DEEP FLOW: an embodied materiality of dance, technology, and bodily experience

In this research article, I argue that Deep Flow is an embodied materiality that may be experienced by exploring performative phenomenologies, entwining two different sets of research practice: phenomenological methodologies and artistic practice. In Deep Flow the practitioner entangles phenomenological methodologies, methods and research practices performatively such as embodied dance practice, the felt senses, drawings, verbal feedback and their analyses in relation to biometric data, from an embodied heart rate monitor. By looking inwardly, the practitioner experiences embodied phenomena and reveals these experiences in artistic practices in relation to the worlding in which they find themselves. These outcomes are considered as being differing materialities, flowing and converging through relational and phenomenological practice, Deep Flow and through this they become embodied by the practitioner, where new forms of embodied materialities emerge. I argue that in my practice, this is an experiential state, Deep Flow, where all human and non-human elements of the dance practice flow and course through the practitioner as an embodied materiality.

The action-sentence compatibility effect (ACE) a benchmark finding for embodiment - A meta-analysis

The embodied account of language comprehension has been one of the most influentialtheoretical developments in the recent decades addressing the question how humanscomprehend and represent language. To examine its assumptions, many studies havemade use of behavioral paradigms involving basic compatibility effects. Theaction–sentence compatibility effect (ACE) is one of the most influential of thesecompatibility effects and is the most widely cited evidence for the assumptions of theembodied account of language comprehension. However, recently there have beendifficulties to extend or even to reliably replicate the ACE. The conflicting findingsconcerning the ACE and its extensions lead to the discussion whether the ACE isindeed a reliable effect or whether it might be the product of publication bias or otherdistorting research practices. In a first step we conducted a meta-analysis using arandom-effects model. This analysis revealed a small but significant effect size of theACE (d = .129, p = .007). A second meta-analytic approach supports these findings ofthe existence of an ACE (Fisher’s method: χ2 = 124.379, p < .001). Furthermore, thetask-parameter Delay occurred as a factor of interest in whether the ACE appears withpositive or negative effect direction. This meta-analysis further assessed for potentialpublication bias and suggests that there is bias in the ACE literature.

Good Science

Good Science is an account of psychological research emphasizing the moral foundations of inquiry. This volume brings together existing disciplinary critiques of scientism, objectivism, and instrumentalism, and then discusses how these contribute to institutionalized privilege and to less morally responsive research practices. The author draws on historical, critical, feminist, and science studies traditions to provide an alternative account of psychological science and to highlight the irreducibly moral foundations of everyday scientific practice. This work outlines a theoretical framework for thinking about and practicing psychology in ways that center moral responsibility, collective commitment, and justice. The book then applies this framework, describing psychological research practices in terms of the their moral dilemmas. Also included are materials meant to aid in methods instruction and mentoring.

Announcing a New Registered Report Article Type at the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Purpose: This editorial introduces the new registered reports article type for the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research . The goal of registered reports is to create a structural solution to address issues of publication bias toward results that are unexpected and sensational, questionable research practices that are used to produce novel results, and a peer-review process that occurs at the end of the research process when changes in fundamental design are difficult or impossible to implement. Conclusion: Registered reports can be a positive addition to scientific publications by addressing issues of publication bias, questionable research practices, and the late influence of peer review. This article type does so by requiring reviewers and authors to agree in advance that the experimental design is solid, the questions are interesting, and the results will be publishable regardless of the outcome. This procedure ensures that replication studies and null results make it into the published literature and that authors are not incentivized to alter their analyses based on the results that they obtain. Registered reports represent an ongoing commitment to research integrity and finding structural solutions to structural problems inherent in a research and publishing landscape in which publications are such a high-stakes aspect of individual and institutional success.

Academic Governance Arrangements

Governing the quality of academic activities at the institution level is a challenging task. Literature shows that the model of academic governance considers quality but still lacks proper standardization of academic functions and risk minimization in higher institutes. In the current chapter, the authors present a conceptual framework of academic governance, different arrangements settings, and exploring nexus of governance in education sector: how it operates to support the quality of academic activities. Using literature content and qualitative analysis, firstly the chapter explores a few factors of academic governance such as expectations of regulators, standards, and quality, and secondly, it presents influences due to pandemic on academic governance. At the last, this chapter draws inferences to act as a starting point for the study on academic governance, refers knowledge, infuses more research practices, and answers a few questions that might surface from the implementation of academic governance in assuring quality.

Rigour and reproducibility in Canadian research: call for a coordinated approach

Shortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.

Your Brother’s Gatekeeper: How Effects of Evaluation Machineries in Research Are Sometimes Enhanced

Many warnings are issued against the influence of evaluation machineries (such as bibliometric indicators) upon research practices. It is often argued that human judgment can function as a bulwark against constitutive effects of evaluation machineries. Using vignettes (small case narratives) related to the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BRI), this chapter shows that gatekeepers who “know the future” and use this “knowledge” in a preemptive or precautionary way play a key role in the construction of reality which comes out of the BRI. By showing that human judgment sometimes enhances or multiplies the effects of evaluation machineries, this chapter contributes to an understanding of mechanisms which lead to constitutive effects of evaluation systems in research.

Trends in scientific editing and good research practices: what do researchers-nurses know?

Objective: To verify researchers-nurses’ knowledge about trends in scientific publishing and good research practices. Method: A descriptive study carried out through an online survey with 197 nurses holding master’s and/or doctoral degrees from all Brazilian regions. To raise knowledge, a validated, self-administered and anonymous questionnaire with 18 questions on the subject was used. Descriptive and inferential analyzes were performed on researchers’ scores (Mann-Whitney test). Results: Among the specific questions, the mean of correct answers was 7.1: 6.4 for master’s and 7.4 for doctoral degree holders. There was a significant difference in the mean of correct answers between masters and doctors (p = 0.025), and between productivity scholarship holders and non-scholarship holders (p = 0.021), according to mean difference tests. Questions about predatory editorial practices were those in which researchers had the worst knowledge. Conclusion: We identified that, regardless of the education level (master’s or doctoral degree), nurses have little knowledge about the topics studied, which can compromise the quality of production and the scientific vehicles used to disseminate this knowledge.

Cracks in the Success Narrative: Rethinking Failure in Design Research through a Retrospective Trioethnography

What can design researchers learn from our own and each other's failures? We explore “failure” expansively—turning away from tidy success narratives toward messy unfoldings and reflexive discomfort—through retrospective trioethnography. Our findings reflect on failures we identified in six past design research projects: issues of relational labor of deployment, mismatched designer/participant imaginaries, burden of participation, and invisibility of researcher labor. Our discussion contributes to broader reflections on shifting design research practice: (a) methodological considerations inviting others to engage failures through retrospective trioethnography, (b) letting go as a mode of research care, (c) possibilities for more candid research reporting, and (d) how centering failure may contribute to design justice by providing a technique for attending to harm and healing in design research practices. Throughout, we call for challenging success narratives in design research, and underscore the need for systemic changes in design research practice.