You might think that fields would very often apply their own methods to themselves.
For instance, economists conduct a supply/demand or incentives-based analysis of the field of economics itself to understand why they focus on some areas and not others or why the field has become more math-heavy over time.
Psychologists can also study the psychology of academic psychologists to understand the underlying psychological drivers that determine which areas of study are popular or why the replication crisis occurred (from the perspective of the psychology of those who precipitated and enabled it).
Sociologists may also apply ethnographic methods to examine the institutions, practices, and self-concepts of sociologists.
After all, what could be more available to study and more at the top of your mind than your own group? And why not apply your field’s methods to your group since you are already applying them to everything else?
But in my experience, this kind of “Wesearch” – if you’ll allow me to coin a term – is quite rare and niche.
If I’m right about this, why would that be? I suspect part of the reason is that people want to see themselves as not being merely governed by simple forces.
It’s all fine and good to model other anonymous people as merely responding to incentives, being impacted by severe confirmation bias, mimicking each other’s behavior for social status, etc. But we don’t want to think of ourselves, and the colleagues we respect in that way. It feels reductionist (and inaccurate) to do so. Our colleagues might even feel insulted to be modeled in such a way. These are models only for everyone else.
An interesting exception, pointed out by a reader, is that academic psychologists often have run studies on graduate students (e.g., their mental health and other psychological challenges they face). But even still, that’s only an example of it studying one aspect of itself.
This piece was first written on May 23, 2025, and first appeared on my website on May 26, 2025.
Comments