In 1942, Robert Merton proposed four fundamental norms for scientific communities, establishing key principles that psychology, as a scientific discipline, should uphold. These norms are universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organised scepticism.
Merton’s scientific norms demonstrate what scientists and practitioners ‘ought’ to seek to do within research practice.
These norms are said to ‘bind’ the man of science, tying him to the values that matter the most.
Rehabilitation, rooted in the sciences of psychology, biology, and related fields, should align with these scientific norms to uphold the rigor and credibility of its research practices.
Universalism
The norm of universalism details that scientific findings should be evaluated according to objective criteria, without regards for the individual scientist’s identity.
Everyone should be able to contribute to science, working towards the shared goal of building a reliable body of knowledge.
Rehabilitation and universalism
In rehabilitation, this principle means creating opportunities for everyone to contribute to research, whether they are seasoned experts or new entrants with fresh perspectives.
Encouraging new researchers is vital for the growth of the field, fostering innovation and ensuring that diverse voices shape the evidence base.
Rehabilitation encompasses a broad range of professionals- physiotherapists, occupational therapists, case managers, lawyers, and more, and involving all these roles in research enriches the discipline.
This diversity ensures that findings reflect the varied experiences and insights of those working in and benefiting from rehabilitation, ultimately leading to more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge.
Communism
The notion of communism in science is not related to the political left, rather that scientific findings are the product of collective activity and should be available to all members of a scientific community. Science should be open source, not closed access.
Rehabilitation and communism
In rehabilitation, this principle highlights the importance of openly sharing research to advance the discipline as a whole, ultimately improving patient outcomes.
When findings are siloed or kept behind barriers, progress stalls, and opportunities to enhance care are missed.
Embracing communism in rehabilitation research also means fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration, bringing together professionals to co-produce knowledge.
When research is conducted with openness and inclusivity, its dissemination reflects these values, ensuring that insights are widely shared and effectively implemented across the field.
Disinterestedness
Disinterestedness presents that a scientist’s work should not be influenced by personal attitudes, or motivated by self-interest (apart from the motive for recognition).
This isn’t to say that one should be practicing science in an altruistic way, as wanting recognition is a normal thing. However, science should not be motivated by self-interest, particularly that of putting ‘one over’ on other scientists.
Rehabilitation and disinterestedness
In rehabilitation research, this principle underscores the importance of prioritising the advancement of the discipline and the betterment of patient care over personal gains or competitive motives.
While recognition for contributions is a reasonable incentive, the primary motivator for rehabilitation researchers should be the potential to improve practices, outcomes, and experiences for patients.
By focusing on these goals, the field can ensure that its research remains aligned with the collective mission of enhancing rehabilitation as a whole, rather than serving individual agendas.
Organised scepticism
Scientific findings should be open to current or future critical scrutiny. This value balances that of universalism.
Though everyone can contribute, everyone should also be held to the same scrutiny to see if their science holds up.
Rehabilitation and organised scepticism
In rehabilitation research, this principle highlights the importance of rigorous validation and peer review processes to maintain the highest standards of evidence.
While universalism ensures that everyone can contribute to research, organised scepticism ensures that all contributions are held to the same level of scrutiny.
This continuous evaluation is essential, especially as new advancements may render previous findings outdated.
Embracing organised scepticism means being willing to adapt and evolve with the evidence, ensuring that rehabilitation practices are always informed by the most reliable and up-to-date research, ultimately benefiting patients and improving outcomes.
Can we call ourselves scientists?
According to Merton, aligning our values with the norms he outlined ensures that rehabilitation research can be regarded as truly scientific.
Ferguson (2016) elaborates on this by discussing the factors that deviate psychological research from adhering to scientific principles:
“We think of ourselves as disinterested, our findings immutable because they’ve gone through peer-review, and consider our fields open to correction, even as we personally resist any correction to our own published research … too often, academic psychology has created a veneer rather than reality of science”
Violating the norm of disinterestedness and ignoring organised scepticism past peer review are highlighted as key factors diverting research from scientific principles.
Therefore, revisiting the foundational norms that define scientific rigor in rehabilitation research is essential to ensure we remain aligned with these principles and avoid straying from them.
Article credit
Sarah Lake, Research Assistant- Kompass. sarahlake@kompass.health
