Stam H J, Radtke H L, Lubek I
Department of Psychology at the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
J Hist Behav Sci. 2000 Autumn;36(4):365-82. doi: 10.1002/1520-6696(200023)36:4<365::aid-jhbs5>3.0.co;2-s.
A textual analysis of post-World War II social psychology methodology manuals and handbook chapters on "methods" indicates that the introduction of the experimental method was enforced and gradually strengthened through the use of scientific rhetoric and the minimization of alternative research strategies. As a consequence, by the 1960s experimentation had become such an established identifying feature of psychological social psychology that the acceptability of ideas in the field came to depend largely on the ability of authors to couch them in the language of the experiment. Text writers continually shored up the defenses of scientific legitimacy and denigrated all other types of argument. We explore three sources of tension or strains evident as contradictions in these texts: (1) between a rational experimenter's carefully following prescribed, logic-generated scientific practices and the investigator's artfully or intuitively designing research; (2) between social psychologists' missionary activities of proselytizing the experiment as the primary research method and social psychologists' apologies and insecurities expressed about using experiments; and (3) between the treatment of participants as docile and submissive versus portraying them as underhanded and damaging to the outcome of the research. In addition, we briefly reexamine the strain (4) between sober scientific experimentation and a playful "fun and games" approach to experimentation (Lubek & Stam, 1995).
对二战后社会心理学方法论手册以及关于“方法”的手册章节进行文本分析表明，实验方法的引入是通过科学修辞的运用以及对其他研究策略的最小化处理得以强化并逐渐巩固的。结果，到20世纪60年代，实验已成为社会心理学如此既定的标志性特征，以至于该领域观念的可接受性在很大程度上取决于作者能否用实验语言来阐述这些观念。教科书作者不断维护科学合法性的防线，并诋毁所有其他类型的论证。我们探究了在这些文本中明显表现为矛盾的三种紧张或冲突来源：（1）理性实验者严格遵循规定的、逻辑生成的科学实践与研究者巧妙或直观地设计研究之间的矛盾；（2）社会心理学家将实验作为主要研究方法进行传教式活动与社会心理学家对使用实验所表达的歉意和不安全感之间的矛盾；（3）将参与者视为温顺顺从与将他们描绘为对研究结果有阴险破坏作用之间的矛盾。此外，我们简要重新审视了严肃的科学实验与有趣的“游戏化”实验方法（卢贝克和斯坦姆，1995）之间的冲突（4）。
