scholarly journals An Agenda for Open Science in Communication

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Dienlin ◽  
Niklas Johannes ◽  
Nicholas David Bowman ◽  
Philipp K Masur ◽  
Sven Engesser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Replication Crisis

Abstract In the last 10 years, many canonical findings in the social sciences appear unreliable. This so-called “replication crisis” has spurred calls for open science practices, which aim to increase the reproducibility, replicability, and generalizability of findings. Communication research is subject to many of the same challenges that have caused low replicability in other fields. As a result, we propose an agenda for adopting open science practices in Communication, which includes the following seven suggestions: (1) publish materials, data, and code; (2) preregister studies and submit registered reports; (3) conduct replications; (4) collaborate; (5) foster open science skills; (6) implement Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines; and (7) incentivize open science practices. Although in our agenda we focus mostly on quantitative research, we also reflect on open science practices relevant to qualitative research. We conclude by discussing potential objections and concerns associated with open science practices.

scholarly journals How open science can benefit bilingualism research: A lesson in six tales

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Dal Ben ◽  
Melanie Brouillard ◽  
Ana Maria Gonzalez-Barrero ◽  
Hilary Killam ◽  
Lena V. Kremin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Recent Discussion ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Do So

Bilingualism is hard to define, measure, and study. Sparked by the so-called replication crisis in the social sciences, a recent discussion on the advantages of open science is gaining momentum. Here we join this debate to argue that bilingualism research would greatly benefit from embracing open science. We do so in a unique way, by presenting six fictional stories that illustrate how open science practices — sharing preprints, materials, code, and data; pre-registering studies; and joining large-scale collaborations — can strengthen bilingualism research and further improve its quality.

scholarly journals Yes! We’re open. Open science and the future of academic practices in translation and interpreting studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Olalla-Soler
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Academic Publishing ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Future ◽  
Academic Practices ◽  
Core Features ◽  
Publishing Practices

This article offers an overview of open science and open-science practices and their applications to translation and interpreting studies (TIS). Publications on open science in different disciplines were reviewed in order to define open science, identify academic publishing practices emerging from the core features of open science, and discuss the limitations of such practices in the humanities and the social sciences. The compiled information was then contextualised within TIS academic publishing practices based on bibliographic and bibliometric data. The results helped to identify what open-science practices have been adopted in TIS, what problems emerge from applying some of these practices, and in what ways such practices could be fostered in our discipline. This article aims to foster a debate on the future of TIS publishing and the role that open science will play in the discipline in the upcoming years.

scholarly journals Open Communication Science: A Primer on Why and Some Recommendations for How

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Anthony Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Open Science ◽  
Social World ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Open Communication ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Communication Processes ◽  
The Social ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
Current Article

Communication scientists devote large amounts of resources to conducting studies to improve our understanding of the social world, in hopes that our efforts contribute to improving people’s life out-comes. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the process by which our research is conducted is not always clear in journal articles or books reporting our research. This lack of process-insight (a) limits our ability to build on each other’s research, (b) limits our holistic understanding of communication processes, and (c) limits the ability of consumers of our research to put it into practice. The current article discusses recent methodological advances designed to address these issues – advances in open science practices. I provide a brief primer on the philosophy behind open science and its relevance for communication research, then provide recommendations for both novice and expert researchers to implement open science practices at multiple steps of the research pipeline.

scholarly journals Open Science Practices are on the Rise: The State of Social Science (3S) Survey

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garret Christensen ◽  
Zenan Wang ◽  
Elizabeth Levy Paluck ◽  
Nicholas Swanson ◽  
David J. Birke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Open Science ◽  
The State ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
Technological Innovations ◽  
Institutional Policies ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
Major Social Science

Has there been meaningful movement toward open science practices within the social sciences in recent years? Discussions about changes in practices such as posting data and pre-registering analyses have been marked by controversy—including controversy over the extent to which change has taken place. This study, based on the State of Social Science (3S) Survey, provides the first comprehensive assessment of awareness of, attitudes towards, perceived norms regarding, and adoption of open science practices within a broadly representative sample of scholars from four major social science disciplines: economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. We observe a steep increase in adoption: as of 2017, over 80% of scholars had used at least one such practice, rising from one quarter a decade earlier. Attitudes toward research transparency are on average similar between older and younger scholars, but the paceof change differs by field and methodology. According with theories of normal science and scientific change, the timing of increases in adoption coincides with technological innovations and institutional policies. Patterns are consistent with most scholars underestimating the trend toward open science in their discipline.

A Tale of Two Cultures

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Goertz ◽  
James Mahoney
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Measurement Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Quantitative Research Methods ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
The Social ◽  
Scientific Worldview ◽  
Different Cultures

Some in the social sciences argue that the same logic applies to both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This book demonstrates that these two paradigms constitute different cultures, each internally coherent yet marked by contrasting norms, practices, and toolkits. The book identifies and discusses major differences between these two traditions that touch nearly every aspect of social science research, including design, goals, causal effects and models, concepts and measurement, data analysis, and case selection. Although focused on the differences between qualitative and quantitative research, the book also seeks to promote toleration, exchange, and learning by enabling scholars to think beyond their own culture and see an alternative scientific worldview. The book is written in an easily accessible style and features a host of real-world examples to illustrate methodological points.

Historical Overview of Qualitative Research in the Social Sciences

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-58
Author(s):  
Svend Brinkmann ◽  
Michael Hviid Jacobsen ◽  
Søren Kristiansen
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Social History ◽  
Historical Overview ◽  
Conceptual History ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
Technological History

Qualitative research does not represent a monolithic, agreed-on approach to research but is a vibrant and contested field with many contradictions and different perspectives. To respect the multivoicedness of qualitative research, this chapter will approach its history in the plural—as a variety of histories. The chapter will work polyvocally and focus on six histories of qualitative research, which are sometimes overlapping, sometimes in conflict, and sometimes even incommensurable. They can be considered articulations of different discourses about the history of the field, which compete for researchers’ attention. The six histories are: (a) the conceptual history of qualitative research, (b) the internal history of qualitative research, (c) the marginalizing history of qualitative research, (d) the repressed history of qualitative research, (e) the social history of qualitative research, and (f) the technological history of qualitative research.

Journal Editor and Associate Editor Perspectives on Research Reproducibility and Open Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 074193252110172
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Maggin
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Special Education ◽  
Journal Editor ◽  
Associate Editor ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Education School ◽  
Special Education School ◽  
Insight Into

Interest in transparent and open science is increasing in special education, school psychology, and related disciplines. Proponents for open science reforms provide evidence that researchers in special education, and the broader social sciences, engage in practices that mitigates its credibility and reduces the validity of information disseminated to practitioners and policymakers. In light of these issues, this article reports on a survey of journal editors-in-chief and associate editors to gain insight into concerns regarding research reproducibility, and the familiarity and viability of open science for improving research credibility. Results indicate that respondents were concerned about research reproducibility, were moderately familiar with open science practices, and viewed many as effective for improving research credibility. Finally, respondents supported the use of journals to encourage open science practices though there was little support for requiring their use. Findings are discussed in relation to open science and implications for research and practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document