Nullius in Verba

In this episode, we discuss the role of apprenticeship in training scientists and researchers. What’s the difference between traditional apprenticeship and cognitive apprenticeship? Does graduate training live up to its promise as an apprenticeship model? What can we do to improve the modeling of skills that are to be taught during graduate training?    Shownotes Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American educator, 15(3), 6-11. Gabrys, B. J., & Beltechi, A. (2012). Cognitive apprenticeship: The making of a scientist. In Reshaping doctoral education (pp. 144-155). Routledge. Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2016). Rigorous science: a how-to guide. MBio, 7(6), 10-1128. Alvesson, M., Gabriel, Y., & Paulsen, R. (2017). Return to meaning: A social science with something to say. Oxford University Press. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (M. J. Nye, Ed.). University of Chicago Press.    

This is a live episode, recorded in Växjö, Sweden (Linnaeus university) on September 24, 2024, at the 5th meeting of the Open Science Community Sweden and the Swedish Reproducibility Network. Thanks to André Kalmendal at Mono (https://monovaxjo.se) for recording the episode. 

In this episode, we discuss the paper "A case history in scientific method" by B. F. Skinner   Shownotes Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American psychologist, 11(5), 221. Richter, C. P. (1953). Free research versus design research. Science, 118(3056), 91–93. https://archive.org/details/WaldenTwoChapter01  

In preparation for the next episode, in which we discuss this paper, here is a reading of:  Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11(5), 221-233.

Dive into the art of critically reading scientific articles and discover how to choose which papers deserve your attention. Explore effective strategies for evaluating academic work, tackling biases, and understanding the intricate dance of peer review. Learn about the importance of transparency in research, from data management to the significance of p-values. The hosts discuss the impact of meticulous detail on research integrity, making a compelling case for clarity and creativity in scholarly writing. Engage with the nuances of evaluating quality in academic research.

In this episode, we talk about academic societies, professional organizations, and academic advocacy groups, focusing primarily on the discipline of psychology. What are their roles and responsibilities? Is it necessary for researchers to join such organizations? And should we bring back scholarly soirees? Enjoy.    Shownotes Royal Society Referee Reports Psychological Science APA Divisions Consistori del Gay Saber ReproducibiliTea The Royal Society Soirées  

In this episode, we discuss review boards for research with human subjects. Are they necessary? Are they efficient? Are scientists well equipped to make judgements about ethics? And are economists more ethical than psychologists?    Shownotes Whitney, S. N. (2015). Balanced ethics review: A guide for institutional review board members. Springer. Schrag, Z. M. (2010). Ethical imperialism: Institutional review boards and the social sciences, 1965–2009. JHU Press. Kinsey ReportsMasters & Johnson How Institutional Review Boards can be (and are) Weaponized Against Academic Freedom Weaponizing the IRB 2.0 Psychologists’ Involvement in Torture and the APA. Psychology Today.  

In this episode, we discuss activism in science. How do political and personal values affect science? When is activism just part of the job? And should one be careful about activism in the classroom? Enjoy.     Shownotes:  Frisby, C. L., Redding, R. E., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2023). Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: An Introduction. In Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions (pp. 1-14). Cham: Springer International Publishing. McCaughey, M. (2023). The Trouble with Scholar-Activists. AAUP.  McCaughey, M. (2024). Against Scholar Activists. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.  Honeycutt, N., & Jussim, L. (2023). Political bias in the social sciences: A critical, theoretical, and empirical review. Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions, 97-146. Sargent, R. M. (2012). From Bacon to Banks: The vision and the realities of pursuing science for the common good. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 43(1), 82-90. Weber, M. (1946). Science as a Vocation. In Science and the Quest for Reality (pp. 382-394). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.  

In this episode, we continue our discussion of replications. We talk about how to analyze replication studies, which studies are worth replicating, and what is the status of replications in other scientific disciplines.    Shownotes Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087978 Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25(10), 970–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029774 Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology (New edition). Cambridge Center for Behavioral. Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., Lazarević, L. B., Rabagliati, H., Ropovik, I., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Andrighetto, L., Arnal, J. D., Arrow, H., Babincak, P., … Nosek, B. A. (2020). Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920958687 Isager, P. M., van Aert, R. C. M., Bahník, Š., Brandt, M. J., DeSoto, K. A., Giner-Sorolla, R., Krueger, J. I., Perugini, M., Ropovik, I., van ’t Veer, A. E., Vranka, M., & Lakens, D. (2023). Deciding what to replicate: A decision model for replication study selection under resource and knowledge constraints. Psychological Methods, 28(2), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000438 Aldhous, P. (2011). Journal rejects studies contradicting precognition. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition/ Stanley, D. J., & Spence, J. R. (2014). Expectations for Replications: Are Yours Realistic? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528518 Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341 Nosek, B.A., Errington, T.M. (2017) Reproducibility in Cancer Biology: Making sense of replications. eLife 6:e23383. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.23383      

In the next two episodes, we will discuss replication studies, which are essential to building reliable scientific knowledge.   Shownotes Mack, R. W. (1951). The Need for Replication Research in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 16(1), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087978 Smith, N. C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25(10), 970–975. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029774 Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology (New edition). Cambridge Center for Behavioral. Ebersole, C. R., Mathur, M. B., Baranski, E., Bart-Plange, D.-J., Buttrick, N. R., Chartier, C. R., Corker, K. S., Corley, M., Hartshorne, J. K., IJzerman, H., Lazarević, L. B., Rabagliati, H., Ropovik, I., Aczel, B., Aeschbach, L. F., Andrighetto, L., Arnal, J. D., Arrow, H., Babincak, P., … Nosek, B. A. (2020). Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920958687 Isager, P. M., van Aert, R. C. M., Bahník, Š., Brandt, M. J., DeSoto, K. A., Giner-Sorolla, R., Krueger, J. I., Perugini, M., Ropovik, I., van ’t Veer, A. E., Vranka, M., & Lakens, D. (2023). Deciding what to replicate: A decision model for replication study selection under resource and knowledge constraints. Psychological Methods, 28(2), 438–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000438 Aldhous, P. (2011). Journal rejects studies contradicting precognition. New Scientist. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20447-journal-rejects-studies-contradicting-precognition/ Stanley, D. J., & Spence, J. R. (2014). Expectations for Replications: Are Yours Realistic? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528518 Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567341