Open science and epistemic pluralism: A tale of many perils and some opportunities

Bazzoli, Andrea

doi:10.1017/iop.2022.67

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…clinical case studies). Applying a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to promoting open sci-ence practices has been widely criticized by numerous commentators (e.g., Bazzoli, 2022;Bergmann, 2023;Field et al, 2021;Huma and Joyce, 2022), but by indiscriminately rewarding their use in hiring practices for all psychology researchers (and thereby punishing their absence), Gärtner et al's proposal epitomizes exactly this ethos.…”

Section: Gatekeeping Psychological Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research assessment using a narrow definition of “research quality” is an act of gatekeeping: A comment on Gärtner et al. (2022)

Hostler

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gärtner et al. (2022) propose a system for quantitatively scoring the methodological rigour of papers during the hiring and promotion of psychology researchers, with the aim of advantaging researchers who conduct open, reproducible work. However, the quality criteria proposed for assessing methodological rigour are drawn from a narrow post-positivist paradigm of quantitative, confirmatory research conducted from an epistemology of scientific realism. This means that research conducted from a variety of other approaches, including constructivist, qualitative research, becomes structurally disadvantaged under the new system. The implications of this for particular fields, demographics of researcher, and the future of the discipline of psychology are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Gatekeeping Psychological Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research assessment using a narrow definition of “research quality” is an act of gatekeeping: A comment on Gärtner et al. (2022)

Hostler

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others have criticized preregistration for marginalizing other philosophical approaches to science, such as constructivist research, threatening 'pluralism' in science. For example, Bazzoli (2022) argues "constructionist epistemologies are not concerned with replicability of findings at all" and "the social reality we inhabit is not necessarily objective and measurable". This criticism mainly raises the concern that research performed from a different philosophy of science, such as 'social constructivism' will be seen as less valuable, relative to preregistered studies.…”

Section: Do We Need Preregistration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Benefits of Preregistration and Registered Reports

Lakens,

Mesquida,

Rasti

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From a methodological falsificationist philosophy of science it is desirable that scientific claims are severely tested. We review evidence about the self-reported prevalence of research practices that reduce the severity of tests. Such biasing selection effects are relatively common, although the extent to which they lead to biased claims is impossible to empirically establish. These practices are amplified by publication bias, where desired results are more likely to end up in the published literature. We explain how, from an error-statistical epistemology, the goal of preregistration is to allow peers to transparently evaluate how severely a claim has been tested, and how the goal of Registered Reports is to reduce publication bias. A review of metascientific research on preregistration and Registered Reports confirms both practices achieve these goals. The literature also reveals researchers perceive additional benefits of preregistration, mainly concerning the improved quality of their studies. We review criticisms on preregistration, and find conflicting viewpoints, several misunderstandings, and a general lack of empirical support. An exception is the valid concern that the mere presence of a preregistration will mindlessly be used as a proxy for high quality. We conclude with general recommendations to increase the quality and practice of preregistration.

show abstract

“…Again, there's no suggestion of any ill-intentions on the part of the open science movement here. On the contrary, the open science community is clearly attempting to improve the quality, rigour, and credibility of science on the basis of "reasonable arguments that logically descend from…[their postpositivist] assumptions" (Bazzoli, 2022). The concern is that these assumptions do not necessarily apply in the case of non-postpositivist research paradigms.…”

Section: Postpositivist Encroachment May Be Motivated and Unacknowledgedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One approach to managing this clash is to be more open about not only our methods and data, but also the previously "undeclared and unexamined assumptions" of our research paradigms (Bazzoli, 2022). It's only after a research paradigm's epistemic rationales for open science principles and practices are made explicit that its interpretations and operationalisations of openness can be fully understood and appreciated by scientists from other paradigms.…”

Section: Opening Up Open Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Opening up open science to epistemic pluralism: Comment on Bazzoli (2022) and some additional thoughts

Rubin¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Open science and epistemic pluralism: A tale of many perils and some opportunities

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

Research assessment using a narrow definition of “research quality” is an act of gatekeeping: A comment on Gärtner et al. (2022)

Research assessment using a narrow definition of “research quality” is an act of gatekeeping: A comment on Gärtner et al. (2022)

The Benefits of Preregistration and Registered Reports

Opening up open science to epistemic pluralism: Comment on Bazzoli (2022) and some additional thoughts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About