所谓证据的诱惑之歌:为什么社会生态学模型的证据没有我们想象的那么有力

IF 3.2 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Social Science Research Pub Date : 2023-12-29 DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102978
Jingwen Zhong, Matthew E. Brashears
{"title":"所谓证据的诱惑之歌:为什么社会生态学模型的证据没有我们想象的那么有力","authors":"Jingwen Zhong,&nbsp;Matthew E. Brashears","doi":"10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Ecological competition models from biology have been adopted for the study of a wide variety of social entities, including workplace organizations and voluntary associations.Despite their popularity, a number of fundamental challenges to these models have not been sufficiently recognized or addressed. As a result, it’s possible that some apparently supportive evidence for ecological competition is in fact the outcome of chance or other processes. We propose a permutation test to compare observed evidence for ecological competition against an appropriate counterfactual population. To demonstrate our approach and validate our concern about the quality of evidence for ecological competition models, we apply the permutation test to one specific case. The results indicate that K-correlation values that have been taken as evidence for a well-established model, the Ecology of Affiliation, are quite common even in the\\nabsence of ecological competition. We conclude that the existing evidence for social ecology models may not be as reliable as commonly believed due to the disconnect between theory and empirical testing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48338,"journal":{"name":"Social Science Research","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 102978"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The siren song of so-called evidence: Why the evidence for social ecology models is not as strong as we think\",\"authors\":\"Jingwen Zhong,&nbsp;Matthew E. Brashears\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Ecological competition models from biology have been adopted for the study of a wide variety of social entities, including workplace organizations and voluntary associations.Despite their popularity, a number of fundamental challenges to these models have not been sufficiently recognized or addressed. As a result, it’s possible that some apparently supportive evidence for ecological competition is in fact the outcome of chance or other processes. We propose a permutation test to compare observed evidence for ecological competition against an appropriate counterfactual population. To demonstrate our approach and validate our concern about the quality of evidence for ecological competition models, we apply the permutation test to one specific case. The results indicate that K-correlation values that have been taken as evidence for a well-established model, the Ecology of Affiliation, are quite common even in the\\\\nabsence of ecological competition. We conclude that the existing evidence for social ecology models may not be as reliable as commonly believed due to the disconnect between theory and empirical testing.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science Research\",\"volume\":\"118 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102978\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X23001333\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X23001333","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物学中的生态竞争模型已被广泛用于研究各种社会实体,包括工作场所组织和志愿协会。尽管这些模型很受欢迎,但它们面临的一些根本性挑战尚未得到充分认识或解决。因此,一些表面上支持生态竞争的证据实际上可能是偶然或其他过程的结果。我们提出了一种置换检验方法,将观察到的生态竞争证据与适当的反事实种群进行比较。为了展示我们的方法并验证我们对生态竞争模型证据质量的担忧,我们将置换检验应用于一个具体案例。结果表明,即使在没有生态竞争的情况下,被认为是一个成熟模型--"亲缘生态学"--证据的 K 相关值也很常见。我们的结论是,由于理论与实证检验之间的脱节,社会生态学模型的现有证据可能并不像人们通常认为的那样可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The siren song of so-called evidence: Why the evidence for social ecology models is not as strong as we think

Ecological competition models from biology have been adopted for the study of a wide variety of social entities, including workplace organizations and voluntary associations.Despite their popularity, a number of fundamental challenges to these models have not been sufficiently recognized or addressed. As a result, it’s possible that some apparently supportive evidence for ecological competition is in fact the outcome of chance or other processes. We propose a permutation test to compare observed evidence for ecological competition against an appropriate counterfactual population. To demonstrate our approach and validate our concern about the quality of evidence for ecological competition models, we apply the permutation test to one specific case. The results indicate that K-correlation values that have been taken as evidence for a well-established model, the Ecology of Affiliation, are quite common even in the\nabsence of ecological competition. We conclude that the existing evidence for social ecology models may not be as reliable as commonly believed due to the disconnect between theory and empirical testing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
65 days
期刊介绍: Social Science Research publishes papers devoted to quantitative social science research and methodology. The journal features articles that illustrate the use of quantitative methods in the empirical solution of substantive problems, and emphasizes those concerned with issues or methods that cut across traditional disciplinary lines. Special attention is given to methods that have been used by only one particular social science discipline, but that may have application to a broader range of areas.
期刊最新文献
Do minority inclusive institutions increase electoral support for radical-right parties? Educational assortative mating and couples’ linked occupational trajectories in China Gender bias in evaluating assistant professorship applicants? Evidence from harmonized survey experiments in Germany and Italy Impact of layoffs on mortality and physical health in transitional China 1989–2015 Political and educational dynamics behind the Evangelicals’ stance against mask mandates during COVID-19 in the U.S.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1