Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research.

Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists' visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community's ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.

The power of community-based participatory research (CBPR).

OBJECTIVE: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is based on power as fundamental to doing research. It evolved as a way of "knowing" from the broader idea of natural science. While previously viewed as objective, natural science is now understood as, at least, partially socially constructed. METHOD: History of research and epistemology is reviewed in terms of science. More specifically, we delve into science as social construction and how this conceptually opens the door to considering power in its processes. We then unpack CBPR as one way to do mental health research that artfully weaves power into method. RESULTS: Natural science has evolved from believing scientism (i.e., the scientific method) is sufficient to describe physical and social phenomena to terms of social constructivism; namely, the social processes that impact investigators are necessary to understand science and its product. This highlights the role of power; namely, investigator choices about hypotheses, methods, analyses, and interpretations influence the products of individual studies. The recovery movement is the embodiment of power that significantly changed research and rehabilitation in mental health. CBPR has emerged to include people with lived experience in the research enterprise. CBPR is partnership among people with lived experience, health scientists, and service providers in all facets of doing research. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Integrating CBPR into rehabilitation science has led to findings and actions that better serve community objectives. Continuing to weave CBPR into research and development will further enhance recovery in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).