I agree and so, yes, many people in a discipline must learn the products and tools of another discipline. Yet, I think you may be conflating a professional utility in an area with professional participation in the area. An anthropologist doesn't just use the tools of the trade, for example - the point of being a professional in a discipline is to test, research, and extend it, including its core methods and principles. Meanwhile the psychologist drawing on Anthropology isn't going to be au courant with the arguments regarding a particular field methodology. I wouldn't expect them to; but I would hope they recognize they're not au courant and may by current accepted standards be misusing a borrowed method.
I have actually seen several high-grade archaeologists torn to shreds in presentations at Chicago because they presented tentative findings using stats with too few data points for the methods employed. Tentative nonsense is still nonsense was the general slam presented.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-07-24 09:49 pm (UTC)I have actually seen several high-grade archaeologists torn to shreds in presentations at Chicago because they presented tentative findings using stats with too few data points for the methods employed. Tentative nonsense is still nonsense was the general slam presented.