Week 2 Readings Response

I found the two articles we read to be both informative and thought provoking. I have often griped about the lack of replicability that many studies in psychology have. It is my belief that the inability to directly replicate a study casts sever doubt on the findings of said study. However, I found the first paper to bring up a point I had never thought of before. While I still hold replicability to be just as important as I just before, I now think there are better ways of going about it than directly repeating the experiment in question. Anyways, as the articles brought up, it I impossible to ever truly directly replicate an experiment. The idea of conceptual replicability appeals greatly to me. If a concept can be repeatedly supported through various methods, it is much more supported than if it is supported through the same method. This implies that direct replication is much less important than I had originally considered it to be.
     This is not to say I think direct replication is pointless, though. I still think it serves its function of validating a previous experiment. However, it is much better to try to test a hypothesis in a new manner rather than an old. This benefits not just the scientific community as a whole, by either supporting or casting doubt on a concept, but also the researcher individually, by broadening their scope and possible publications.
     These two papers brought up points I had never considered before and have altered my viewpoint. They raise a new question in my mind of “Why would one ever do a direct replication when a conceptual replication is just as valid and more useful?” I suppose the answer to this is that sometimes a conceptual replication is not possible, but I find it hard to think of examples of that. I’m sure there are uses for direct replication, but for my own purposes and future endeavors I will likely focus on conceptual replications.