Stephen J Ceci, Cory J Clark, Lee Jussim, Wendy M Williams
{"title":"对抗性合作:行为科学中一种被低估的方法。","authors":"Stephen J Ceci, Cory J Clark, Lee Jussim, Wendy M Williams","doi":"10.1037/amp0001391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the <i>reliability</i> of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the <i>validity</i> of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adversarial collaboration: An undervalued approach in behavioral science.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen J Ceci, Cory J Clark, Lee Jussim, Wendy M Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/amp0001391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the <i>reliability</i> of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the <i>validity</i> of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Psychologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Psychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001391\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001391","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
预注册、公开程序和数据以及功率分析等开放科学举措因其提高了研究结果的可靠性而理所当然地受到了赞誉。然而,一项潜在的旨在提高科学有效性的同样重要的举措却在很大程度上被忽视了。对抗性合作(ACs)指的是团队科学,在这种合作中,团队成员被选来代表不同的(甚至是相互矛盾的)观点和假设,无论是否有中立的团队成员来裁判争议。在此,我们将介绍合作研究的背景,并指出合作研究是有效的、必不可少的,但却未得到充分利用。我们解释了交流如何以及为什么能够提高科学的可靠性和有效性,以及为什么交流的益处超出了团队科学的范畴,还包括事实核查、群众智慧、期刊审阅和顺序编辑等领域。提高科学的有效性将提高源于行为科学研究的政策和干预措施的有效性,而且随着时间的推移,这将有助于挽回我们学科的声誉,因为其产品将被视为是认真、虚心地考虑不同观点的结果。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
Adversarial collaboration: An undervalued approach in behavioral science.
Open Science initiatives such as preregistration, publicly available procedures and data, and power analyses have rightly been lauded for increasing the reliability of findings. However, a potentially equally important initiative-aimed at increasing the validity of science-has largely been ignored. Adversarial collaborations (ACs) refer to team science in which members are chosen to represent diverse (and even contradictory) perspectives and hypotheses, with or without a neutral team member to referee disputes. Here, we provide background about ACs and argue that they are effective, essential, and underutilized. We explain how and why ACs can enhance both the reliability and validity of science and why their benefit extends beyond the realm of team science to include venues such as fact-checking, wisdom of crowds, journal reviewing, and sequential editing. Improving scientific validity would increase the efficacy of policy and interventions stemming from behavioral science research, and over time, it could help salvage the reputation of our discipline because its products would be perceived as resulting from a serious, open-minded consideration of diverse views. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.