Research into human cognition, attitudes, and beliefs requires a social sciences approach

Abstract

Research into human cognition, attitudes, and beliefs requires a social sciences approachSubmitting the report as a 'commentary' may inadvertently have had potentially unintended consequencesBecause Prof Nattrass submitted this scientific study 1 as a 'commentary' (which it was not) and the SAJS accepted it as such, two matters may inadvertently have contributed to the furore that followed publication. Firstly, as a 'commentary' this scientific article was not reviewed. Some of the obvious flaws that would have been picked up by reviewers and corrected by the author prior to publication of the article, were therefore missed. Secondly, the 'commentary' format, necessarily brief, led to several omissions that may have escalated the already serious flaws in the methodology of the research and the way it was reported: i) it was too short to accommodate the necessary conceptual or theoretical framework that should underpin, motivate, and explain research involving humans in a society, and ii) vital information about the methods used (such as the logic behind the sampling method, and its shortcomings) was missing. Nattrass acknowledges and explains some problems in her subsequent longer responses 2-3 .Perhaps the Editorial Board needs to reconsider its policy about what articles can be accepted as 'commentaries'. While the journal's policy states that 'the summarised results of research projects, or comments on such research findings, that have direct policy implications and/or immediate social value' 4 will be published, the scientifically flawed research in the abbreviated commentary submitted by Professor Nattrass would never be used as a basis for policy change or be of immediate social value.