scholarly journals Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform

2021 ◽  
pp. 036168432110265
Author(s):  
Jes L. Matsick ◽  
Mary Kruk ◽  
Flora Oswald ◽  
Lindsay Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Feminist Theory ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Feminist Psychology ◽  
Feminist Scholarship ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Discourse ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Science Movement

Feminist researchers have long embraced the challenging, dismantling, and reimagining of psychology, though their contributions to transforming psychological science remain largely overlooked in the mainstream open science movement. In this article, we reconcile feminist psychology and open science. We propose that feminist theory can be leveraged to address central questions of the open science movement, and the potential for methodological synergy is promising. We signal the availability of feminist scholarship that can augment aspects of open science discourse. We also review the most compelling strategies for open science that can be harnessed by academic feminist psychologists. Drawing upon best practices in feminist psychology and open science, we address the following: generalizability (what are the contextual boundaries of results?), representation (who is included in research?), reflexivity (how can researchers reflect on who they are?), collaboration (are collaborative goals met within feminist psychology?), and dissemination (how should we give science away?). Throughout each section, we recommend using feminist tools when engaging with open science, and we recommend some open science practices for conducting research with feminist goals.

scholarly journals Bridging Feminist Psychology and Open Science: Feminist Tools and Shared Values Inform Best Practices for Science Reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jes Matsick ◽  
Mary Kruk ◽  
Flora Oswald ◽  
Lindsay Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Feminist Theory ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Feminist Psychology ◽  
Feminist Scholarship ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Science Discourse ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
Science Movement

Feminist researchers have long embraced the challenging, dismantling, and reimagining of psychology, though their contributions to transforming psychological science remain largely overlooked in the mainstream open science movement. In this article, we reconcile feminist psychology and open science. We propose that feminist theory can be leveraged to address central questions of the open science movement, and the potential for methodological synergy is promising. We signal the availability of feminist scholarship that can augment aspects of open science discourse. We also review the most compelling strategies for open science that can be harnessed by academic feminist psychologists. Drawing upon best practices in feminist psychology and open science, we address the following: generalizability (what are the contextual boundaries of results?), representation (who is included in research?), reflexivity (how can researchers reflect on who they are?), collaboration (are collaborative goals met within feminist psychology?), and dissemination (how should we give science away?). Throughout each section, we recommend using feminist tools when engaging with open science, and we recommend some open science practices for conducting research with feminist goals.

scholarly journals Preregistration in the Context of Expertise Research: Benefits, Challenges, and Recommendations

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moreau
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Expert Performance ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Design Characteristics ◽  
Small Sample Sizes

A number of recent reforms in psychological science have centered around following best practices to improve the robustness and reliability of empirical findings. Among these, preregistration has become a fundamental component, on the rise in the last few years, yet it remains relatively uncommon in expertise research. In this paper, I point out the numerous benefits of preregistration, drawing on specific examples from the field of expertise. I then examine some of the challenges the field of psychology is currently facing to implement systematic preregistration, including many that are particularly exacerbated in expertise research. Specifically, I discuss widespread design characteristics such as small sample sizes, the lack of consistent definitions regarding what constitutes expert performance, and inherent difficulties in conducting replication studies with rare, elite populations. Finally, I make a number of recommendations to facilitate preregistration in expertise research, including tips to handle and report deviations from original plans, and discuss future directions toward more prevalent open science practices.

scholarly journals WORCS: A workflow for open reproducible code in science

Data Science ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Caspar J. Van Lissa ◽  
Andreas M. Brandmaier ◽  
Loek Brinkman ◽  
Anna-Lena Lamprecht ◽  
Aaron Peikert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Source Code ◽  
R Package ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Tabular Data ◽  
Step Procedure ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
And Training

Adopting open science principles can be challenging, requiring conceptual education and training in the use of new tools. This paper introduces the Workflow for Open Reproducible Code in Science (WORCS): A step-by-step procedure that researchers can follow to make a research project open and reproducible. This workflow intends to lower the threshold for adoption of open science principles. It is based on established best practices, and can be used either in parallel to, or in absence of, top-down requirements by journals, institutions, and funding bodies. To facilitate widespread adoption, the WORCS principles have been implemented in the R package worcs, which offers an RStudio project template and utility functions for specific workflow steps. This paper introduces the conceptual workflow, discusses how it meets different standards for open science, and addresses the functionality provided by the R implementation, worcs. This paper is primarily targeted towards scholars conducting research projects in R, conducting research that involves academic prose, analysis code, and tabular data. However, the workflow is flexible enough to accommodate other scenarios, and offers a starting point for customized solutions. The source code for the R package and manuscript, and a list of examplesof WORCS projects, are available at https://github.com/cjvanlissa/worcs.

scholarly journals Quantity Over Quality? Reproducible Psychological Science from a Mixed Methods Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hollen N. Reischer ◽  
Henry R. Cowan
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Rapid Improvement ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Quantitative And Qualitative Research ◽  
Study Designs

A robust dialogue about the (un)reliability of psychological science findings has emerged in recent years. In response, metascience researchers have developed innovative tools to increase rigor, transparency, and reproducibility, stimulating rapid improvement and adoption of open science practices. However, existing reproducibility guidelines are geared toward purely quantitative study designs. This leaves some ambiguity as to how such guidelines should be implemented in mixed methods (MM) studies, which combine quantitative and qualitative research. Drawing on extant literature, our own experiences, and feedback from 79 self-identified MM researchers, the current paper addresses two main questions: (a) how and to what extent do existing reproducibility guidelines apply to MM study designs; and (b) can existing reproducibility guidelines be improved by incorporating best practices from qualitative research and epistemology? In answer, we offer 10 key recommendations for use within and outside of MM research. Finally, we argue that good science and good ethical practice are mutually reinforcing and lead to meaningful, credible science.

scholarly journals Advancing Transparency and Impact of Research: Initiating Crosstalk between Indigenous Research and Mainstream “Open Science”

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Priscilla Lui ◽  
Monica C. Skewes ◽  
Sarah Gobrial ◽  
David Rollock
Keyword(s):  
Negative Impact ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Native Communities ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Human Functioning ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Science Movement

To answer questions about human psychology, psychological science needs to yield credible findings. Because of their goals of understanding people’s lived experiences and advocating for the needs of the Native communities, Indigenous scholars tend to use community-based participatory research (CBPR) or approach science from a constructivist framework. The primary goal of mainstream psychological science is to uncover generalizable facts about human functioning. Approached from a postpositivist framework, mainstream psychological scholars tend to assume the possibility of identifying researcher biases and achieving objective science. Recently, many psychological findings fail to replicate in new samples. The replication crisis raised concerns about the validity of psychological science. The mainstream open science has been promoted as a solution to this replication crisis; the open science movement encourages researchers to emphasize transparency and accountability to the broad research community. The notion of transparency aligns with the principles of CBPR—research approach common in Indigenous research. Yet, open science practices are not widely adopted in Indigenous research, and mainstream open science does not emphasize researchers’ accountability to the communities that their science is intended to serve. We examined Indigenous researchers’ awareness and concerns about mainstream open science. Participants endorsed the value of transparency with the participants and their communities. They also were concerned about being disadvantaged and the possible negative impact of data sharing on the Native communities. We suggest that there is value in connecting mainstream open science and Indigenous research to advance science that empowers people and makes positive community impact.

scholarly journals WORCS: A Workflow for Open Reproducible Code in Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caspar J. Van Lissa ◽  
Andreas Markus Brandmaier ◽  
Loek Brinkman ◽  
Anna-Lena Lamprecht ◽  
Aaron Peikert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Source Code ◽  
R Package ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Tabular Data ◽  
Step Procedure ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Conducting Research ◽  
And Training

Adopting open science principles can be challenging and time-intensive, because doing so requires substantial conceptual education and training in the use of new tools. This paper introduces the Workflow for Open Reproducible Code in Science (WORCS): A step-by-step procedure that researchers can follow to make a research project open and reproducible. The purpose of the workflow is to lower the threshold for adoption of open science principles. It is based on established best practices, and can be used either in parallel to, or in absence of, top-down requirements by journals, institutions, and funding bodies. To facilitate widespread adoption, the WORCS principles have been implemented in the R package worcs, which offers an RStudio project template and utility functions for specific workflow steps. This paper introduces the conceptual workflow, discusses how it meets different standards for open science, and addresses the functionality provided by the R implementation, worcs. This paper is primarily targeted towards scholars conducting research projects in R, conducting research that involves academic prose, analysis code, and (optionally) tabular data. However, the workflow is flexible enough to accommodate other scenarios, and offers a sensible starting point for customized solutions. The source code for the R package and manuscript, and a list of user examples of WORCS projects, are available at https://github.com/cjvanlissa/worcs.

scholarly journals Navigating Open Science as Early Career Feminist Researchers

2021 ◽  
pp. 036168432110292
Author(s):  
Madeleine Pownall ◽  
Catherine V. Talbot ◽  
Anna Henschel ◽  
Alexandra Lautarescu ◽  
Kelly E. Lloyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Grass Roots ◽  
Early Career Researchers ◽  
Open Research ◽  
Career Research ◽  
Science Movement

Open science aims to improve the rigor, robustness, and reproducibility of psychological research. Despite resistance from some academics, the open science movement has been championed by some early career researchers (ECRs), who have proposed innovative new tools and methods to promote and employ open research principles. Feminist ECRs have much to contribute to this emerging way of doing research. However, they face unique barriers, which may prohibit their full engagement with the open science movement. We, 10 feminist ECRs in psychology from a diverse range of academic and personal backgrounds, explore open science through a feminist lens to consider how voice and power may be negotiated in unique ways for ECRs. Taking a critical and intersectional approach, we discuss how feminist early career research may be complemented or challenged by shifts towards open science. We also propose how ECRs can act as grass-roots changemakers within the context of academic precarity. We identify ways in which open science can benefit from feminist epistemology and end with envisaging a future for feminist ECRs who wish to engage with open science practices in their own research.

scholarly journals Trusting on the Shoulders of Open Giants? Open Science Increases Trust in Science for the Public and Academics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjin Song ◽  
David Matthew Markowitz ◽  
Samuel Hardman Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Journal Article ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Total N ◽  
The Public ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Science Movement

Researchers often focus on the benefits of adopting open science practices for improving the credibility of research studies, yet questions remain whether the general public, as well as academics, value and trust studies consistent with open science practices. In the current package of studies, we examined how open science can increase trust in science for the public and academics as well. In three preregistered experiments (total N = 2,214), we manipulated journal article abstracts to contain descriptions of open science practices or not. Across all studies, open science research was perceived as more credible and trustworthy than non-open science research. Study 2 explored if open science practices compensated for negative perceptions of privately-funded research versus publicly-funded research, though we did not find evidence for this claim. Finally, Study 3 examined perceptions of open science from communication science scholars and observed open science research was perceived more favorably than non-open science research, though the effect was only pronounced for early career researchers. We discuss implications for the open science movement and public trust in science.

scholarly journals 7 Easy Steps to Open Science: An Annotated Reading List

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia Crüwell ◽  
Johnny van Doorn ◽  
Alexander Etz ◽  
Matthew C. Makel ◽  
Hannah Moshontz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Reading List ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Research And Teaching ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
Science Movement

The Open Science movement is rapidly changing the scientific landscape. Because exact definitions are often lacking and reforms are constantly evolving, accessible guides to open science are needed. This paper provides an introduction to open science and related reforms in the form of an annotated reading list of seven peer-reviewed articles, following the format of Etz et al. (2018). Written for researchers and students - particularly in psychological science - it highlights and introduces seven topics: understanding open science; open access; open data, materials, and code; reproducible analyses; preregistration and registered reports; replication research; and teaching open science. For each topic, we provide a detailed summary of one particularly informative and actionable article and suggest several further resources. Supporting a broader understanding of open science issues, this overview should enable researchers to engage with, improve, and implement current open, transparent, reproducible, replicable, and cumulative scientific practices.

scholarly journals In Which Direction Does Happiness Predict Subsequent Social Interactions? A Commentary on Quoidbach et al. (2019)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timon Elmer
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Control Variable ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Theoretical Point ◽  
Alternative Control ◽  
Control Variables ◽  
Raw Data ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Psychological Science

The analyses of Quoidbach et al. (2019) indicate that unhappy individuals are more likely to subsequently interact with others. From a theoretical point of view, this finding is contrary to most existing psychological studies on this matter. Motivated by these theoretically surprising findings, this commentary reports re-analyses of the openly available data of Quoidbach et al.’s study (2019). These re-analyses indicate that a statistically problematic control variable is responsible for this counterintuitive finding. Models reporting raw associations and including alternative control variables suggest that unhappy individuals are less likely to subsequently interact.To support the transparency and the trustworthiness of psychological science, I encourage further open science practices and suggest that reports of raw data and stepwise model results are more frequently reported.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document