Why do people not contribute? some reasons: 1. adherence to citation policy is not optimal 2. data protection concerns & GDPR. more urgent now 3. indirect consent from participants - this is a tricky one
One really interesting about Dev Psych, if I understand correctly (I only worked in a lab like that for a couple years), is that a lot of people know which studies are not sufficiently specified to be replicable but nobody does the same calibre of call-outs for better or worse...
-
-
I think many scientific fields have that in-group tacit knowledge which is not communicated loudly. And it's motivated by everything from prestige cartels ("only we know what's actually good and how to do good science") to just smart intuition based on experience.
-
I do see/saw a big diff when I worked in a dev psych lab versus the kind of call outs I see for others of psych/cogsci in the labs I worked in before and since.
-
All labs I have worked in I have discovered models which don't replicate, just to be clear. But I am talking about empirical stuff. In the dev psych lab I worked in there was this "don't you know Blah Blah doesn't replicate? everybody knows that" vibe but in private.
-
While in non-dev labs I have worked in before and since, there is no secret cache of "this is what doesn't replicate" from empirical stuff, it's done publically nowadays... and I am asking if this is a thing or just me? Hence why I tagged
@chbergma...https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/1105900205457707009 … -
Is the reason there is "no big scandal in Dev Sci" because there are many scandals they just don't surface and so uptake of open- and replication-related practises is so fast because you all speak about this in private?
-
Do you get my question now,
@ivanflis? -
Yup yup, I get it now. Interested to hear what the answer of the dev peeps is going to be. :)
-
No idea, and I must say I speak from a tiny corner of the field. I know there are cases of attemts to disprove each other etc, but that's different. In most cases I know there are debates and a mixed literature, not cases of 'don't touch textbook study x'
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Does this fit with others who are more experienced than me? CC
@chbergma Basically it seems some know of studies that are not worth replicating for building off of but don't make this public knowledge? -
There might be some chatter in certain in crowds, but either I wasn't part of those or I didn't take thoserumors that did reach me seriously. And sometimes I might respond with modelling or meta-analyses ;)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.