The collective method: collaborative social science research and scholarly accountability

Pardee, Jessica W.; Fothergill, Alice; Weber, Lynn

doi:10.1177/1468794117743461

Cited by 22 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a perspective on production chains in QIR is becoming more and more important to the degree that QIR is increasingly realized throughout a process that involves different steps and actors (cp. Ellinger et al, 2005;Pardee et al, 2017;Wuchty et al, 2007). Some of the power issues that we have raised in this chapter do not extend beyond the use and implementation of methods and can be sufficiently described within temporally and locally confined situations.…”

Section: Power In the Use And Implementation Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

The Nexus between Methods and Power in Sociological Research

Schmitz

Hamann

2022

Am Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article develops an integrative perspective on the nexus between power and sociological research methods. By reflecting upon two of the most widely used methodological approaches in sociology – standardized survey research and qualitative interview research – we develop a comprehensive heuristic framework for examining the ways in which the use of sociological methods affects and intersects any social scientific practice: (1) the power effects that societies and institutional settings exert on methods and the use of methods, (2) power in the use and implementation of methods, and (3) the power effects that methods and the use of methods exert on societies and institutional settings.

show abstract

Section: Power In the Use And Implementation Of Methodsmentioning

confidence: 94%

The Nexus between Methods and Power in Sociological Research

Schmitz

Hamann

2022

Am Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relevant to quantitative studies, larger sample sizes curated in crowdsourced data collections can enhance power and precision in statistical analyses (Button et al, 2013; Fraley & Vazire, 2014). Importantly, team science can facilitate a reflexive process in which scholars are held accountable to one another—regardless of their philosophical framework and research methods (Pardee et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lui¹,

Gobrial²,

Pham³

et al. 2022

Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology

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

“…Relevant to quantitative studies, larger sample sizes curated in crowdsourced data collections can enhance power and precision in statistical analyses (Button et al, 2013;Fraley & Vazire, 2014). Importantly, team science can facilitate a reflexive process in which scholars are accountable to one another-regardless of their philosophical framework and research methods (Pardee et al, 2018).…”

Section: Team Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lui¹,

Gobrial²,

Pham³

et al. 2022

Preprint

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

The collective method: collaborative social science research and scholarly accountability

Cited by 22 publications

References 38 publications

The Nexus between Methods and Power in Sociological Research

The Nexus between Methods and Power in Sociological Research

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About