scholarly journals From Old School to Open Science: The Implications of New Research Norms for Educational Psychology and Beyond

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hunter Gehlbach ◽  
Carly D Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
School Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Educational Psychologists ◽  
Introductory Article ◽  
New Research

Recently, scholars have noted how several “old school” practices—a host of well-regarded, long-standing scientific norms—in combination, sometimes compromise the credibility of research. In response, other scholarly fields have developed several “open science” norms and practices to address these credibility issues. Against this backdrop, this special issue explores the extent to which and how these norms should be adopted and adapted for educational psychology and education more broadly. Our introductory article contextualizes the special issue’s goals by: overviewing the historical context that led to open science norms (particularly in medicine and psychology); providing a conceptual map to illustrate the interrelationships between various old school as well as open science practices; and then describing educational psychologists’ opportunity to benefit from and contribute to the translation of these norms to novel research contexts. We conclude by previewing the articles in the special issue.

Preregistration and Registered Reports

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Reich
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Data Analytics ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Methods ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Post Hoc

Preregistration and registered reports are two promising open science practices for increasing transparency in the scientific process. In particular, they create transparency around one of the most consequential distinctions in research design: the data analytics decisions made before data collection and post-hoc decisions made afterwards. Preregistration involves publishing a time-stamped record of a study design before data collection or analysis. Registered reports are a publishing approach that facilitates the evaluation of research without regard for the direction or magnitude of findings. In this paper, I evaluate opportunities and challenges for these open science methods, offer initial guidelines for their use, explore relevant tensions around new practices, and illustrate examples from educational psychology and social science. This paper was accepted for publication in Educational Psychologist volume 56, issue 2; scheduled for April 2021, as a part of a special issue titled, “Educational psychology in the open science era.”This preprint has been peer reviewed, but not copy edited by the journal and may differ from the final published version. The DOI of the final published version is: [insert preprint DOI number]. Once the article is published online, it will be available at the following permanent link: [insert doi link]

Open-Science Practices for Increasing Credibility, Impact, and Equity in Education Research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly D Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Science Practice ◽  
Equity In Education ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Learner Outcomes

In education, scientific research should play an important role in improving learner outcomes by informing and enhancing policy and practice. However, a substantial gap exists between research and practice in the field. To close this gap, researchers in educational psychology can apply open-science practices to increase the credibility, impact, and equity of their research. In this article, we examine three open-science practices -- open data and code, open access and preprints, and crowdsourcing -- that are well-suited to foster credibility, impact, and equity of research. For each open-science practice, we briefly discuss what the practice is and how it works, its primary benefits, some important limitations and challenges, and a thorny issue related to the practice. PLEASE DO NOT CITE YET:This article is part of a forthcoming journal Special Issue on Open Science in Education and currently under review. Carly Robinson is NOT the correct author, so please do not cite this article until it is updated with the correct authors' names. If you are interested in citing this work please either (a) check back at this url later -- we anticipated that the correct authors' names will be included no later than February 2021, or (b) contact Carly Robinson ([email protected]) directly to see if the paper might be cited on an earlier time frame.

Open science reforms: Strengths, challenges, and future directions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn R. Wentzel
Keyword(s):  
Research Design ◽  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
The Impact

In this article, I comment on the potential benefits and limitations of open science reforms for improving the transparency and accountability of research, and enhancing the credibility of research findings within communities of policy and practice. Specifically, I discuss the role of replication and reproducibility of research in promoting better quality studies, the identification of generalizable principles, and relevance for practitioners and policymakers. Second, I suggest that greater attention to theory might contribute to the impact of open science practices, and discuss ways in which theory has implications for sampling, measurement and research design. Ambiguities concerning the aims of preregistration and registered reports also are highlighted. In conclusion, I discuss structural roadblocks to open science reform and reflect on the relevance of these reforms for educational psychology.

scholarly journals Diversity in the work–life interface: introduction to the special issue

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 465-478
Author(s):  
T. Alexandra Beauregard ◽  
Maria Adamson ◽  
Aylin Kunter ◽  
Lilian Miles ◽  
Ian Roper
Keyword(s):  
Life Experiences ◽  
Diversity Management ◽  
Work Life ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Introductory Article ◽  
New Research ◽  
Life Roles ◽  
Theoretical Considerations

PurposeThis article serves as an introduction to six articles featured in a special issue on diversity in the work–life interface. This collection of papers contains research that contemplates the work–life interface in different geographic and cultural contexts, that explores the work–life experiences of minority, marginalized and/or underresearched groups of workers and that takes into account diverse arrangements made to fulfill both work and nonwork responsibilities.Design/methodology/approachThis introductory article first summarizes some of the emerging research in this area, introduces the papers in this special issue and links them to these themes and ends with highlighting the importance of using an intersectional lens in future investigations of the work–life interface.FindingsThese six articles provide empirically based insights, as well as new theoretical considerations for studying the interface between paid work and personal life roles. Compelling new research directions are identified.Originality/valueIntroducing the new articles in this special issue and reviewing recent research in this area brings together the work–life interface scholarship and diversity management studies and points to the necessity for future investigations to take an intersectional and contextualized approach to their subject matter.

Selective incivility: an insidious form of discrimination in organizations

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-260
Author(s):  
Dana Kabat-Farr ◽  
Isis H. Settles ◽  
Lilia M. Cortina
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Group Processes ◽  
Gender Composition ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Approaches To Studying ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Introductory Article ◽  
New Research

PurposeThis article serves as an introduction to four articles featured in a special issue on selective incivility in the workplace. This collection of papers addresses pressing issues around unpacking and tackling selective incivility in organizations.Design/methodology/approachThis introductory article first highlights research in this area to date, provides a summary of the papers included in this special issue and ends with intriguing themes from the papers and ways in which they advance the field.FindingsThese papers reveal contextual factors that help us better understand selective incivility: group processes, workplace gender composition, status and power and modality (in-person or online incivility).Originality/valueBy bringing together four approaches to studying selective incivility, this special issue pushes the field forward, providing empirically based insights as well as compelling new research directions.

scholarly journals Enhancing scientific credibility: An open science strategy for the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Llewellyn E. Van Zyl
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Industrial Psychology ◽  
South African Journal ◽  
The South ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
General Overview ◽  
The Future ◽  
African Journal

Orientation: The purpose of this editorial was to provide an introduction and a general overview of the special issue on Open Science Practices: A Vision for the Future of SAJIP, as hosted in the 45th edition of the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (SAJIP). Specifically, the aim was to provide a viable, practical and implementable strategy for enhancing the scientific credibility, transparency and international stature of SAJIP.

Implications of the Open Science Era for Educational Psychology Research Syntheses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly D Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Psychology Research ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Comprehensive Information ◽  
Open Materials

Extensive debate and criticism of potentially common, yet questionable research practices that lead to biased findings within social and health sciences has emerged over the last decade. These challenges likely apply to educational psychology, though the field has been slow to address them. This article discusses current research norms, strategic solutions proposed under the broad rubric of “Open Science”, and the implications of both for the way research syntheses in educational psychology are conducted and the quality of the information they produce. Strategies such as preregistration, open materials and data, and registered reports stand to address significant threats to the validity of research synthesis. These include challenges associated with publication, dissemination, and selective reporting biases, comprehensive information retrieval, and opportunities to execute unique analytic approaches. A final issue is the development of parallel solutions that address biases specific to the decision making of researchers conducting and evaluating research syntheses. PLEASE DO NOT CITE YET:This article is part of a forthcoming journal Special Issue on Open Science in Education and currently under review. Carly Robinson is NOT the correct author, so please do not cite this article until it is updated with the correct authors' names. If you are interested in citing this work please either (a) check back at this url later -- we anticipated that the correct authors' names will be included no later than February 2021, or (b) contact Carly Robinson ([email protected]) directly to see if the paper might be cited on an earlier time frame.

Preregistration and Registered Reports

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carly D Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Phase I ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Scientific Process ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
One Step

Pre-registration and registered reports are two of the most promising open science practices for increasing transparency in the scientific process. Pre-registration involves publishing a timestamped record of a study design, ideally before data collection and analysis, so that research consumers can discern which analytic decisions were set a priori and which were changed after seeing data. Registered reports take the idea of pre-registration one step further, and provide peer review at the pre-registration stage. Researchers submit a Phase I manuscript that contains the introduction, background and context, and methods section of a study, and these Phase I manuscripts are peer reviewed. If reviewed positively, manuscripts are given in-principle acceptance, where the editors agree that if the researchers conduct the study as pre-registered--or document the deviations from their plan--the study will be published without regard for the direction or magnitude of findings. In this manner, studies are judged by whether they address important questions and use well-designed methods, not on the basis of reaching specific benchmarks for significance or effect size. This article illustrates the emerging range of approaches to pre-registration and registered reports with examples from a variety of studies and from the first special issue in educational research devoted to Registered Reports.PLEASE DO NOT CITE YET:This article is part of a forthcoming journal Special Issue on Open Science in Education and currently under review. Carly Robinson is NOT the correct author, so please do not cite this article until it is updated with the correct authors' names. If you are interested in citing this work please either (a) check back at this url later -- we anticipated that the correct authors' names will be included no later than February 2021, or (b) contact Carly Robinson ([email protected]) directly to see if the paper might be cited on an earlier time frame.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document