Replication is one of the most important tools for the verification of facts within the empirical sciences. A detailed examination of the notion of replication reveals that there are many different meanings to this concept and the relevant procedures, but hardly any systematic literature. This paper analyzes the concept of replication from a theoretical point of view. It demonstrates that the theoretical demands are scarcely met in everyday work within the social sciences. Some demands are just not feasible, whereas others are constricted by restrictions relating to publication. A new classification scheme based on a functional approach that distinguishes between different types of replication is proposed. Next, it will be argued that replication addresses the important connection between existing and new knowledge. To do so it has to be applied explicitly and systematically. The paper ends with a description of procedures how this could be done and a set of recommendations how to handle the concept of replication in the future to exploit its potential to the full.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
BeloffJ. (1985). Research strategies for dealing with unstable phenomena. In ShapinB. & ColyL., The repeatability problem in parapsychology (pp. 1–14). New York: The Parapsychology Foundation.
3.
BemD. J., & HonortonC. (1994). Does PSI exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4–18.
4.
BraudeS. E. (1979). ESP and psychokinesis. A philosophical examination. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
5.
CampbellD. T., & FiskeD. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-mulitmethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
6.
ChervinskayaK. R., & WassermanE. L. (2000). Some methodological aspects of tacit knowledge elicitation. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 12, 43–55.
7.
CollinsH., & PinchT. (1993). The golem. What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CollinsH. M. (1985). Changing order. London: Sage.
9.
ColwellJ., SchröderS., & SladenD. (2000). The ability to detect unseen staring: A literature review and empirical tests. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 71–85.
10.
CookT. D. (1990). Rersearch methodology: Strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data. In SechrestL., PerrinE., & BunkerJ., US Department of health and human services (pp. 9–30). Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
11.
DavisB. M. (1971). That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, 309–344.
12.
De AngelisC., DrazenJ. M., FrizelleF. A., HaugC., HoeyJ., HortonR., (2004). Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 1250–1251.
13.
DilworthC. (1996). The metaphysics of science. An account of modern science in terms of principles, laws and theories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
14.
DowdE. T. (2000). Memory process in psychotherapy: Implications for integration. (Unpublished).
15.
EdgeH. (1985). The problem is not replication. In ShapinB. & ColyL., The repeatability problem in parapsychology (pp. 53–64). New York: The Parapsychology Foundation.
16.
GouldJ., & KolbW. L. (1964). A dictionary of the social sciences. London: Tavistock Publications.
17.
GreenwaldA. G. (1978). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1–20.
18.
HendrickC. (1991). Replication, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are they important? In NeuliepJ. W., Replication research in the social sciences (pp. 41–49). Newbury Park: Sage.
19.
HuntK. (1975). Do we really need more replications?Psychological Reports, 36, 587–593.
20.
KeppelG. (1982). Design and analysis. A researcher's handbook (Second edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
KerrN. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.
22.
LindsayR. M., & EhrenbergA. S. C. (1993). the design of replicated studies. The American Statistician, 47, 217–228.
23.
LykkenD. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.
24.
MaddenC. S., EasleyR. W., & DunnM. G. (1995). How journal editors view replication research. Journal of Advertising, 24, 78–87.
25.
MahoneyM. J. (1985). Open exchange and epistemic process. American Psychologist, 40, 29–39.
26.
NeuliepJ. W., & CrandallR. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 85–90.
27.
NeuliepJ. W., & CrandallR. (1993). Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 21–29.
28.
PopperK. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
29.
RadderH. (1992). Experimental reproducibility and the experimenters’ regress. In HullD., ForbesM., & OkruhlikK., Proceedings of the 1992 biennal meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 63–73). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
30.
RadderH. (1996). In and about the world. Philosophical studies of science and technology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
31.
RaoK. R. (1981). On the question of replication. Journal of Parapsychology, 45, 311–320.
32.
RosenthalR. (1991). Replication in behavioral research. In NeuliepJ. W., Replication research in the social sciences (pp. 1–39). Newbury Park: Sage.
33.
RosenthalR., & FodeK. L. (1963). The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science, 8, 183–189.
34.
RosenthalR., & RubinD. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 377–415.
35.
SalmonW. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
SargentC. L. (1981). The repeatability of significance and the significance of repeatability. European Journal of Parapsychology, 3, 423–433.
37.
SchacterD. L. (2000). Wir sind Erinnerung. Gedächtnis und Persönlichkeit. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. (Original erschienen 1996: Searching for Memory. The Brain, the Mind, and the Past).
38.
SchrammM. (1998). Experiment im Altertum und Mittelalter. [Experiment in antiquity and mediveal times.] In HeidelbergerM. & SteinleF., Experimental essays: Versuche zum experiment (pp. 34–67). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
39.
SchweizerK. (1989). Eine Analyse der Konzepte, Bedingungen und Zielsetzungen von Replikationen. [An analysis of concepts, conditions and aims of replications.] Archiv für Psychologie, 141, 85–97.
40.
ShadishW. R. (1995). The logic of generalization: Five principles common to experiments and ethnographies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 419–428.
41.
ShapinS., & SchafferS. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
SternbergR. J. (1995). Theory and measurement of tacit knowledge as a part of practical intelligence. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 203, 319–334.
43.
WalachH., & RömerH. (2000). Complementarity is a useful concept for consciousness studies. A Reminder. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 21, 221–232.
44.
WalachH., & SchmidtS. (2005). Repairing Plato's Life Boat with Ockham's Razor. The Important Function of Research in Anomalies for Mainstream Science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, 52–70.
45.
WalachH., SchmidtS., DirholdT., & NoschS. (2002). The effects of a caffeine placebo and suggestion on blood pressure, heart rate, wellbeing and cognitive performance: Analysis of difficulties with reproducing. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 43, 247–260.
46.
WalachH., SchmidtS., WieschS., & BihrN. (2001). The effects of subject and experimenter expectation on blood pressure, heart rate, wellbeing and cognitve performance: A failure to reproduce. European Psychologist, 6, 15–25.
47.
WeizsäckerE. U. v. (1986). Erstmaligkeit und Bestätigung als Komponenten der Pragmatischen Information. [Novelty and confirmation as components of pragmatic information.] In: WeizsäckerE. U. v., Offene Systeme I: Beiträge zur Zeitstruktur von Information, Entropie und Evolution (2, überarbeitete Auflage). (pp. 82–113). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
48.
WisemanR., SmithM., & MiltonJ. (1998). Can animals detect when their owners are returning home? An experimental test of the ‘psychic pet’ phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 453–462.
49.
WolstenholmeG. E., & MillerE. C. (1956). CIBA Foundation symposium on extrasensory perception. London: Churchill.
50.
ZuckermanH., & MertonR. K. (1971). Patterns of evaluation in science: Institutionalization, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva, 9, 66–100.
