Citation: Sung, D. (2026). On epistemic risks in research method validation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2026.102206.

Abstract: 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.