Psychology is a science, teaching is an art, and sciences never generate arts directly out of themselves. An intermediary, inventive mind must make the application.-James, Talks to Teachers on Psychology, and to Students on Some of Life's Ideals (pp.

The scientific enterprise has long been based on the presumption of replication, although scientists have recently become aware of various corruptions of the enterprise that have hurt replicability. In this article, we begin by considering three illustrations of research paradigms that have all been subject to intense scrutiny through replications and theoretical concerns. The three paradigms are one for which the corpus of research points to a real finding, one for which the corpus of research points to a significantly attenuated effect, and one for which the debate is ongoing. We then discuss what scientists can learn—and how science can be improved—through replications more generally. From there, we discuss what we believe needs to be done to improve scientific inquiry with regard to replication moving forward. Finally, we conclude by providing readers with several different approaches to replication and how these approaches progress science. The approaches discussed include multilab replications of many effects, multilab replications of specific effects, adversarial collaborations, and stand-alone applications.

Although the benefits of crowdsourcing research models have been outlined elsewhere, very little attention has been paid to the application of these models to cross-cultural behavioral research. In this manuscript, we delineate two types of crowdsourcing initiatives—researcher crowdsourced and participant crowdsourced. Researcher crowdsourced refers to initiatives where researchers are gathered to work toward a shared goal. Participant crowdsourced refers to those which allow a researcher to gather a large number of participants within a short time frame. We explore the utility of each type of initiative while providing readers with a framework that can be used when deciding whether researcher or participant crowdsourcing initiatives would be most fruitful for their work. Perceived strengths of a researcher crowdsourced initiative with a cross-cultural focus is based on contributor data from Psi Chi’s Network for International Collaborative Exchange (NICE) and is integrated into this framework. Claims are made for the utility of both researcher and participant crowdsourcing as a way to increase generalizability and reliability, decrease time burdens, democratize research, educate individuals on open science, and provide mentorship. These claims are supported with data from NICE contributors.

No abstract

No abstract