Agree that particulars and boundary conditions are relevant, but the challenge lies in positioning those in an epistemically meaningful way vis-à-vis the fundamental concepts/regularities at the core of our theorizing. So 'complexity' shouldn't be confused with 'quality', it might take away from it.
Tomorrow at #ica25, I’ll present the paper „A simple future for media effects“.
@yesuncomm.bsky.social, @lennertcoenen.bsky.social, & I argue that complexity has become a dogma.
Instead, let’s value parsimony & regularities.
📌: Fr 6/13, 9am, Mt Blue Sky, Hyatt
Preprint: osf.io/preprints/os...
A key axiom in media effects research is that effects are nuanced, varied, and indirect. Although this is true ontologically, asking for ever-more ’nuanced’ analyses of media effects is problematic epistemologically as it stands in the way of more insightful, falsifiable, and robust theorizing. For this reason, we advocate a shift in research priorities and propose four guidelines for future research: 1. Value description; 2. Prioritize regularities; 3. Formalize models; 4. Unify theories. A collective effort along these lines will allow for better cumulative theorizing and, in turn, a stronger understanding and explanation of media effects.
New Preprint: "A Simple Future For Media Effects"
@lennertcoenen.bsky.social, @yesuncomm.bsky.social, & I critically discuss our field's current emphasis on complexity.
Instead, we argue to value description, prioritize regularities, formalize models, and unify theories.
osf.io/preprints/os...
Thanks so much! Always wondered if I'd spot Reviewer 2 in the wild. ;)
Insulting Elon works I think.
Really important, this. Also slightly depressing.
Statistical models only tell you the state of the world if they represent the state of the world. If you don't know what the world looks like, the model you use won't tell you either.
When you're accused of causing harm, just keep shouting 'WHERE IS YOUR VALIDLY SPECIFIED DAG?!?!' Can't lose.
