I was avoiding blogging, but decided to start for two reasons:
-A friend told me that blogging is a good way to clarify your position in the public record
-A recent study found that blogs are remarkably rare in the psychological world
What motivated this specific post occurred this past weekend, when I vented a little bit on social media, which received an unexpected degree of response from parts of the online scholarly community.
It started on Saturday evening. I'll leave out the details, but let's just say that a group of young scholars were consistently shellacking the scientific articles they were reading without providing any constructive means to help rectify the problems they were pointing out (after multiple requests to do so). Growing frustrated with this, I tweeted the following:
-A friend told me that blogging is a good way to clarify your position in the public record
-A recent study found that blogs are remarkably rare in the psychological world
What motivated this specific post occurred this past weekend, when I vented a little bit on social media, which received an unexpected degree of response from parts of the online scholarly community.
It started on Saturday evening. I'll leave out the details, but let's just say that a group of young scholars were consistently shellacking the scientific articles they were reading without providing any constructive means to help rectify the problems they were pointing out (after multiple requests to do so). Growing frustrated with this, I tweeted the following:
I feel strongly about this issue as pointing out flaws in research can be done by anyone, even without proper scientific training. We should expect more out of trained scientists (and scientists in training), and ask that they go beyond pulling down the pillars of a given theory or study, and challenge them to propose how it should've been done differently (with some big caveats that I touch on farther down).
The tweet seemed harmless and I went to bed. The next day, as I came back home from grabbing the morning coffee, I noticed that my twitter account was receiving a shit-ton of notifications. This was largely due to the fact that Dr. Simine Vazire, an eminent psychologist, re-tweeted my statement with the following:
The tweet seemed harmless and I went to bed. The next day, as I came back home from grabbing the morning coffee, I noticed that my twitter account was receiving a shit-ton of notifications. This was largely due to the fact that Dr. Simine Vazire, an eminent psychologist, re-tweeted my statement with the following:
Dr. Vazire's tweet was respectful and collegial and over 100 people (I feel like that's a lot) showed support for her disagreement.
I have immense respect for Dr. Vazire and was surprised that anyone noticed my tweet at all, let alone such an eminent scholar. It took about a second of reflection to realize that my tweet was likely interpreted as an attack on the many recent instances in which researchers had failed to replicate other scientists' effects or found evidence that certain theories were not well supported by the evidence. I didn't have this in mind when I sent my original tweet, but I can see how it was interpreted that way.
When I scrolled through the list of other scholars who virtually voiced their support for Dr. Vazire's disagreement, I found myself able to 'check off' certain prominent researchers who I knew played central roles in psychology's methodological reformation movement (an imperfect name, but there it is). I found myself missing just one person, who then quickly appeared via retweet:
I have immense respect for Dr. Vazire and was surprised that anyone noticed my tweet at all, let alone such an eminent scholar. It took about a second of reflection to realize that my tweet was likely interpreted as an attack on the many recent instances in which researchers had failed to replicate other scientists' effects or found evidence that certain theories were not well supported by the evidence. I didn't have this in mind when I sent my original tweet, but I can see how it was interpreted that way.
When I scrolled through the list of other scholars who virtually voiced their support for Dr. Vazire's disagreement, I found myself able to 'check off' certain prominent researchers who I knew played central roles in psychology's methodological reformation movement (an imperfect name, but there it is). I found myself missing just one person, who then quickly appeared via retweet:
I got the sense that folks were 'rallying around the flag'. Which was confusing as I never meant to attack anything.
The remarks were largely respectful and focused on the ideas, but quickly it became clear that I had been labeled by some of the crowd as an opponent to replication, scientific criticism, and methodological reform. Tweets like this appeared:
The remarks were largely respectful and focused on the ideas, but quickly it became clear that I had been labeled by some of the crowd as an opponent to replication, scientific criticism, and methodological reform. Tweets like this appeared:
If you're looking to paint me as an opponent to methodological reform and the value of replication and critique, I'm not your enemy. I'm committed to replicable, open, and rigorous science, and I can back that up. Here are some examples:
-I'm currently participating in a multi-lab registered replication project that will seek to publish results regardless of whether the replication attempt is "successful"
-I teach the value of replication and methodological reform to my graduate and undergraduate psychology courses
-I recently published my first paper with open data and code
-Studies from my (1.5-year old) lab are required to be preregistered (example 1, example 2)
-Studies from my lab are required, whether the hypotheses are supported or not, to have their data, code, and materials publicly shared (example)
Regarding my tweet, I'd like to walk it back and say that "tearing down" others' work isn't "intellectually unimpressive", but I do still believe that it's less impressive than also describing how the targeted work could have been improved. However, I do also agree with the tweet below, that sometimes, there isn't any building up to do:
-I'm currently participating in a multi-lab registered replication project that will seek to publish results regardless of whether the replication attempt is "successful"
-I teach the value of replication and methodological reform to my graduate and undergraduate psychology courses
-I recently published my first paper with open data and code
-Studies from my (1.5-year old) lab are required to be preregistered (example 1, example 2)
-Studies from my lab are required, whether the hypotheses are supported or not, to have their data, code, and materials publicly shared (example)
Regarding my tweet, I'd like to walk it back and say that "tearing down" others' work isn't "intellectually unimpressive", but I do still believe that it's less impressive than also describing how the targeted work could have been improved. However, I do also agree with the tweet below, that sometimes, there isn't any building up to do:
And just to be clear: In cases such as fraud, data fabrication, and statistical errors, the response should be to immediately tear-down without any concern for building up.
I'll close with a reflection. I know many people in academia and beyond who avoid social media like the plague because of experiences just like this. They fear that an errant tweet or Facebook comment will land them in the critical sights of their peers, much like I did. It's very scary to know that others, who have never met you, are judging you and your ideas, based off a small amount of data (N = 280 characters). Several individuals used a single tweet to determine I was a particular type of person and they treated me accordingly. Scholarly debates often involve personal inferences based on small samples (e.g., 1 tweet), which leads to a lot of noise being interpreted as signal.
I worry about the voices we are missing out on because of these fears.
As for the rest of it . . . ?
I worry about the voices we are missing out on because of these fears.
As for the rest of it . . . ?