ScienceGuardians hosts academic institutions too
Secure Environment: Verified contributors only, ensuring meaningful and responsible discussions. Members can stay anonymous while verified, ensuring legitimacy and accountability.
Combatting Misconduct: A fortress against anonymous intimidation and coordinated campaigns, fostering evidence-based dialogue and protecting the academic community.
Resources and Training: Access classified content, participate in enlightening debates, and stay at the forefront of ethical practices.
Hack-Proof Platform: Your privacy is paramount. The identity information of users choosing to remain anonymous is securely stored offline.
Our Commitment:
Integrity and Accountability: Every account verified for credible and responsible engagement.
Inclusivity and Fairness: A platform where all voices in the scientific community are respected.
Support and Collaboration: Helping resolve issues delicately and constructively.
Participant
Your argument for qualitative methods reshaping environmental psychology relies on just four hand-picked studies. How can such a narrow, selective sample support such sweeping claims about the field’s future? Isn’t there a risk that you’re replacing one methodological bias with another by presenting qualitative research through an overly curated lens?
You say you do narrative review, yes? You pick only four articles to show all the power of qualitative methods. But this is very small number, no? How you can be sure these four are the best examples, and not just the ones that fit what you already believe? Maybe you miss many other good, or maybe better, qualitative studies that could show different things, or even problems with qualitative methods.
Also, you say you want more diversity in field, but your four articles all from Western countries; Norway, UK, Canada. Where are the studies from Asia, Africa, Global South? If you want to show how qualitative research can bring more voices, why your own selection of examples is not very diverse? This seems like a contradiction.
Maybe this small, not-diverse sample make your whole argument weak? How we can trust your conclusion about “future of environmental psychology” if it is based on such a narrow look? Please, can you explain your thinking for choosing only these four?