No description available.

yes / To date, open science, and particularly open data, in Psychology, has focused on quantitative research. This paper aims to explore ethical and practical issues encountered by UK-based psychologists utilising open qualitative datasets. Semi-structured telephone interviews with eight qualitative psychologists were explored using a framework analysis. From the findings, we offer a context-consent meta-framework as a resource to help in the design of studies sharing their data and/or studies using open data. We recommend ‘secondary’ studies conduct archaeologies of context and consent to examine if the data available is suitable for their research questions. This research is the first we know of in the study of ‘doing’ (or not doing) open science, which could be repeated to develop a longitudinal picture or complemented with additional approaches, such as observational studies of how context and consent are negotiated in pre-registered studies and open data. / The author's manuscript has a slightly different title from the published article: A meta-framework for designing open data studies in psychology: ethical and practical issues of open qualitative data sets

Yes / This article summarises the standpoint of the Qualitative Methods in Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society regarding the current position of qualitative research in psychology in the United Kingdom. The article is in three parts. Part one documents the historical development of the section, outlining its rationale, remit, and current activities. These activities aim to champion and develop qualitative methods in psychology, supporting high quality work regardless of epistemological or ontological position. Part two considers the current context of our work, describing not only how qualitative methods are valued in the United Kingdom but also how this recognition is undermined, particularly through the operationalisation of our national research assessment (the Research Excellence Framework). We also consider the challenges that Open Science poses for qualitive researchers. Part three highlights some of the significant contributions of UK-based qualitative researchers to psychology, with a particular focus on feminist-informed research, discourse analysis, and interpretative phenomenological analysis, before pointing to future exciting possibilities based on research exploring the affordances of digital technologies and innovative synthesising across epistemologies and disciplinary boundaries.

Yes / Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. Whilst there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists’ level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the UK and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarised descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher’s practices and their self-reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent’s research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM-B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement. / Research funding: Aston University. Article funding: Open access funding provided by IReL.

Zwei Innovationen innerhalb von Open Science werden in dieser Dissertation untersucht: Open Access und der Umgang mit Forschungsdaten. Die Ergebnisse zeigen ein positives Meinungsbild gegenüber beiden Innovationen, was sich allerdings nicht in einer übergreifenden Umsetzung in der Wissenschaft niederschlägt. Die disziplinären Unterschiede sind markant. Es lassen sich aber übergeordnete Ebenen herausarbeiten: Soziologische, technische & infrastrukturelle, sowie strategische & monetäre Aspekte gehören hierzu, wobei starke Interdependenzen zu verorten sind. Traditionell werden Qualität und Prestige von veröffentlichten wissenschaftlichen Ergebnissen als Maßgabe für die Reputation eines Wissenschaftlers angesehen, was klar in den Resultaten dieser Arbeit reflektiert ist. Sie präferieren die Nutzung von Publikationsorganen und Arbeitsabläufen, die in der Fachgemeinschaft etabliert sind. Daraus folgt ein zögerlicher Umgang mit Innovationen, z.B. dem offenem Zugang zu Forschungsdaten, wo es nur wenige etablierte Abläufe gibt. In der Diskussion dieser Arbeit wird die Notwendigkeit einer Verbindung zu heutigen Anreizsystemen und damit den Evaluierungssystemen in der Wissenschaft herausgestellt. Neue Strategien diesbezüglich sind im Aufbau, z.B. mit “zählbaren” Publikationen und Zitationen für Forschungsdaten. Die Kernthemen wurden in der Fallstudie der Hochenergiephysik genauer untersucht. Eine digitale Bibliothek erlaubte dort die praktische Implementierung von Open Science Werkzeugen. Die Ergebnisse unterstreichen das Potential: mit gezielten Diensten und Anreizen können Wissenschaftler für Open Science gewonnen werden; in diesem Fall zur Teilnahme in einem Crowdsourcingprojekt der digitalen Bibliothek und zur Umsetzung von „data sharing“. Dem Informationsmanagement kommt dabei eine neue Rolle zu, insbesondere bei einer engen Betreuung von Wissenschaftlern im digitalen Forschungsumfeld. Das kann parallel für die Serviceentwicklung und –begleitung genutzt werden. / Two major Open Science innovations, Open Access and research data sharing, have been studied in detail in this thesis. A large-scale survey and personal interviews are used to gain detailed insights from a range of disciplines. In addition, a case study in the High Energy Physics (HEP) community was used to study the results in practice. The results show that a rather positive attitude towards both, Open Access and research data sharing is not reflected in the researchers’ practices. Disciplinary differences prevail and relate to the different publishing cultures and research workflows. The results indicate that quality and prestige of research output are perceived as very important in determining a researcher’s reputation. Researchers prefer community-approved publication outlets. They hesitate to explore new innovations, such as data sharing, for which only few established workflows exist in digital scholarly communication. Interviewees highlight the significance of a (missing) link between such approaches on the one hand and the current incentive system and the research assessment schemes on the other. The results indicate that barriers can be overcome. In the case study, a strong collaboration with the community facilitated enhanced feedback loops to develop tailored and targeted services for Open Science. Researchers in the case study were successfully engaged in new innovative workflows: a crowdsourcing tool and data sharing in a digital library. The results highlight that opportunities of Open Science are not yet explored widely. But with targeted support, it is possible to build on best practices and develop strategies that engage communities in new innovations. The results furthermore demand new strategies to establish links from Open Science services to the academic incentive system. It is needed to revisit the current research assessment scheme in regard to potential support mechanisms for Open Science.

No description available.

The last few years have been characterised by increasing online communication and the emergence of social media, made possible by Web 2.0. In society as well as in research, social media is used for knowledge produc- tion and networking. One example of this is Mendeley, a social reference management tool. With answers from users all over the world, this study investigates the use of Mendeley, if the respondents use other social media and if all of this affects scientific communication. The aim is also to study what the respondents think about the future of scientific communication and if this can be related to current tendencies. The theoretic framework for this study is based on Leah Lievrouws research on the Cycle of Scientific Communication and the relationship between the ”Little Science 2.0”-scenario and the ”Big Science Retrench- ment”-scenario. A qualitative web based survey was conducted (41 answers) and complemented with an interview with a professor in environmental sciences. The main purpose with the interview was to study how Mendeley can be used in collaborations. The results show that Mendeley is used by researchers to store and organize references, read and annotate pdf:s, cite, share articles in groups, search for new references and to present their research and make new ac- quaintances. The answers show that one effect that Mendeley and other social media has on scientific communi- cation is facilitating cooperation across traditional divides. At the same time, some respondents have not seen an effect on their scientific communication yet. Methods to measure impact in social media are requested, which would complement standard citation analysis. Mendeley’s related research function is found valuable in theory, but is in need of significant improvements. The respondents think that the future will be characterized by an increase in openness and sharing, but a tendency to keep scientific results copyrighted and locked behind pay- walls is also present. This is a two years master’s thesis in Library and Information science.

No description available.

Die Psychologie und andere empirische Wissenschaften befinden sich in einer Krise, da vielen Forschenden bewusst geworden ist, dass viele Erkenntnisse nicht so stark empirisch gestützt sind, wie sie einst glaubten. Es wurden mehrere Ursachen dieser Krise vorgeschlagen: Missbrauch statistischer Methoden, soziologische Verzerrungen und schwache Theorien. In dieser Dissertation gehe ich davon aus, dass ungenaue Theorien unvermeidlich sind, diese aber mithilfe von Induktion einer empirischen Prüfung unterzogen werden können. Anhand von Daten können Theorien ergänzt werden, sodass präzise Vorhersagen möglich sind, die sich mit der Realität vergleichen lassen. Eine solche Strategie ist jedoch mit Kosten verbunden. Induktion ist daher zwar notwendig, aber führt zu einem übermäßigen Vertrauen in empirische Befunde. Um empirische Ergebnisse adäquat zu bewerten, muss diese Verzerrung berücksichtigt werden. Das Ausmaß der Verzerrung hängt von den Eigenschaften des induktiven Prozesses ab. Einige induktive Prozesse können vollständig transparent gemacht werden, sodass ihre Verzerrung angemessen berücksichtigt werden kann. Ich zeige, dass dies bei Induktion der Fall ist, die beliebig mit anderen Daten wiederholt werden kann, was die Bedeutung von computergestützter Reproduzierbarkeit unterstreicht. Induktion, die die Forschenden und ihr kognitives Modell einbezieht, kann nicht beliebig wiederholt werden; daher kann die Verzerrung durch Induktion nur mit Unsicherheit beurteilt werden. Ich schlage vor, dass die Verringerung dieser Unsicherheit das Ziel von Präregistrierung sein sollte. Nachdem ich die Ziele von Reproduzierbarkeit und Präregistrierung unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Transparenz über Induktion präzisiert habe, gebe ich in den wissenschaftlichen Artikeln, die als Teil der Dissertation veröffentlicht wurden, Empfehlungen für die praktische Umsetzung beider Verfahren. / Psychology and other empirical sciences are in the middle of a crisis, as many researchers have become aware that many findings do not have as much empirical support as they once believed. Several causes of this crisis have been suggested: misuse of statistical methods, sociological biases, and weak theories. This dissertation proposes the following rationale: to some extent, imprecise theories are unavoidable, but they still can be subjected to an empirical test by employing induction. Data may be used to amend theories, allowing precise predictions that can be compared to reality. However, such a strategy comes at a cost. While induction is necessary, it causes overconfidence in empirical findings. When assessing findings, this overconfidence must be taken into account. The extent of the overconfidence depends on the properties of the inductive process. Some inductive processes can be made fully transparent, so their bias can be accounted for appropriately. I show that this is the case for induction that can be repeated at will on other data, highlighting the importance of computational reproducibility. Induction involving the researcher and their cognitive model can not be repeated; hence, the extent of overconfidence must be judged with uncertainty. I propose that reducing this uncertainty should be the objective of preregistration. Having explicated the goals of computational reproducibility and preregistration from a perspective of transparency about induction in the synopsis, I put forward recommendations for the practice of both in the articles published as part of this dissertation.

In recent years, the UK higher education sector has seen notable policy changes with regard to how research is funded, disseminated and evaluated. Important amongst these changes is the emphasis that policy makers have placed on disseminating peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles via Open Access (OA) publishing routes e.g. OA journals or OA repositories. Through the Open Science agenda there have also been a number of initiatives to promote the dissemination of other types of output that have not traditionally been made publicly available via the scholarly communication system, such as data, workflows and methodologies. The UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 introduced social/economic impact of research as an evaluation measure. This has been a significant policy shift away from academic impact being the sole measure of impact and has arguably raised the profile of public engagement activities (although it should be noted that public engagement is not equivalent to social/economic impact, but is an important pathway to realising such impact). This exploratory study sought to investigate the extent to which these recent policy changes are aligned with researchers publication, dissemination and public engagement practices across different disciplines. Furthermore, it sought to identify the perceptions and attitudes of researchers towards the concept of social/economic impact. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach consisting of a questionnaire- based survey and semi-structured interviews with researchers from a broad range of disciplines across the physical, health, engineering, social sciences, and arts and humanities across fifteen UK universities. The work of Becher (1987) and Becher & Trowler (2001) on disciplinary classification was used as an explanatory framework to understand disciplinary differences. The study found evidence of a lack of awareness of the principle of OA by some researchers across all disciplines; and that researchers, in the main, are not sharing their research data, therefore only the few who are doing so are realising the benefits that have been championed in research funders policies. Moreover, the study uncovered that due to the increased emphasis of impact in research evaluation, conflicting goals between researchers and academic leaders exist. The study found that researchers, particularly from Applied and Interdisciplinary (as opposed to Pure) disciplinary groups felt that research outputs such as articles published in practitioner journals were most appropriate in targeting and making research more accessible to practitioners, than prestigious peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. The thesis argues that there is still more to learn about what impact means to researchers and how it might be measured. The thesis makes an overall contribution to knowledge on a general level by providing greater understanding of how researchers have responded to the impact agenda . On a more specific level, the thesis identifies the effect of the impact agenda on academic autonomy, and situates this in different disciplinary contexts. It identifies that it is not only researchers from Pure disciplines who feel disadvantaged by the impact agenda , but also those from Interdisciplinary and Applied groups who feel an encroachment on their academic autonomy, particularly in selecting channels to disseminate their research and in selecting the relevant audiences they wish to engage with. Implications of the study s findings on researchers, higher education institutions and research funders are highlighted and recommendations to researchers, academic leaders and research funders are given.