any that have looked at it recently, but concerns over data quality have surely increased.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
I don't know of any that have looked at it recently, but concerns over data quality have surely increased.
Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research
We examine key aspects of data quality for online behavioral research between selected platforms (Amazon Mechanical Turk, CloudResearch, and Prolific) and panels (Qualtrics and Dynata). To identify the key aspects of data quality, we first engaged ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
October 25, 2025 at 10:13 AM
Something like these?
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
I don't know of any that have looked at it recently, but concerns over data quality have surely increased.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
I don't know of any that have looked at it recently, but concerns over data quality have surely increased.
Neither the paper nor the preregistration documents seem to mention anything about it ... that's, euhm, a bit weird.
October 25, 2025 at 10:04 AM
Neither the paper nor the preregistration documents seem to mention anything about it ... that's, euhm, a bit weird.
Quite a lot of such research exists; just some examples:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
link.springer.com/article/10.3...
I'd expect quite a lot of screening of participants [I think anyone using these sort of platforms understands the necessity of doing so]. Maybe not clearly reported?
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
link.springer.com/article/10.3...
I'd expect quite a lot of screening of participants [I think anyone using these sort of platforms understands the necessity of doing so]. Maybe not clearly reported?
Sage Journals: Discover world-class research
Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
journals.sagepub.com
October 25, 2025 at 9:53 AM
Quite a lot of such research exists; just some examples:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
link.springer.com/article/10.3...
I'd expect quite a lot of screening of participants [I think anyone using these sort of platforms understands the necessity of doing so]. Maybe not clearly reported?
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
link.springer.com/article/10.3...
I'd expect quite a lot of screening of participants [I think anyone using these sort of platforms understands the necessity of doing so]. Maybe not clearly reported?
And not really disagreeing with anything else, but I guess I'm thinking that it doesn't seem weird to me that we try to "close" things sooner nowadays than in the past given that science has become a much bigger (faster) enterprise. But yeh, often prematurely so.
October 21, 2025 at 9:45 AM
And not really disagreeing with anything else, but I guess I'm thinking that it doesn't seem weird to me that we try to "close" things sooner nowadays than in the past given that science has become a much bigger (faster) enterprise. But yeh, often prematurely so.
100% agree with the last point; the last section of an editorial I just wrote is titled "Science is hard" 😂
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Accounting Open — Shaping the future of accounting research: Less, better, more interesting
www.sciencedirect.com
October 21, 2025 at 9:42 AM
100% agree with the last point; the last section of an editorial I just wrote is titled "Science is hard" 😂
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Dat soort regels scheert dan natuurlijk wel weer alle domeinen (nodeloos) over dezelfde kam. In mijn domein (accounting) heeft de UGent enkele jaren geleden om die reden een ZAP-vacature niet ingevuld gekregen. En veel kans dat het dit jaar opnieuw zo zal zijn. Gelukkig is die regel er bij ons niet.
October 20, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Dat soort regels scheert dan natuurlijk wel weer alle domeinen (nodeloos) over dezelfde kam. In mijn domein (accounting) heeft de UGent enkele jaren geleden om die reden een ZAP-vacature niet ingevuld gekregen. En veel kans dat het dit jaar opnieuw zo zal zijn. Gelukkig is die regel er bij ons niet.
Thanks for sharing. I love Chang's work. One thing I've wondered about though – triggered more by your comments than Chang's work – is how transposable these historical accounts are to today's research (environment). Research looks quite different now than, say, 200y ago. Any thoughts on this?
October 18, 2025 at 10:45 AM
Thanks for sharing. I love Chang's work. One thing I've wondered about though – triggered more by your comments than Chang's work – is how transposable these historical accounts are to today's research (environment). Research looks quite different now than, say, 200y ago. Any thoughts on this?