Home About Contact Donate Search...

Search

HOME CONVENTION JOURNALS OBSERVER MEMBERS EMPLOYMENT NETWORK NEWS

Print Issue Archive Observations Global Observer Observer Series Announcements About Advertise Media Kit Contact

Member Login (Need your Member ID? )

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Douglas L. Medin
is a professor at Northwestern University. He can be
reached at medin@psychologicalscience.org.

Related Content
Preregistration, Replication, and
Presidential Column Nonexperimental Studies
From Observations
A Dangerous Dichotomy: Basic and Applied Research Following up on her September column,
By Douglas L. Medin APS President Susan Goldin-Meadow
addresses scientists’ concerns about the
risks of marginalizing studies that don’t fit
How can I be so confused by a simple distinction like the difference between well with preregistration protocols.
basic and applied research? I did an initial draft of a column on this topic
The ‘Stubborn’ Cerebellum
months ago, and honestly, it was mostly gibberish. From Observer Print Issue
Psychological scientists don’t typically
In his 1997 book, Pasteur’s Quadrant, Donald Stokes reviewed a good deal describe brain areas as fickle, two-faced,
of the history and political significance of different ideas about the relation or agreeable, but APS William James
Fellow Richard B. Ivry explains why he
between basic and applied research. It may be worth examining our own ascribes a specific personality trait to the
ideas on the topic. Many of us in academia may be walking around with an region that controls our sensorimotor system.
implicit or explicit “basic is better” attitude. Imagine two assistant professors The Truth About Lying
coming up for tenure and one has plenty of publications in Psychological From Observer Print Issue
Science and the other has plenty in Applied Psychological Science (a He’s interviewed criminals, offered
students bribes, and given research
hypothetical journal). Which of the two has a better chance of getting participants countless opportunities to
tenure? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that — hands down — cheat him. Dan Ariely shares his unique
approach to studying the ways people
it is the former. My academic appointment is both in psychology and in
engage in — and rationalize — dishonest behavior. Ariely’s
education, and at least some of my psychology colleagues look down on Keynote Address was one of the many highlights of the
educational research as (merely or only) applied and justify their attitude on 2016 APS Annual Convention in Chicago, where more than
4,300 participants packed meeting rooms to partake of a
grounds that it is largely atheoretical and not very interesting (and on this menu including assorted workshops, talks, symposia, and
point they simply are wrong). special events.
Douglas L. Medin
But imagine that psychological science arose in a developing country that
was continually facing crucial issues in health, education, and welfare, and universities were dedicated to
addressing national needs. Now perhaps the assistant professor who published in Applied Psychological
Science would get the nod.

In Pasteur’s Quadrant, Stokes argues for a three-way distinction between pure basic research, pure applied
research, and use-inspired basic research (for which the prototype is Louis Pasteur). I do like the term use-
inspired because it suggests quite literally that considerations of use can stimulate foundational research. But I’m
pretty dubious about “pure” being attached to either category for the reasons that follow.

My psychology colleagues might point out that the

categories basic and applied are incomplete because,
by themselves, they do not capture the causal history
between basic and applied research. The short
version goes like this: We psychologists ask basic
questions about how the mind works and achieve
fundamental insights into the nature of cognitive and
social processes such as judgment, perception,
memory and the like. These insights have
implications and applications as wide ranging as the
design of cell phones, determining the optimal size of
juries, stopping smoking, or mounting an effective
political campaign. The path is from theory to application. People in applied settings have to do something, but
the standard of evidence-based practice and knowing why something works has to wait for the underpinnings
provided by basic research (see Figure 1).

Of course, there are numerous steps between the initial basic research and the eventual practical applications.
These steps often involve messy details and many decisions about factors that probably don’t matter, but maybe
they do. One can get the sense that clean experimental design is being gradually compromised by these minor
details. And it doesn’t help that the theory we are working with may have nothing to say about these decisions.
Someone should do this work but, from the perspective of those of us doing basic research, maybe it should be
someone else (other than us).
At one point in my work history this stereotype
corresponded pretty well with my own attitudes. My
opinion was that there was such a gulf between
theory and application that we needed not two, but
three subtypes of research: basic, applied, and an
interface that occupies the middle ground between
the two (Figure 2). Of course, if you prefer a more
analytic approach rather than seat-of-the-pants
intuitions, you probably can’t do better than APS
Fellow and Treasurer Roberta Klatzky’s 2009
thoughtful paper on application and “giving
psychology away” (borrowing from Miller, 1969).

It is testimony to my selective (in)attention abilities that I was also well aware of counter-examples to Figure 2 that
go the other way. Consider, for example, signal detection theory, which is arguably one of our field’s more
significant accomplishments. It grew out of World War II efforts to interpret radar images and deal with
communication over “noisy” channels. Psychological scientists were involved fairly early on, and the Tanner,
Green, and Swets (1954) paper is a classic. The central issue of separating sensitivity to information from
response bias continues to undergo theoretical development. Signal detection theory also enjoys ever-expanding
application. In short, if we are talking about causal
histories, we need to include the path shown that
goes from applied to basic research (Figure 3). My
education colleagues would find this too obvious to
mention. But it is a reminder to my psychology pals
that when they ignore the application side of things,
they also may be ignoring a rich source of theoretical
ideas and challenges. So how about we agree to drop
the pejorative connotations of the term applied
research?

So then, dangerous dichotomies, such as basic

versus applied research, lend themselves to
stereotyping. They also create borders that may get in the way. For example, if you’re inclined to do
psychological research that has high fidelity to real-world circumstances, you might be accused of doing applied
research, because applied research, by definition, has to be high fidelity. But fear of fidelity is a very peculiar
malady, and our field must strive to overcome it.

These categories can also be used politically in a sort of Three-Card Monte game [1] to hide values. Applied
research transparently reflects a set of value judgments. There is a difference between using persuasion theory
to encourage teenagers to stay in school versus encouraging them to start smoking. It is nice to be able to fall
back on the argument that basic research is value neutral and that there is a pure science in the form of an
uncontaminated quest for knowledge.

Nice, but in my opinion, dead wrong. If basic research were value neutral, would we even need ethical review
panels? The use of nonhuman animals in research often reflects the judgment that human welfare is more
important than animal welfare (we do things to animals we would never do to people). Especially important, again
in my opinion, is the role of positive values in basic research. These values are reflected in the questions we
choose to ask (or not ask), how we choose to ask them, who we choose to study (or not study), and who
conducts the research. Although I labeled these as positive values, they become potential negatives when we fail
to ask relevant questions, ask them in ways that favor one group over another, and prize ownership of science
over openness. Frequently, the values in play are cultural values, values that may be different in other cultures
and contexts.

For some time now, the National Science Foundation has required grant proposals to have a “broader impacts”
section. To be specific, currently under discussion at NSF (see
www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/06_mrtf.jsp) is the idea that projects should address important national
goals, including among others, increased economic competitiveness of the United States; development of a
globally competitive science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) workforce; increased participation of
women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields; increased partnerships
between academia and industry; and increased national security. [2]

Many (but maybe not all) of these may be values that you endorse, and they may influence how you do your
basic research. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that basic research cannot shunt off the messiness of values to
applied research. If we can’t continue to pretend that basic research is pure (for that matter, even purity may be a
value), it might be a good idea to pay more careful attention to the values that are reflected in what we do and
how we do it.

In summary, I’m still a bit confused about basic versus applied research, but the idea that research provides the
opportunity to express values I care about strikes me as a good thing. Bottom line: Applied is not “merely”
applied, but is full of fascinating research puzzles. Basic is not “pure,” but rather is saturated with values, ideally
values that make us proud to be psychological scientists, but in any event values that merit attention.

Footnotes
[1] In this card game, the dealer shows the player a card then places it face down next to two other cards. The
dealer mixes the cards around then asks the player to pick one. If the player picks the original card, he or she
wins, but the dealer can employ a number of tricks (such as swapping cards) to keep the player from choosing
the right card. Return to Text

[2] The response to this proposal has been sharp, bimodal criticism with some scholars arguing that the
standards “water down” previously highlighted goals like fostering diversity and others objecting to these values
because they would get in the way of pure, basic research. In response to this feedback, the task force charged
with developing these standards is currently rethinking and revising them. Stay tuned. Return to Text

References and Further Reading:

Klatzky, R. L. (2009). Giving psychological science away. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 522-530.

Miller, G. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063-1075.

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation . Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.

Tanner, Jr., W. P., & Swets J. A. (1954). A decision-making theory of visual detection, Psychological Review, 61,
401-409.

Observer Vol.25, No.3 March, 2012

Tags: Academia, APS President, Douglas Medin Columns, Ethics, Experimental Psychology, General, Students

Leave a comment below and continue the conversation.

Comments

Comment by Howard Friedman on March 7, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

A century of outstanding psychological research has been intimately tied to so-called “applied” work,
including landmark studies of prejudice, health, judgment, education, therapy, obedience, communication,
influence, navigation, testing, well-being, decision-making, and so much more. Many of us in academe are not
walking around with a “basic is better” attitude, because it is usually an impossible or misleading distinction.
The better distinction, I think, is “revealing, novel, insightful, important” versus “ordinary, average, boring.”

Comment by John David Edwards on March 8, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

Douglas Medin’s recent essay about the “Dangerous Dichotomy” serves well to illuminate the distinctions and
relationships between basic and applied research –particularly the values engaged by both endeavors. As a
co-founder of one of the first graduate programs to label itself Applied Social Psychology, I’ve had occasions
to comment on ways of comparing basic and applied projects, and others have proposed similar
comparisons, along several dimensions including: a) Purpose, to advance general knowledge about
fundamental phenomena vs. to provide information that’s relevant to a practical problem; b) Validity concerns,
internal vs. external and ecological; c) Setting, artificial lab vs. natural field; d) Design, experimental vs. non-
experimental; e) Methods of data collection, stationary equipment vs. questionnaires; f) Participants, non-
humans or college students vs. specific types of people with a stake in the outcome; g)Initiators, researchers
vs. researchers plus other stakeholders; h) Who cares, (same as previous); and i)Presentation media and
audiences, psychological publications vs. project reports to clientele. This list could be expanded to include
other considerations such as typical sources of funding and degree of multidisciplinarity, but I believe that
none of these is definitive, that any given study has some location with respect to these considerations, and
that those locations can refer to basic, applied, or both. To me the most substantial comparisons involve the
origin of the topic and the role of theory in a project. Basic research originates from within psychology, and
the aim is to test one or more theories for verification, or to explore a topic and form a theory about it. Really
applied research originates from the world outside of psychology, and the role of theory is to supply ideas
about the constructs and relations among them so the researcher can conceptualize the practical problem.
Basic research is mainly about formulating and testing theories; applied research uses these theories (and
maybe other ideas) to develop a conceptual framework to guide a project. Of course, these comparisons, like
those above, are not absolute which means that basic and applied research need not be seen as
dichotomous. Instead, as suggested by Medin’s Figure 3, and Kurt Lewin’s practical theorizing, the
relationship between basic and applied can be co-equal and reciprocally informative.

John David Edwards, Emeritus Professor, Loyola University Chicago

Leave a comment.
Comments go live after a short delay. Thank you for contributing.

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

Your Comment

submit