3
$\begingroup$

Can anyone point me to academic work that systematically studies how standards and methods have changed in psychology as a response to the replication crisis? Thanks.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As far as I can work out the transformation within the profession is slow and piecemeal. Interesting question though. We're supposed to show the results of our own investigations into a subject when asking, can you provide any context that you've uncovered? Please also take our tour and refer to the help center for guidance as and when. Welcome to the site. $\endgroup$ Apr 10 at 23:41
  • $\begingroup$ @ARogueAnt. I've spent an hour or so on Google Scholar looking for context, and I haven't found anything. I found plenty of papers arguing for this or that reform, but so far none that systematically document which reforms have actually taken place. $\endgroup$ Apr 10 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ @information_parasite Research isn't monolithic, and there is no one-size-fits-all strategy to reforms. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Apr 11 at 3:24

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Ok, I came across "Open science and reform practices in organizational behavior research over time (2011 to 2019)" (Tenney et al. 2021), a paper which studies some Organization Behaviour journals over the last decade and concludes that there hasn't been widespread adoption of research practice reforms. This paper isn't as comprehensive as I was hoping, but it does help to partially answer my question.

Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.015

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ try mining the references in royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.200805 maybe? ymmv re the recommendations given (I like them), but the intro describes the state-of-play pretty well with receipts, might be what you're after? $\endgroup$ Apr 12 at 2:46
  • $\begingroup$ See also "how hard is cognitive science" escholarship.org/content/qt8cr8x1c4/qt8cr8x1c4.pdf describing why it's good that methodological reform is anarchic and piecemeal, contains a formal proof grounding the claim that methodological diversity is a necessity not a luxury. Doesn't deny the value of reforms, but does imply good reforms will be impossible to systematize & therefore hard to catalog cleanly $\endgroup$ Apr 12 at 2:50
  • $\begingroup$ hot off the press: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09637214211067779 $\endgroup$ Apr 18 at 12:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.