What is the value of replicating other studies?

Park, Caroline L.

doi:10.3152/147154404781776400

Cited by 32 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The file-drawer syndrome prevents the publication of many replications which do not support previous findings (Lindsay 1990, Park 2004. Admittedly, confirming replications (whose results agree with those from the original investigation) are valuable inasmuch as they make the corroborated findings more credible.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 78%

Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

Dziemianko

2012

Lex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The primary aim of the article is to compare the usefulness of paper and electronic versions of OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) for language encoding, decoding and learning. It is explained why, in contrast to Dziemianko's (2010) findings concerning COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), but in keeping with her observations (Dziemianko 2011) with regard to LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), the e-version of OALDCE7 proved to be no better for language reception, production and learning than the dictionary in book form. 1 An attempt is made to pinpoint the micro-and macrostructural design features which make e-COBUILD6 a better learning tool than e-OALDCE7 and e-LDOCE5. Recommendations concerning further research into the significance of the medium (paper vs. electronic) in the process of dictionary use conclude the study. The secondary aim which the paper attempts to achieve is to present the status of replication as a scientific research method and justify its use in lexicography. Keywords: PAPER DICTIONARIES, ELECTRONIC DICTIONARIES, DICTIONARY USE, ENCODING, DECODING, RETENTION, RESEARCH METHODS, REPLICATION, MENUS, HIGHLIGHTING, NOISE, ACCESS, ENTRY LENGTHOpsomming: Waarom een en twee nie gelyk is aan drie nie -woordeboekvorm herbeskou. Die primêre doel van die artikel is om die bruikbaarheid van papier-en elektroniese weergawes van OALDCE7 (Wehmeier 2005) te vergelyk vir taalenkodering en -dekodering en die aanleer van taal. Daar word verduidelik waarom, in teenstelling met Dziemianko (2010) se bevindinge betreffende COBUILD6 (Sinclair 2008), maar in ooreenstemming met haar waarnemings (Dziemianko 2011) met betrekking tot LDOCE5 (Mayor 2009), die e-weergawe van OALDCE7 geblyk het nie beter te wees vir taalresepsie en -produksie en die aanleer van taal as die woordeboek in boekvorm nie. 1 'n Poging word aangewend om die mikro-en makrostrukturele ontwerpkenmerke aan te stip wat e-COBUILD6 'n beter onderrighulpmiddel maak as e-OALDCE7 en e-LDOCE5. Aanbevelings betreffende verdere navorsing oor die belangrikheid van die medium (papier vs. elektronies) in die proses van woordeboekgebruik sluit die studie af. Die sekondêre doel wat die artikel probeer bereik, is om die status van replisering as 'n wetenskaplike navorsingsmetode aan te bied en die gebruik daarvan in die leksikografie te regverdig. WOORDEBOEKE, WOORDE-BOEKGEBRUIK, ENKODERING, DEKODERING, RETENSIE, NAVORSINGSMETODES, REPLI-SERING, KIESLYSTE, BELIGTING, GERAAS, TOEGANG, LENGTE VAN INSKRYWING 196 Anna Dziemianko Sleutelwoorde: PAPIERWOORDEBOEKE, ELEKTRONIESE Introduction The usefulness of paper and electronic dictionariesElectronic counterparts of printed monolingual English learners' dictionaries, available on CD-ROMs, online, or -increasingly often -on portable electronic devices, are taken for granted these days. Some of them appear to be quite close to their predecessors in book form (Rogers 1996, Nesi 1999. However, it is strongly stressed that e-dictionaries should not be just electronic remakes of existing printed dictionaries, but should rather be compiled from scrat...

show abstract

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 78%

Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

Dziemianko

2012

Lex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, replication studies are not very attractive for the replicator. As Park (Park, 2004) states, replication studies are rarely conducted "because [they are] difficult to successfully accomplish and [carry] more risk than potential reward for both the replicator and the originator of the research." The little reward refers to the fact that replication studies are rarely published and that falsifications could infuriate influential members of the community in question.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open access to research data has been described as a driver of innovation and a potential cure for the reproducibility crisis in many academic fields. Against this backdrop, policy makers are increasingly advocating for making research data and supporting material openly available online. Despite its potential to further scientific progress, widespread data sharing in small science is still an ideal practised in moderation. In this article, we explore the question of what drives open access to research data using a survey among 1564 mainly German researchers across all disciplines. We show that, regardless of their disciplinary background, researchers recognize the benefits of open access to research data for both their own research and scientific progress as a whole. Nonetheless, most researchers share their data only selectively. We show that individual reward considerations conflict with widespread data sharing. Based on our results, we present policy implications that are in line with both individual reward considerations and scientific progress.

show abstract

“…Replication repeats empirical studies to solidify their results, test result reproducibility, increase result validity (e.g., Easterbrook et al (2008) and Park (2004) consider replication a kind of triangulation), and broaden research context and scope by repetition under similar conditions while changing selected variables, e.g., site, population, and instruments. Thus, students can learn from adapting the research design in a new environment and by comparing the results obtained to those of the original study.…”

Section: Replication Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for using empirical studies in software engineering education

Fagerholm

Kuhrmann

Münch

2017

PeerJ Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software engineering education is under constant pressure to provide students with industry-relevant knowledge and skills. Educators must address issues beyond exercises and theories that can be directly rehearsed in small settings. Industry training has similar requirements of relevance as companies seek to keep their workforce up to date with technological advances. Real-life software development often deals with large, software-intensive systems and is influenced by the complex effects of teamwork and distributed software development, which are hard to demonstrate in an educational environment. A way to experience such effects and to increase the relevance of software engineering education is to apply empirical studies in teaching. In this paper, we show how different types of empirical studies can be used for educational purposes in software engineering. We give examples illustrating how to utilize empirical studies, discuss challenges, and derive an initial guideline that supports teachers to include empirical studies in software engineering courses. Furthermore, we give examples that show how empirical studies contribute to high-quality learning outcomes, to student motivation, and to the awareness of the advantages of applying software engineering principles. Having awareness, experience, and understanding of the actions required, students are more likely to apply such principles under real-life constraints in their working life.

show abstract

What is the value of replicating other studies?

Cited by 32 publications

References 13 publications

Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

Why One and Two Do Not Make Three: Dictionary Form Revisited

A reputation economy: how individual reward considerations trump systemic arguments for open access to data

Guidelines for using empirical studies in software engineering education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About