Advancing Transparency and Impact of Research: Initiating Crosstalk between Indigenous Research and Mainstream “Open Science”

Lui, P. Priscilla; Skewes, Monica C.; Gobrial, Sarah; Rollock, David

doi:10.31219/osf.io/bg9a4

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…concerns pertinent to this research area, such as navigating institutional review boards in Native Tribes and issues related to data ownership (Lui et al, 2021). Third, EM/D scholars tend to conduct research with ethnoracial groups who are or historically have been underrepresented, underserved, or subordinated.…”

Section: Applicability Of Mainstream Os In Em/dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science and multicultural research: Some data, considerations, and recommendations.

Lui¹,

Gobrial²,

Pham³

et al. 2022

Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: There are two potentially useful but nonintersecting efforts to help ensure that psychological science produces valid and credible information and contributes to the understanding of diverse human experiences. Whereas North American ethnic minority psychology research/cultural diversity science (EM/ D) emphasizes cultural competency to yield contextualized psychological understanding of understudied and underserved minority populations, current open science (OS) approaches emphasize material and data sharing, and statistical proficiency to maximize the replicability of mainstream findings. To illuminate the extent of and explore reasons for this bifurcation, and OS's potential impact on EM/D, we conducted three studies. Method and Results: In Study 1, we reviewed editorial/publishing policies and empirical articles appearing in four major EM/D journals on the incentives for and use of OS. Journals varied in OS-related policies; 32 of 823 empirical articles incorporated any OS practices. Study 2 was a national mixed-methods survey of EM/D scholars' (N = 141) and journal editors' (N = 16) views about and experiences with OS practices. Emerged themes included beliefs about the impact of OS on scientific quality, possible professional disadvantages for EM/D scholars, and concerns about the welfare of and ethical risks posed for communities of color. In Study 3, we explored community research participants' beliefs about data sharing and credibility of science/scientists (N = 1,104). Participants were receptive of data sharing and viewed psychological science favorably. Conclusions: We provide data-driven recommendations for researchers to assemble the best tools for approaching the knowledge-production process with transparency, humility, and cultural competency.This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.Editor's Note. Alex Czopp, Su Yeong Kim, and John Ruiz served as the action editors for this article.-SYK.

show abstract

Section: Applicability Of Mainstream Os In Em/dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science and multicultural research: Some data, considerations, and recommendations.

Lui¹,

Gobrial²,

Pham³

et al. 2022

Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of buy-in from these stakeholders may reflect concerns pertinent to this research area, such as navigating ethics boards in Native Tribes and issues related to data ownership (Lui et al, 2021). Third, EM/D scholars tend to conduct research with ethnoracial groups that are or historically have been underrepresented, underserved, or subordinated.…”

Section: Applicability Of Mainstream Os In Em/dmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Important EM/D outlets already recognize and incentivize certain OS practices (Lee, 2017). Specific practices (e.g., (pre)registration, material sharing, archiving preprints) are applicable to most investigators using experimental designs, original and archival observational research, qualitative inquiry and mixed-methods, and CBPR (Haven et al, 2020;Lui et al, 2021;Reischer & Cowan, 2020;van't Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016). Transparency in the knowledge-production process and equitable access to data/findings allow researchers to make contributions beyond the limits of their own resources.…”

Section: Who May Use (And Benefit From) Os Practices?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 Still, scholars and their community partners engaging in CBPR may see unique constraints and challenges associated with material and data sharing. To these ends, negotiations among stakeholders and contractual agreements specific to certain studies and populations may be warranted (Lui et al, 2021).…”

Section: Materials and Data Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, it is standard-and often required-to use CBPR (Wallerstein et al, 2018;Wallerstein & Duran, 2006) in working with Native American/Alaskan Native communities. CBPR emphasizes collaboration and transparent communication among investigators, research participants, and others in their communities to consider group-specific ways of knowing, identify mutually acceptable research methods and interpretations of results, and disseminate findings to maximize community benefits (Cochran et al, 2008;Lui et al, 2021). In fact, we challenge the notion that knowledge belongs to the scientific community; researchers ultimately are less accountable to other members of the scientific community than to the members of the communities whose data they extract and whose well-being they seek to improve.…”

Section: Lessons That Mainstream Os Can Learn From Em/dmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Open Science and Multicultural Research: Some Data, Considerations, and Recommendations

Lui¹,

Gobrial²,

Pham³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: There are two potentially useful but nonintersecting efforts to help ensure that psychological science produces valid and credible information and contributes to the understanding of diverse human experiences. Whereas North American ethnic minority psychology research/cultural diversity science (EM/D) emphasizes cultural competency to yield contextualized psychological understanding of understudied and underserved minority populations, current open science (OS) approaches emphasize material and data sharing, and statistical proficiency to maximize the replicability of mainstream findings. To illuminate the extent of and explore reasons for this bifurcation, and OS’s potential impact on EM/D, we conducted three studies. Methods and Results: In Study 1, we reviewed editorial/publishing policies and empirical articles appearing in four major EM/D journals on the incentives for and use of OS. Journals varied in OS-related policies; 32 of 823 empirical articles incorporated any OS practices. Study 2 was a national mixed-methods survey of EM/D scholars’ (N=141) and journal editors’ (N=16) views about and experiences with OS practices. Emerged themes included beliefs about the impact of OS on scientific quality, possible professional disadvantages for EM/D scholars, and concerns about the welfare of and ethical risks posed for communities of color. In Study 3, we explored community research participants’ beliefs about data sharing and credibility of science/scientists (N=1,104). Participants were receptive of data sharing and viewed psychological science favorably. Conclusions: We provide data-driven recommendations for researchers to assemble the best tools for approaching the knowledge-production process with transparency, humility, and cultural competency.

show abstract

Open science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: A statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

Segerstrom¹,

Diefenbach²,

Hamilton³

et al. 2023

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine’s diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.

show abstract

Advancing Transparency and Impact of Research: Initiating Crosstalk between Indigenous Research and Mainstream “Open Science”

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Open science and multicultural research: Some data, considerations, and recommendations.

Open science and multicultural research: Some data, considerations, and recommendations.

Open Science and Multicultural Research: Some Data, Considerations, and Recommendations

Open science in health psychology and behavioral medicine: A statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About