Mapping the discursive dimensions of the reproducibility crisis: A mixed methods analysis
| Autor: | Momin M. Malik, Nicole C. Nelson, Kelsey Ichikawa, Julie Chung |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Value (ethics)
Science and Technology Workforce Inertia Social Sciences Careers in Research Grounded theory Mathematical and Statistical Techniques 0302 clinical medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Psychology Sociology media_common Coding Mechanisms bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Psychology MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences 0303 health sciences Multidisciplinary Physics Statistics Publications Classical Mechanics bepress|Medicine and Health Sciences Research Assessment Qualitative Studies MetaArXiv|Medicine and Health Sciences Reproducibility Variety (cybernetics) bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology Professions Incentive bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology|Quantitative Qualitative Comparative and Historical Methodologies Research Design MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Psychology Physical Sciences Medicine Factor Analysis Research Article Science Policy Science media_common.quotation_subject Research and Analysis Methods Motion 03 medical and health sciences Humans Conversation Statistical Methods 030304 developmental biology Computational Neuroscience Structure (mathematical logic) MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology Research Biology and Life Sciences Computational Biology Reproducibility of Results Data science Transparency (behavior) Authorship MetaArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology|Quantitative Qualitative Comparative and Historical Methodologies People and Places bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences Scientists Population Groupings Factor Analysis Statistical Mathematics 030217 neurology & neurosurgery Neuroscience Qualitative research |
| Zdroj: | PLoS ONE PLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 7, p e0254090 (2021) |
| Popis: | To those involved in discussions about rigor, reproducibility, and replication in science, conversation about the “reproducibility crisis” appear ill-structured. Seemingly very different issues concerning the purity of reagents, accessibility of computational code, or misaligned incentives in academic research writ large are all collected up under this label. Prior work has attempted to address this problem by creating analytical definitions of reproducibility. We take a novel empirical, mixed methods approach to understanding variation in reproducibility discussions, using a combination of grounded theory and correspondence analysis to examine how a variety of authors narrate the story of the reproducibility crisis. Contrary to expectations, this analysis demonstrates that there is a clear thematic core to reproducibility discussions, centered on the incentive structure of science, the transparency of methods and data, and the need to reform academic publishing. However, we also identify three clusters of discussion that are distinct from the main body of articles: one focused on reagents, another on statistical methods, and a final cluster focused on the heterogeneity of the natural world. Although there are discursive differences between scientific and popular articles, we find no strong differences in how scientists and journalists write about the reproducibility crisis. Our findings demonstrate the value of using qualitative methods to identify the bounds and features of reproducibility discourse, and identify distinct vocabularies and constituencies that reformers should engage with to promote change. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|