Methodological Practice as Matters of Justice, Justification, and the Pursuit of Verisimilitude

Abstract

My wish is for ready adoption of methodological advances without fear of reviewer resistance or worry over the complexity of it all. In my article, I discuss the inherent problems and impediments to ready adoption and I offer a number of concrete suggestions to mitigate the current state of practice. My article is grounded on the idea that the intricacy of modern methods and their corresponding questions must be embraced if policy and practice are to be truly served. Inadequate findings derived from status-quo methods propagate mis-information and beget adoption of bad policy and practice—thereby undermining our obligations as stewards of social justice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special thanks to Gregory R. Hancock, Katherine E. Masyn, Annegret Hannawa, Patricia H. Hawley, my team of personnel in IMMAP, and the editors for their helpful comments and suggestions. I would also like to express my gratitude to my many colleagues, such as those in the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology, for regularly stimulating me with methodological innovation and rigor. I’d like to also acknowledge the many methodologically oriented conferences and subprograms that provide a forum for viewing and presenting methodological innovations.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Todd D. Little

Todd D. Little is founder of the annual Stats Camp (statscamp.org) and the director of the Institute for Measurement, Methodology, Analysis, and Policy (IMMAP) at Texas Tech University. He is a professor in the Research, Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistic Program of the Educational Psychology Department at TTU.