LFU:online

Die Studierenden verstehen die gängigen Forschungsmethoden, deren Ansätze, Potentiale, wie diese in der Praxis realisiert werden und welche Probleme es zu überwinden gilt.

Anhand realer Forschungsartikel werden die gängigen Forschungsmethoden (inkl. Erhebungs- und Auswertungsmethoden) diskutiert. Darüber hinaus wird die komplexe Integration (Reviews, Metaanalysen) von wissenschaftlichen Arbeiten erörtert.

Vortrag, Übungen, Diskussionen

Referate, Übungen, Abschlussprüfung

Basisliteratur (Pflicht!)

Cumming, G. (2014). The New Statistics: Why and How. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7-29. doi: 10.1177/0956797613504966

Fanelli, D. (2009). How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), 1-11.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med, 2(8), 696-701.

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. doi: 10.1177/0956797611430953

Levine, T. R., Weber, R., Hullett, C., Park, H. S., & Lindsey, L. L. M. (2008). A Critical Assessment of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Quantitative Communication Research. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 171-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00317.x

Levine, T. R., Weber, R., Park, H. S., & Hullett, C. R. (2008). A Communication Researchers’ Guide to Null Hypothesis Significance Testing and Alternatives. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 188-209. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00318.x

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Schimmack, U. (2012). The Ironic Effect of Significant Results on the Credibility of Multiple-Study Articles. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 551-566. doi: 10.1037/a0029487

Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 309-316. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.309. Document Type: journal.Citation. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.309.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359-1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632