Pre-Registration in the Undergraduate Dissertation: A Critical Discussion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madeleine Pownall
Keyword(s):  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Perceived Barriers ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Statistics Anxiety ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Data Analysis Plan

Currently under review at Psychology Teaching Review. Over recent years, Psychology has become increasingly concerned with reproducibility and replicability of research findings (Munafò et al., 2017). One method of ensuring that research is hypothesis driven, as opposed to data driven, is the process of publicly pre-registering a study’s hypotheses, data analysis plan, and procedure prior to data collection (Nosek, Ebersole, DeHaven, & Mellor, 2018). This paper discusses the potential benefits of introducing pre-registration to the undergraduate dissertation. The utility of pre-registration as a pedagogic practice within dissertation supervision is also critically appraised, with reference to open science literature. Here, it is proposed that encouraging pre-registration of undergraduate dissertation work may alleviate some pedagogic challenges, such as statistics anxiety, questionable research practices, and research clarity and structure. Perceived barriers, such as time and resource constraints, are also discussed.

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 Research practices and statistical reporting quality in 250 economic psychology master's theses: a meta-research investigation

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. 190738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Olsen ◽  
Johanna Mosen ◽  
Martin Voracek ◽  
Erich Kirchler
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Power ◽  
Testing Effect ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Sample Size Determination ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Standardized Effect Sizes ◽  
Research Findings

The replicability of research findings has recently been disputed across multiple scientific disciplines. In constructive reaction, the research culture in psychology is facing fundamental changes, but investigations of research practices that led to these improvements have almost exclusively focused on academic researchers. By contrast, we investigated the statistical reporting quality and selected indicators of questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychology students' master's theses. In a total of 250 theses, we investigated utilization and magnitude of standardized effect sizes, along with statistical power, the consistency and completeness of reported results, and possible indications of p -hacking and further testing. Effect sizes were reported for 36% of focal tests (median r = 0.19), and only a single formal power analysis was reported for sample size determination (median observed power 1 − β = 0.67). Statcheck revealed inconsistent p -values in 18% of cases, while 2% led to decision errors. There were no clear indications of p -hacking or further testing. We discuss our findings in the light of promoting open science standards in teaching and student supervision.

scholarly journals Opening Doors to Open Science and Scholarship for School Psychology Research, Training, and Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Roberson ◽  
Ryan L. Farmer ◽  
Steven Shaw ◽  
Shelley Upton ◽  
Imad Zaheer
Keyword(s):  
School Psychology ◽  
School Psychologists ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Findings

Trustworthy scientific evidence is essential if school psychologists are to use evidence-based practices to solve the big problems students, teachers, and schools face. Open science practices promote transparency, accessibility, and robustness of research findings, which increases the trustworthiness of scientific claims. Simply, when researchers, trainers, and practitioners can ‘look under the hood’ of a study, (a) the researchers who conducted the study are likely to be more cautious, (b) reviewers are better able to engage the self-correcting mechanisms of science, and (c) readers have more reason to trust the research findings. We discuss questionable research practices that reduce the trustworthiness of evidence; specific open science practices; applications specific to researchers, trainers, and practitioners in school psychology; and next steps in moving the field toward openness and transparency.

scholarly journals Open Science, Replicability, and Transparency in Modelling

2021 ◽  
pp. 175-183
Author(s):  
Toby Prike
Keyword(s):  
Computational Modelling ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Study Materials ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Good Research ◽  
Science Movement

AbstractRecent years have seen large changes to research practices within psychology and a variety of other empirical fields in response to the discovery (or rediscovery) of the pervasiveness and potential impact of questionable research practices, coupled with well-publicised failures to replicate published findings. In response to this, and as part of a broader open science movement, a variety of changes to research practice have started to be implemented, such as publicly sharing data, analysis code, and study materials, as well as the preregistration of research questions, study designs, and analysis plans. This chapter outlines the relevance and applicability of these issues to computational modelling, highlighting the importance of good research practices for modelling endeavours, as well as the potential of provenance modelling standards, such as PROV, to help discover and minimise the extent to which modelling is impacted by unreliable research findings from other disciplines.

scholarly journals Using Drama in EFL Classroom

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 125
Author(s):  
Luh Angelianawati
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
English Learning ◽  
Practical Guideline ◽  
Efl Teaching ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Efl Classrooms ◽  
The Many

Due to the many potential benefits and drama can offer in language learning, there has been a growing interest to use drama in ESL/EFL classrooms. However, the practice still causes many difficulties to both teachers and students due to several factors. This article reviews current theories and research findings on the use of drama in ESL/EFL teaching and learning to provide a better understanding of the use of drama to facilitate learning in EFL classrooms. It begins with current theories behind drama use in English learning. This section tries to clarify what drama is in the context of ESL/EFL, what benefits it offers, and what challenges teachers potentially meet. After that, the discussion focuses on a practical guideline for using drama in the classroom. It proceeds with a brief description of some useful drama techniques. The article ends by offering some concluding remarks.

Multiple-Study Replication Initiatives

2021 ◽  
pp. 152-172
Author(s):  
R. Barker Bausell
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Science Collaboration ◽  
Scientific Results ◽  
Commercial Applications ◽  
Successful Replication ◽  
Psychological Experiments

The “mass” replications of multiple studies, some employing dozens of investigators distributed among myriad sites, is unique to the reproducibility movement. The most impressive of these initiatives was employed by the Open Science Collaboration directed by Brian Nosek, who recruited 270 investigators to participate in the replication of 100 psychological experiments via a very carefully structured, prespecified protocol that avoided questionable research practices. Just before this Herculean effort, two huge biotech firms (Amegen and Bayer Health Care) respectively conducted 53 and 67 preclinical replications of promising published studies to ascertain which results were worth pursuing for commercial applications. Amazingly, in less than a 10-year period, a number of other diverse multistudy replications were also conducted involving hundreds of effects. Among these were the three “many lab” multistudy replications based on the Open Science Model (but also designed to ascertain if potential confounders of the approach itself existed, such as differences in participant types, settings, and timing), replications of social science studies published in Science and Nature, experimental economics studies, and even self-reported replications ascertained from a survey. Somewhat surprisingly, the overall successful replication percentage for this diverse collection of 811 studies was 46%, mirroring the modeling results discussed in Chapter 3 and supportive of John Ioannidis’s pejorative and often quoted conclusion that most scientific results are incorrect.

Working with Fathers

2017 ◽  
pp. 188-195
Author(s):  
Louise J. Keown
Keyword(s):  
Child Behavior ◽  
Positive Parenting ◽  
Parenting Program ◽  
Parenting Programs ◽  
Triple P ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Partner Relationships ◽  
Key Aspects

The potential benefits of including fathers in parenting programs is increasingly recognized. Evidence suggests that key aspects of child behavior, fathering, and partner relationships can be positively affected by interventions if fathers are included. This chapter discusses the role of fathers in children’s development and why father-inclusive parenting programs are needed. Next, there is an examination of how the Triple P—Positive Parenting Program has engaged fathers to support the success of Triple P interventions. Research findings illustrate the importance of engaging fathers and co-parenting couples and addressing the needs and interests of both parents in program design and content.

scholarly journals The effect of preregistration on trust in empirical research findings: results of a registered report

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 181351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarahanne M. Field ◽  
E.-J. Wagenmakers ◽  
Henk A. L. Kiers ◽  
Rink Hoekstra ◽  
Anja F. Ernst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Bayes Factors ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Research Initiatives

The crisis of confidence has undermined the trust that researchers place in the findings of their peers. In order to increase trust in research, initiatives such as preregistration have been suggested, which aim to prevent various questionable research practices. As it stands, however, no empirical evidence exists that preregistration does increase perceptions of trust. The picture may be complicated by a researcher's familiarity with the author of the study, regardless of the preregistration status of the research. This registered report presents an empirical assessment of the extent to which preregistration increases the trust of 209 active academics in the reported outcomes, and how familiarity with another researcher influences that trust. Contrary to our expectations, we report ambiguous Bayes factors and conclude that we do not have strong evidence towards answering our research questions. Our findings are presented along with evidence that our manipulations were ineffective for many participants, leading to the exclusion of 68% of complete datasets, and an underpowered design as a consequence. We discuss other limitations and confounds which may explain why the findings of the study deviate from a previously conducted pilot study. We reflect on the benefits of using the registered report submission format in light of our results. The OSF page for this registered report and its pilot can be found here: http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B3K75 .

Tourism Collaborative Governance and Rural Community Development in Finland: The Case of Vuonislahti

2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parhad Keyim
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Collaborative Governance ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
Community Tourism ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Effective Community ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
The Village

Tourism is recognized as a potential development mechanism for peripheral rural communities encountering various changes and challenges. However, a relatively unexplored theme in previous studies is that tourism’s potential benefits to rural communities are affected by rural development policies and practices: specifically, a collaborative governance approach. Based on a case study from Vuonislahti, a peripheral locale in the municipality of Lieksa, Finland, this article frames a community tourism collaborative governance approach. The study suggests that the village community receives limited tourism benefits because of various constraints rooted in the specific socioeconomic and institutional settings of the village and beyond. However, the struggle to formulate a fair and effective community tourism collaborative governance approach may bring positive socioeconomic benefits to the village and to other similarly declining rural communities in Finland and beyond. The approach is conceptually tentative in nature and its theoretical development needs to be complemented with additional research findings from empirical case studies conducted in diverse rural socioeconomic and institutional contexts of countries under different regimes.

Science, literature, and cultural colonialism

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-172
Author(s):  
Patrick Colm Hogan
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Scientific Study ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Cultural Relations ◽  
Scientific Culture ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Understanding Of Science ◽  
Cultural Colonialism

Readers of a new journal in the scientific study of literature are undoubtedly aware of the potential benefits of a scientific culture in literary studies. However, they may be less sensitive to potential dangers. In order to enhance these benefits and avoid some of the dangers, this essay takes up the relations of authority and prestige that often accompany and distort the interconnections between humanistic and scientific research. Specifically, it considers how social and institutional conditions may place scientific and humanistic cultures in relations parallel to those between colonizing and colonized cultures. (This refers solely to the cultural relations. Clearly, there is no issue of violence or exploitation.) The parallel extends to forms of cultural response (e.g., “mimeticism”) that potentially distort both the humanist’s understanding of science and the scientist’s understanding of the humanities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document