Metadata language
21 cm ; Pol. text, eng. summary
Subject and Keywords:university ; entrepreneurial universities ; academic culture vs.corporate culture ; autonomy ; freedom ; democracy ; tradition ; formation mission ; mission of the university
References:
1. Ajdukiewicz, K. (1974). Pragmatic logic (O. Wojtasiewicz, Trans.) Dordrecht-Holland/Boston-USA: Reidel.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.
3. American Psychological Association. (2014). Guidelines for clinical supervision in health service psychology. Retrieved from http://apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-supervision.pdf
4. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf
5. American Psychological Association. (2008). Report of the task force on the implementation of the multicultural guidelines. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-report.pdf
6. American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist, 58, 377-402.
7. American Psychological Association. (1982). Ethical principles in the conduct of research with human participants (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
8. APA publications and communications board working group on journal article reporting standards. (2008). Reporting Standards for Research in Psychology. Why Do We Need Them? What Might They Be? American Psychologist, 63, 839-851.
9. APA presidential task force on evidence-based practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271-285.
10. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
11. British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of human research ethics. Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf
12. Brown, A. (2014). Expert Testimony and the Daubert and Frye Standards. Retrieved from http://www.aquilogic.com/pdf/Expert%20Testimony%20and%20the%20Daubert%20and%20Frye%20Standards.pdf
13. Brzeziński, J. (2012). Jakich kompetencji badawczych oczekujemy od psychologa? [What competencies are expected from a psychologist?]. In H. J. Grzegołowska-Klarkowska (Ed.), Agresja, socjalizacja, edukacja. Refleksje i inspiracje (pp. 383-409). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogiki Specjalnej.
14. Brzeziński, J. (2013). Methodological awareness and ethical awareness in the context of university education (on the example of psychology). In B. Bokus (Ed.), Responsibility. A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 261-277). Warszawa: Lexem.
15. Chambers, Ch. D., Feredoes, E., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Etchells. P. J. (2014). Instead of "playing the game" it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond. AIMS Neuroscience, 1, 4-17. Retrieved from http://orca.cf.ac.uk/59475/1/AN2.pdf
16. Chambers, Ch., & Munafo, M. (2013). Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration
17. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
18. Cook T. D., & Campbell D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
19. Doliński, D. (2018). Is psychology still a science of behaviour? Social Psychological Bulletin, 13(2), Articlee25025. https://doi.org/10.5964/spb.v13i2.25025
20. European Federation of Professional Psychologists Associations (1995). Meta-Code of Ethics. Retrieved from ethics.efpa.eu/meta-code/
21. Grove, W. M., & Barden, R. C. (1999). Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 224-242.
22. Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. New York, NY: J. Wiley.
23. Hardin, E. E., Robitschek, Ch., Flores, L. Y., Navarro, R. L., & Ashton, M. W. (2014). The cultural lens approach to evaluating cultural validity of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 69, 656-668.
24. Hardin, E. E., Robitschek, Ch., Flores, L. Y., Navarro, R. L., & Ashton, M. W. (2014). The cultural lens approach to evaluating cultural validity of psychological theory. American Psychologist, 69, 656-668.
25. International Union of Psychological Science. (2008). Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists. Retrieved from International Union of Psychological Science website http://www.iupsys.net/about/governance/universal-declaration-of-ethical-principles-for-psychologists.html
26. Jacob, F. (1973). The logic of life: A history of heredity. (B. E. Spillmann, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.
27. Jones, C., Shillito-Clarke, C., Syme, G., Hill, D., Casemore, R., & Murdin, L. (2000). Questions of ethics counselling and therapy. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
28. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks.
29. Mintz, J., Drake R., & Crits-Christoph P. (1996) Efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy: two paradigms, one science. American Psychologist, 51, 1084-1085.
30. Nathan, P., Stuart, S., & Dolan, S. (2000). Research on psychotherapy efficacy and effectiveness. Between Scylla and Charybdis? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 964-981.
31. Orne M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implication. American Psychologist, 17, 776-783.
32. Quintana, S. M., Troyano, N., & Taylor, G. (2001). Cultural validity and inherent challenges in quantitative methods for multicultural research. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed., pp. 604-630). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Parnas, D. L. (2007). Stop the numbers game. Communications of the ACM 2007. 50(11),19-21. Retrieved from ce.sharif.edu/~ghodsi/PaP/stop_the_number_game.pdf
34. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Explanation and research (3th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
35. Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery [Adobe Digitals Editions version]. Retrieved from http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
36. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37. Ritzler, B., Erard, R., & Pettigrew, G. (2002). Protecting the integrity of Rorschach expert witnesses. A Reply to Grove and Barden (1999) Re: The Admissibility of Testimony Under Daubert/Kumho Analyses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 201-215.
38. Rosenthal, R. (1963). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: The experimenter's hypothesis as unintended determinant of experimental results. American Scientist, 51, 268-283.
39. Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57, 839-849.
40. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow R. L. (Eds.). (2009). Artifacts in behavioral research. Rosenthal and Rosnow's classic books. (A re-issue of Artifact in behavioral research; Experimenter effects in behavioral research; & The volunteer subject). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127-134.
42. Rosenzweig, S. (1933). The experimental situation as a psychological problem, Psychological Review, 40, 337-354.
.
43. Schmidt, F. L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1173-1181.
44. Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). The effectiveness of psychotherapy: The Consumer Reports study. American Psychologist, 50, 965-974.
45. Spendel, Z. (2005). Metodologia badań psychologicznych jako forma świadomości metodologicznej [Methodology of Psychological research as a form of methodological consciousness]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
46. Spendel, Z. (2014). O pewnych kontrowersjach i nieporozumieniach wokół "teorii psychologicznej" i "psychologii teoretycznej" [About some controversies and misunderstandings related to "psychological theory" and "theoretical psychology"]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 20, 55-64.
47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
48. van der Linden, W. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of modern item response theory. New York, NY: Springer.
49. Wilkinson, L. & Task force on statistical inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
50. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
0867-0633 ; 10.18318/td.2020.1.22
Source:IBL PAN, call no. P.I.2524 ; click here to follow the link
Language: Language of abstract: Rights:Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license
Terms of use:Copyright-protected material. [CC BY 4.0] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license, full text available at: ; -
Digitizing institution:Institute of Literary Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences
Original in:Library of the Institute of Literary Research PAS
Projects co-financed by:European Union. European Regional Development Fund ; Operational Program Digital Poland, 2014-2020, Measure 2.3: Digital accessibility and usefulness of public sector information; funds from the European Regional Development Fund and national co-financing from the state budget.
Access: