title: Appraisal of research depends upon its conceptualization.
abstract: Smedslund and Ross (2014) have offered us an interesting opinion article concerning the usefulness of empirical research for psychological practice. Appraisal of research is obviously contingent upon the way it is conceptualized and although the authors are involved with rather different kinds of practical problems they nevertheless conceptualize research in exactly the same way. This entails a possible mismatch between questions asked and methods used to answer them. I will try to add to the discussion by examining more closely how the authors conceptualize research and discuss the problems of mismatch between questions, methods, methodology, and epistemology. I claim that the authors' view of research misses some important aspects of scientific reasoning and follows an unjustified epistemological position. Part of the arising controversy is a rather natural consequence of this but could be overcome by reconsidering the aims of science and getting epistemology, methodology and questions in line. Although I focus on the specific article and the authors' positions, I hold that the issues discussed are common and general.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Psychology, Tallinn University, Narva mnt 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia, valdar.tammik@tlu.ee.
authors.forename: Valdar
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Tammik
mesh_terms: D035841:Behavioral Research; D006801:Humans; D011586:Psychology, Clinical