Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Thomas Teo

Statistics, Overview

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_661

Introduction

Quantitative research is the dominant paradigm in psychology and, thus, the primary way the discipline judges “truth” and creates new knowledge. Like any privileged standpoint, the use of aggregated numbers to understand individual psychological processes, attitudes, or behaviors is rarely questioned. Debates and critiques about statistics are often held at the level of what techniques are most appropriate to use technically and mathematically. Rarely are theoretical discussions had about why, when, or even if quantification can accurately model human experience. Thus, while psychology students get trained in statistics, often very sophisticated statistics, they are seldom offered an opportunity to approach the subject from a critical perspective; nevertheless, a critical quantitative tradition does exist in the social sciences.

Definition

Though “critical statistics” is an uncommon topic in psychology, the occasional article, chapter, or book has accumulated over the...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bulmer, M., Bales, K., & Sklar, K. K. (Eds.). (2001). The social survey in historical perspective (1880–1940). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p<.05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997–1003.Google Scholar
  3. Danzinger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Desrosieres, A. (1999). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning. Paris, France: La Decouverte. (Original work published 1993).Google Scholar
  5. Dorling, D., & Simpson, S. (1999). Statistics in society: The arithmetic of politics. London, England: Arnold Press.Google Scholar
  6. Freedman, D. A. (2010). Statistical models and causal inference: A dialogue with the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Griffiths, D., Irvine, J., & Miles, I. (1989). Social statistics: Towards a radical science. In J. Irvine, I, Miles, & J. Evans (Eds.), Demystifying social statistics. London, England: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hoaglin, D. C. (2003). John W. Tukey and data analysis. Statistical Science, 18(3), 311–318.Google Scholar
  9. Igo, S. E. (2007). The averaged American: Surveys, citizens, and the making of a mass public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lieberson, S. (1985). Making it count: The improvement of social research and theory. London, England: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Morrison, D. E., & Henkel, R. E. (Eds.). (1970). The significance test controversy. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  13. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rosenbaum, P. J., & Valsiner, J. (2011). The un-making of a method: From rating scales to the study of psychological processes. Theory & Psychology, 21(2), 47–65.Google Scholar
  15. Rozeboom, W. W. (1997). Good science is abductive, not hypothetico-deductive. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 335–392). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Saetnam, A. R., Lomell, H. M., & Hammer, S. (2010). The mutual construction of statistics and society. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Stage, F. K. (2007). Moving from probabilities to possibilities: Tasks for quantitative criticalists. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007: 95–100.Google Scholar
  18. Stigler, S. M. (1999). Statistics on the table: The history of statistical concepts and methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Thomas, R. (2001). Radstats and participatory democracy. Radical Statistics, 76, 66–73.Google Scholar
  20. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Tukey, J. W. (1980). We need both exploratory and confirmatory. The American Statistician, 34(1), 23–25.Google Scholar
  22. Yu, C. H. (2006). philosophical foundations of quantitative research methodology. NewYork, NY: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Online Resources

  1. Online resources that specifically engage in and promote critical statistics are few. The three most prominent include:Google Scholar
  2. Radical Statistics Group. http://www.radstats.org.uk/
  3. Public Science Project. http://www.publicscienceproject.org/
  4. DataCrítica: International Journal of Critical Statistics. http://datacritica.info/
  5. In addition, the following are online resources that do not exclusively promote all the values of critical statistics but often include articles that are related:Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Jay College, The City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA