scholarly journals When Values Collide: Why Scientists Argue About Open Science and How to Move Forward

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin Fife ◽  
Matthew Lung ◽  
Nadine Sullivan ◽  
Chelsie Young
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Personal Values ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
Value System ◽  
A Value ◽  
Replication Crisis

In the early/mid 20th century, scientists and philosophers advocated for a scientific framework that valued objectivity and certainty. This framework was committed to the value-free ideal, which held that social, political, ethical, and personal values are irrelevant to the process of science. This value system was adopted, both in science and public education systems. Indeed, the value of objectivity is thought to be synonymous with sound scientific practice. However, the “replication crisis” showed objectivity and certainty are illusory, and a value-system that favors objectivity may actually incentivize researchers to hide their biases. Over the last few years, a new value system is emerging, one that embraces uncertainty, encourages openness and transparency, and recognizes bias inherent in the scientific enterprise. These values conflict with those of the previous system, which creates discord among the scientific community. In this paper, we trace the origins of the existing value system and delineate new values emerging in the post-replication-crisis scientific community. This new set of values, objectified by the open science movement, recognizes the scientific process as a social enterprise. Neither set of values is inherently better, but both are reactions to the social environment in which researchers participate. What is important, however, is to recognize the significance of personal values in scientific discovery and to open dialogue about how to leverage these values. We conclude with recommendations about how to overcome both discord and the current incentive structure to increase the validity and reputability of science.

scholarly journals Open Science in Data-Intensive Psychology and Cognitive Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Paxton ◽  
Alexa Tullett
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Data Intensive ◽  
Large Scale Data ◽  
Share Data ◽  
And Behavior

Today, researchers can collect, analyze, and share more data than ever before. Not only does increasing technological capacity open the door to new data-intensive perspectives in cognitive science and psychology (i.e., research that takes advantage of complex or large-scale data to understand human cognition and behavior), but increasing connectedness has sparked exponential increases in the ease and practice of scientific transparency. The growing open science movement encourages researchers to share data, materials, methods, and publications with other scientists and the wider public. Open science benefits data-intensive psychological science, the public, and public policy, and we present recommendations to improve the adoption of open science practices by changing the academic incentive structure and by improving the education pipeline. Despite ongoing questions about implementing open science guidelines, policy makers have an unprecedented opportunity to shape the next frontier of scientific discovery.

scholarly journals Open Science in Data-Intensive Psychology and Cognitive Science

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Paxton ◽  
Alexa Mary Tullett
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Data Intensive ◽  
Large Scale Data ◽  
Share Data ◽  
And Behavior

Today, researchers can collect, analyze, and share more data than ever before. Not only does increasing technological capacity open the door to new data-intensive perspectives in cognitive science and psychology (that is, research that takes advantage of complex or large-scale data to understand human cognition and behavior), but increasing connectedness has sparked exponential increases in the ease and practice of scientific transparency. The growing open science movement encourages researchers to share data, materials, methods, and publications with other scientists and the wider public. Open science benefits data-intensive psychological science, the public, and public policy, and we present recommendations to improve the adoption of open science practices by changing the academic incentive structure and by improving the education pipeline. Despite ongoing questions about implementing open-science guidelines, policymakers have an unprecedented opportunity to shape the next frontier of scientific discovery.

Self-Concept and the Validity of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values

1970 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 263-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E. Simon
Keyword(s):  
Personal Values ◽  
Self Concept ◽  
Value System ◽  
A Value ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Ps Condition ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between Ss' perception of their personal values and their values as measured by the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values was investigated. 79 Ss unknowingly completed the Study of Values and later were presented with descriptions of 9 individuals whom they were to rate with respect to similarity to self. The descriptions of 8 of these individuals were the same for all Ss. The ninth individual (individual D) was, on the basis of Ss' scores on the Study of Values, described as having a value system either very similar (High PS condition) or very dissimilar (Low PS condition) to their own. The individual D was rated as significantly more similar to self in the High PS condition.

scholarly journals Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Grant ◽  
Kathleen Wendt ◽  
Bonnie J. Leadbeater ◽  
Lauren H. Supplee ◽  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Discovery ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Prevention Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Science Practices ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Science Movement

The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Open science provides opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. Open science also addresses key challenges to the credibility of prevention science, such as irreproducibility of results, selective non-reporting (publication bias, outcome reporting bias), and other detrimental research practices. The overarching goal of this paper is to provide an overview of open science practices for prevention science researchers, and to identify key stakeholders and resources to support implementation of these practices. We consider various aspects of applying open science practices in prevention science, such as identifying evidence-based interventions. In addition, we call for the adoption of prevention science practices in the open science movement, such as the use of program planning principles to develop, implement, and evaluate open science efforts. We also identify some challenges that need to be considered in the transition to a transparent, open, and reproducible prevention science. Throughout, we identify activities that will strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. We conclude with the notion that prevention scientists are well-positioned to engage with the open science movement, especially given their expertise in examining and addressing complex social and behavioral issues. By embracing transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote well-being.

scholarly journals Conceptualising Open Science in the 21st Century

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-6
Author(s):  
Mercy Gloria Ashepet ◽  
Ignace Bossuyt ◽  
Hein Brookhuis ◽  
Cristian Constantin ◽  
Marta Fedele ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Systems Perspective

Open Science that is adaptive to the complexity of the 21st century is emerging in transdisciplinary institutions outside of academia. Despite its growing popularity and plurality as a movement, the scope in which Open Science is practiced and discussed inside academia is still mostly restricted to the scientific community and fragmented between disciplinary silos. Researchers and policymakers promoting Open Science often focus on knowledge translation and still recognise experts and academia as the main producers of knowledge, essentially closing the research process to non-researchers and preventing other perspectives from being integrated into knowledge production. Our aim with this project was to adopt a systems perspective to understand how Open Science can address the challenges in the current knowledge production system. Open discussions among the team members revealed distinct understandings of what constitutes Open Science. Thus, during our process we collated these many defi nitions of Open Science and extracted the dimensions that underlie such definitions and mapped how these dimensions could be interconnected in a more comprehensive conceptualisation of Open Science. Future iterations of the challenge could build on our reflections and explore how these Open Science dimensions translate into scientific practice and how researchers can be encouraged to reflect on Open Science in a more systems-oriented way. Our findings have been summarised in a small video.

Strategies Among Young Jehovah’s Witnesses in Compulsory School in Sweden, Age 13–15, a Case Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pernilla Liedgren ◽  
Lars Andersson
Keyword(s):  
World View ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Jehovah’S Witnesses ◽  
Value System ◽  
Jehovah's Witnesses ◽  
A Value ◽  
Standing Up ◽  
Primary School Age ◽  
Mainstream Culture

This study investigated how young teenagers, as members of a strong religious organization, dealt with the school situation and the encounter with mainstream culture taking place at school during the final years in Swedish primary school (age 13–15 years). The purpose was to explore possible strategies that members of a minority group, in this case the Jehovah’s Witnesses, developed in order to deal with a value system differing from that of the group. We interviewed eleven former members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses about their final years in compulsory Swedish communal school. The ages of the interviewees ranged between 24 and 46 years, and the interviewed group comprised six men and five women. Nine of the eleven interviewees had grown up in the countryside or in villages. All but two were ethnic Swedes. The time that had passed since leaving the movement ranged from quite recently to 20 years ago. The results revealed three strategies; Standing up for Your Beliefs, Escaping, and Living in Two Worlds. The first two strategies are based on a One-World View, and the third strategy, Living in Two Worlds, implies a Two-World View, accepting to a certain extent both the Jehovah’s Witnesses outlook as well as that of ordinary society. The strategy Standing up for Your Beliefs can be described as straightforward, outspoken, and bold; the youngsters did not show any doubts about their belief. The second subgroup showed an unshakeable faith, but suffered psychological stress since their intentions to live according to their belief led to insecurity in terms of how to behave, and also left them quite isolated. These people reported more absence from school. The youngsters using the strategy Living in Two Worlds appeared to possess the ability to sympathize with both world views, and were more adaptable in different situations.

Civil Worldview of the College Youth

2018 ◽  
pp. 134-141
Author(s):  
Илья Егоров ◽  
Ilya Egorov ◽  
Диана Наумова ◽  
Diana Naumova
Keyword(s):  
Social Identity ◽  
Social Activity ◽  
Environmental Consciousness ◽  
Value System ◽  
College Youth ◽  
A Value ◽  
Worldview Formation

The paper states the authors’ view of the civic worldview phenomenon. The civic worldview is considered as a value system and a conscience core, whose attributes are maturity of personality, pro-social activity and social identity. The civic worldview is a step upwards of a kind and a basis for the civic worldview formation, while the establishment of the civic worldview results in the geographical, historical and environmental consciousness. The research describes the types and kinds of the civic worldview, social and pedagogical conditions and the program of its formation in the college youth.

scholarly journals Total SciComm: A Strategy for Communicating Open Science

Publications ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Manh-Toan Ho ◽  
Manh-Tung Ho ◽  
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Open Data ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Central Idea ◽  
Retracted Article ◽  
Scientific Ideas

This paper seeks to introduce a strategy of science communication: Total SciComm or all-out science communication. We proposed that to maximize the outreach and impact, scientists should use different media to communicate different aspects of science, from core ideas to methods. The paper uses an example of a debate surrounding a now-retracted article in the Nature journal, in which open data, preprints, social media, and blogs are being used for a meaningful scientific conversation. The case embodied the central idea of Total SciComm: the scientific community employs every medium to communicate scientific ideas and engages all scientists in the process.

Psychology Exceptionalism and the Multiple Discovery of the Replication Crisis

2021 ◽  
pp. 108926802110465
Author(s):  
Nicole C. Nelson ◽  
Julie Chung ◽  
Kelsey Ichikawa ◽  
Momin M. Malik
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Common Core ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Institutional Factors ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
Replication Crisis ◽  
Crisis In Psychology

This article outlines what we call the “narrative of psychology exceptionalism” in commentaries on the replication crisis: many thoughtful commentaries link the current crisis to the specificity of psychology’s history, methods, and subject matter, but explorations of the similarities between psychology and other fields are comparatively thin. Historical analyses of the replication crisis in psychology further contribute to this exceptionalism by creating a genealogy of events and personalities that shares little in common with other fields. We aim to rebalance this narrative by examining the emergence and evolution of replication discussions in psychology alongside their emergence and evolution in biomedicine. Through a mixed-methods analysis of commentaries on replication in psychology and the biomedical sciences, we find that these conversations have, from the early years of the crisis, shared a common core that centers on concerns about the effectiveness of traditional peer review, the need for greater transparency in methods and data, and the perverse incentive structure of academia. Drawing on Robert Merton’s framework for analyzing multiple discovery in science, we argue that the nearly simultaneous emergence of this narrative across fields suggests that there are shared historical, cultural, or institutional factors driving disillusionment with established scientific practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document