Open science considerations for descriptive research in developmental science

Abstract

Descriptive developmental research seeks to document, describe, and analyze the conditions under which infants and children live and learn. Here, we articulate how open-science practices can be incorporated into descriptive research to increase its transparency, reliability, and replicability. To date, most open-science practices have been oriented toward experimental rather than descriptive studies, and it can be confusing to figure out how to translate openscience practices (e.g., preregistration) for research that is more descriptive in nature. We discuss a number of unique considerations for descriptive developmental research, taking inspiration from existing open-science practices and providing examples from recent and ongoing studies. By embracing a scientific culture where descriptive research and open science coexist productively, developmental science will be better positioned to generate comprehensive theories of development and understand variability in development across communities and cultures. Highlights Descriptive research is vital to the development of comprehensive theories of early development, and open-science practices can increase the transparency and replicability of this effort. Many existing open-science practices are oriented toward experimental rather than descriptive research. Considerations related to the adoption of open-science practices in descriptive research are discussed, complemented by examples of successful adoption.

Inclusive, open, and reproducible developmental science

“…Opportunities and challenges in implementing open science practices in longitudinal developmental research is also highlighted in a commentary by Kirtley (2022). Consistent with our own approach in conducting descriptive research, Kosie and Lew-Williams outlines various considerations for incorporating open science practices in descriptive developmental research (Kosie & Lew-Williams, 2022). We note the proposal by Whitmore and Mills regarding how researchers can expand inclusivity and openness through co-created research in collaboration with members of the researched population (Whitmore & Mills, 2021).…”

The mountain stream of infant development

“…Video recordings capture the richness and complexity of behavior (Adolph, 2016) and video data provide a permanent record that can be visited repeatedly by the same or different researchers to ask new questions and enable new discoveries (Adolph, 2020). Such a broad view of open science means that researchers who embark on descriptive, discovery science can pre-register methods, stimuli, preliminary plans for video annotation, and so on, and update their plans as a study unfolds (Kosie & Lew-Williams, 2022).…”

Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science.

“…In turn, this devaluation of certain methods can lead to a harsher review of content areas that benefit the most from qualitative approaches (e.g., developmental, social, or cross-cultural psychology). Adopting an expansive view of what “good science” requires embracing the diversity of methods at our disposal and recognizing that some questions are better answered via qualitative or descriptive approaches (Brady et al, 2018; Kosie & Lew-Williams, 2022). Using multiple approaches allows better observation and characterization of the diversity of human behavior in the myriad contexts in which it unfolds.…”