Seven Easy Steps to Open Science

Crüwell, Sophia; Doorn, Johnny van; Etz, Alexander; Makel, Matthew C.; Moshontz, Hannah; Niebaum, Jesse C.; Orben, Amy; Parsons, Sam; Schulte‐Mecklenbeck, Michael

doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000387

Cited by 74 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Crucially, it could also accelerate the production of much-needed evidence, especially if paired with open scientific principles such as open data, shared code, and preregistration ( Munafò et al, 2017 ; Vazire, 2018 ). By sharing data and materials, progress could be accelerated because researchers can easily build on (and check) others’ work ( Crüwell et al, 2019 ). Furthermore, by implementing preregistration and Registered Reports, false-positive rates and publication biases can be better controlled ( Chambers, 2013 ; Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas & Kievit, 2012 ).…”

Section: Looking Aheadmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Sisyphean Cycle of Technology Panics

Orben

2020

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

147

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Widespread concerns about new technologies—whether they be novels, radios, or smartphones—are repeatedly found throughout history. Although tales of past panics are often met with amusement today, current concerns routinely engender large research investments and policy debate. What we learn from studying past technological panics, however, is that these investments are often inefficient and ineffective. What causes technological panics to repeatedly reincarnate? And why does research routinely fail to address them? To answer such questions, I examined the network of political, population, and academic factors driving the Sisyphean cycle of technology panics. In this cycle, psychologists are encouraged to spend time investigating new technologies, and how they affect children and young people, to calm a worried population. Their endeavor, however, is rendered ineffective because of the lack of a theoretical baseline; researchers cannot build on what has been learned researching past technologies of concern. Thus, academic study seemingly restarts for each new technology of interest, which slows down the policy interventions necessary to ensure technologies are benefiting society. In this article, I highlight how the Sisyphean cycle of technology panics stymies psychology’s positive role in steering technological change and the pervasive need for improved research and policy approaches to new technologies.

show abstract

Section: Looking Aheadmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Sisyphean Cycle of Technology Panics

Orben

2020

Perspect Psychol Sci

Self Cite

147

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach is meant to eschew a "one size fits all" mentality. The four principles are broadly applicable to any area of study, but the specific behavioral manifestations will always be contextualized by the research question and methodology (Crüwell et al, 2019).…”

Section: The Open Science Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Psychology, Diversity, and Representation in Open Science

Syed¹,

Kathawalla²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current moment in psychology is one of great challenges and great opportunities. The open science movement--the move towards more transparent, credible, and reproducible science--has led to a redefinition of what constitutes “normal science.” However, the field of cultural psychology, broadly construed, has by and large not engaged with the open science movement, and likewise, the open science movement has by and large not engaged with cultural psychology. The purpose of the present chapter is to bring open science and cultural psychology closer together, highlighting how they can benefit one another. In doing so, we focus our discussion on three types of representations regarding diversity in psychological research and how they intersect with open science: representation of researchers, or the diversity of the scientists actually doing the research, representation of samples, or who is included as participants in our research studies, and representation of perspectives, or the substantive conceptual and theoretical views we bring to our work. For each of these three types of representation we outline the problem, and then discuss how embracing the principles and behaviors of open science can help.

show abstract

“…Similarly, Camerer et al (2018) reported attempts to replicate 21 experiments originally published in Nature and Science, with less than two thirds succeeding. Replication attempts can fail for any of several reasons (e.g., maybe the replication did not properly recreate the essential conditions under which the original effect was obtained, or maybe the failure was just a Type II error), but most attention has focused on the role of faulty research practices in the original research, leading to calls for methodological reform to correct those practices and make psychological science more cumulative and useful (Bishop, 2019;Chambers, 2017;Crüwell et al, 2019;Frith, 2019;Munafo, 2017;Nelson, Simmons, & Simonsohn, 2018;Spellman, 2015).…”

Section: Seven Steps Toward Transparency and Replicability In Psycholmentioning

confidence: 99%