In light of the “replication crisis,” some (e.g., Nelson, Simmons, & Simonsohn, 2018) advocate for greater policing and transparency in research methods. Others (Baumeister, 2016; Finkel, Eastwick, & Reis, 2017; Goldin-meadow, 2016; Levenson, 2017) argue against rigid requirements that may inadvertently restrict discovery. We embrace both positions and argue that proper understanding and implementation of the well-established paradigm of Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA; Tukey, 1977) is necessary to push beyond the replication crisis. Unfortunately, many don’t realize EDA exists (Goldin-Meadow, 2016), fail to understand the philosophy and proper tools for exploration (Baumeister, 2016), or reject EDA as unscientific (Lindsay, 2015). EDA’s mistreatment is unfortunate, and is usually based on misunderstanding the nature and goal of EDA. We develop an expanded typology that situates EDA, CDA, and rough CDA in the same framework with fishing, p-hacking, and HARKing, and argue that most, if not all, questionable research practices (QRPs) would be resolved by understanding and implementing the EDA/CDA gradient. We argue most psychological research is “rough CDA,” which has often and inadvertently used the wrong tools. We conclude with guidelines about how these typologies can be integrated into a cumulative research program that is necessary to move beyond the replication crisis.
New Exploration of Framework in Psychological Research Methods