The validity of artificial situations is often questioned, and particularly so the possibility of transfer of findings to the real world. Such questions, or doubts, may stem from a rigid distinction between real and artificial situations or from too strict a notion of representation. This article will argue that `the real world' does not provide unambiguous criteria for representation and that, moreover, many experiments and simulation games do not have to represent `the real world' in any direct way. Both issues are usually treated under the heading of external validity, which means compliance to conventions that dominated thinking about validity over decades. These conventions need to be reconsidered. Quality standards for research must not be rigid, nor should be applied in a way that ignores the characteristics of a particular research project. Fixed notions about validity may prevent a researcher from adapting validation procedures to the circumstances at hand. The article takes issue with a conception of external validity as surface resemblance between artificial and real situations, advocates an active, non-routine approach to validity questions, and encourages individual researchers to develop a line of reasoning on these questions instead of adhering to standards that may not suit their particular research.
Quality & Quantity – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 3, 2004
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud