On epistemic risks in research method validation

Justin Biddle and Quill Kukla's taxonomy of epistemic risk maps the theoretical terrain in ways that can assist researchers balance the cost of various types of errors. Based on a case study of method validation in toxicology, I argue that research method validation involves what I call "method mischaracterization risk." I show that this risk fits into Biddle and Kukla's taxonomy but is distinct from any previously identified risk (e.g., inductive risk). I also draw from the case study to illustrate that research method validation is vulnerable to a particular social-epistemic dilemma known as the Ibsen predicament. By combining insights drawn from pragmatist accounts of scientific methodology and Daniel Steel's notion of epistemic constraint, I argue that method characterization risk can be adequately managed when research methods are construed as self-correcting systems of epistemic practice.