Clusters & Sub-clusters

3 Ways of Working

12 sub-clusters · 133 references

Attainment of an understanding of how research is conducted, managed and disseminated. There are 12 sub-clusters which aim to further parse the learning and teaching process[s]:

Qualitative research

This section includes key introductory and methodological texts on designing and conducting qualitative research. These sources provide guidance on research planning, data collection, analysis techniques, and theoretical foundations relevant for beginners and experienced researchers alike.

  • Barbour, R. (2014). Introducing Qualitative Research: A Student’s Guide. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526485045
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9781847875815
  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2023). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  • Flick, U. (2018). Designing Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529622737
  • Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Adversarial collaborations

Adversarial collaborations typically include two (or more) groups of researchers addressing the same research question with conflicting hypotheses - e.g., one group expects an effect to exist, while another does not.

Big team science

In big team science (sometimes referred to as “team science”), many researchers pool their resources to solve a problem or answer a research question together, usually resulting in one or several outputs that all researchers involved gain authorship on. Big team science projects can either be coordinated by an organisation (e.g. ManyBabies), or can be run independently by a group of researchers.

  • Azevedo, F., Liu, M., Pennington, C. R., Pownall, M., Evans, T. R., Parsons, S., Elsherif, M. M., Micheli, L., & Westwood, S. J. (2022). Towards a culture of open scholarship: the role of pedagogical communities. BMC Research Notes, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05944-1
  • Baum, M., Hart, A., Elsherif, M., Ilchovska, Z., Moreau, D., Dokovova, M., LaPlume, A., Krautter, K., & Staal, J. (2022). Research Without Borders: How to Identify and Overcome Potential Pitfalls in International Large-Team Online Research Projects. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529602074
  • Baumgartner, H. A., Alessandroni, N., Byers-Heinlein, K., Frank, M. C., Hamlin, J. K., Soderstrom, M., Voelkel, J. G., Willer, R., Yuen, F., & Coles, N. A. (2023). How to build up big team science: a practical guide for large-scale collaborations. Royal Society Open Science, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230235
  • Coles, N. A., DeBruine, L. M., Azevedo, F., Baumgartner, H. A., & Frank, M. C. (2023). ‘Big team’ science challenges us to reconsider authorship. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 665–667. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01572-2
  • Darda, K. M., Conry-Murray, C., Schmidt, K., Elsherif, M. M., Peverill, M., Yoneda, T., Lawson, K. M., DiGregory, E., Moreau, D., Shorter, G. W., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2023). Promoting Civility in Formal And Informal Open Science Contexts. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rfkyu
  • Disis, M. L., & Slattery, J. T. (2010). The Road We Must Take: Multidisciplinary Team Science. Science Translational Medicine, 2(22). https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3000421
  • Forscher, P. S., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Coles, N. A., Silan, M. A., Dutra, N., Basnight-Brown, D., & IJzerman, H. (2022). The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(3), 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221082970
  • Forscher, P. S., Wagenmakers, E. J., DeBruine, L., Coles, N., Silan, M. A., & IJzerman, H. (2020). A Manifesto for Team Science.
  • Lakens, D., & Lieck, D. (2022). An Overview of Team Science Projects in the Social Behavioral Sciences. OSF. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WX4ZD
  • Silberzahn, R., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2015). Crowdsourced research: Many hands make tight work. Nature, 526(7572), 189–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/526189a
  • Wagge, J. R., Brandt, M. J., Lazarevic, L. B., Legate, N., Christopherson, C., Wiggins, B., & Grahe, J. E. (2019). Publishing Research With Undergraduate Students via Replication Work: The Collaborative Replications and Education Project. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00247
  • Zivony, A., Kardosh, R., Timmins, L., & Reggev, N. (2023). Ten simple rules for socially responsible science. PLOS Computational Biology, 19(3), e1010954. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010954

Community science

Community science, sometimes called “citizen science”, is scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur (or non-professional) scientists. Community science is sometimes described as "public participation in scientific research," participatory monitoring, and participatory action research whose outcomes are often advancements in scientific research by improving the scientific community's capacity, as well as increasing the public's understanding of science.

Environmental sustainability (e.g. conference travel, high performance computing, etc.)

Examines the climate and environmental footprint of research workflows and infrastructures.

  • Katz-Rosene, R. M., & Pasek, A. (2023). Spiral-scaling climate action: lessons from and for the academic flying less movement. Environmental Politics, 33(2), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2193068
  • Klöwer, M., Hopkins, D., Allen, M., & Higham, J. (2020). An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. Nature, 583(7816), 356–359. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02057-2
  • Köhler, J. K., Kreil, A. S., Wenger, A., Darmandieu, A., Graves, C., Haugestad, C. A. P., Holzen, V., Keller, E., Lloyd, S., Marczak, M., Međugorac, V., & Rosa, C. D. (2022). The Need for Sustainability, Equity, and International Exchange: Perspectives of Early Career Environmental Psychologists on the Future of Conferences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.906108
  • Lannelongue, L., & Inouye, M. (2023). Carbon footprint estimation for computational research. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-023-00202-5
  • Spinellis, D., & Louridas, P. (2013). The Carbon Footprint of Conference Papers. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066508
  • Tao, Y., Steckel, D., Klemeš, J. J., & You, F. (2021). Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy. Nature Communications, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27251-2

Participatory research

Participatory research, sometimes also referred to as co-production, is an umbrella term for methods in which views and engagement of interested parties from relevant communities (academic or otherwise) are included throughout the research process, from conception to dissemination.

  • Boga, M., Davies, A., Kamuya, D., Kinyanjui, S. M., Kivaya, E., Kombe, F., Lang, T., Marsh, V., Mbete, B., Mlamba, A., Molyneux, S., Mulupi, S., & Mwalukore, S. (2011). Strengthening the Informed Consent Process in International Health Research through Community Engagement: The KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme Experience. PLoS Medicine, 8(9), e1001089. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001089
  • Cargo, M., & Mercer, S. L. (2008). The Value and Challenges of Participatory Research: Strengthening Its Practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 29(1), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824
  • Fletcher-Watson, S., Brook, K., Hallett, S., Murray, F., & Crompton, C. J. (2021). Inclusive Practices for Neurodevelopmental Research. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 8(2), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00227-z
  • Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A., Kalandadze, T., Yeung, S. K., Azevedo, F., Iley, B., Phan, J. M., Ramji, A. V., Shaw, J. J., Zaneva, M., Dokovova, M., Hartmann, H., Kapp, S. K., Warrington, K. L., & Elsherif, M. M. (2023). Opening up understanding of neurodiversity: A call for applying participatory and open scholarship practices. The Cognitive Psychology Bulletin, 1(8), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscog.2023.1.8.23
  • Jao, I., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Bull, S., Parker, M., Kamuya, D., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2015). Involving Research Stakeholders in Developing Policy on Sharing Public Health Research Data in Kenya. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(3), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615592385
  • Jao, I., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Bull, S., Parker, M., Kamuya, D., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2015). Research Stakeholders’ Views on Benefits and Challenges for Public Health Research Data Sharing in Kenya: The Importance of Trust and Social Relations. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0135545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135545
  • Kamuya, D. M., Marsh, V., Kombe, F. K., Geissler, P. W., & Molyneux, S. C. (2013). Engaging Communities to Strengthen Research Ethics in Low‐Income Settings: Selection and Perceptions of Members of a Network of Representatives in Coastal Kenya. Developing World Bioethics, 13(1), 10–20. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12014
  • Kondo, Y., Miyata, A., Ikeuchi, U., Nakahara, S., Nakashima, K., Ōnishi, H., Osawa, T., Ota, K., Sato, K., Ushijima, K., Baptista, B. V., Kumazawa, T., Hayashi, K., Murayama, Y., Okuda, N., & Nakanishi, H. (2019). Interlinking open science and community-based participatory research for socio-environmental issues. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.07.001
  • Marsh, V., Kombe, F., Fitzpatrick, R., Williams, T. N., Parker, M., & Molyneux, S. (2013). Consulting communities on feedback of genetic findings in international health research: sharing sickle cell disease and carrier information in coastal Kenya. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-41
  • Martinez-Vargas, C. (2022). Democratising Participatory Research. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0273
  • Njue, M., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2014). What Are Fair Study Benefits in International Health Research? Consulting Community Members in Kenya. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e113112. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113112
  • Pham, J., Perry-Wilson, T., Holmes, K., Schroeder, G., Reyes, A., & Pollok, M. (2025). The power of decolonizing research practices. The Professional Counselor, 15(1). https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/the-power-of-decolonizing-research-practices

Public and Private Partnerships

Academia is but one avenue for knowledge production. In fact, research happens in a variety of contexts. Open science practitioners who conduct research with public and private partners need to be aware of the challenges and opportunities that arise when working within these spaces.

  • Albornoz, D., Huang, M., Martin, I. M., Mateus, M., Touré, A. Y., & Chan, L. (2018). Framing Power: Tracing Key Discourses in Open Science Policies. 22nd International Conference on Electronic. https://doi.org/10.4000/proceedings.elpub.2018.23
  • Bartscherer, S. F., & Reinhart, M. (2025). The (Non)Academic Community Forming around Replications: Mapping the International Open Science space via its Replication Initiatives. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/rbyt6_v1
  • Caloffi, A., Pryke, S., Sedita, S. R., & Siemiatycki, M. (2017). Public–private partnerships and beyond: Potential for innovation and sustainable development. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(5), 739–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654417711496
  • Chataway, J., Parks, S., & Smith, E. (2017). How Will Open Science Impact on University-Industry Collaboration? Foresight and STI Governance, 11(2), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2017.2.44.53
  • Díez-Domingo, J., Torcel-Pagnon, L., Carmona, A., Launay, O., Dos Santos, G., Rizzo, C., Haag, M., Stuurman, A., Nauta, J., Vannacci, A., de Lusignan, S., Del Rey, E., Levi, M., Lina, B., Bellino, S., Nye, S., Neels, P., Nohynek, H., & Mahé, C. (2022). The value of public-private collaborative real-world evidence platforms to monitor vaccine performance post authorization: DRIVE - a European initiative. Expert Review of Vaccines, 21(12), 1701–1710. https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2022.2137144
  • Gold, E. R., Ali-Khan, S. E., Allen, L., Ballell, L., Barral-Netto, M., Carr, D., Chalaud, D., Chaplin, S., Clancy, M. S., Clarke, P., Cook-Deegan, R., Dinsmore, A. P., Doerr, M., Federer, L., Hill, S. A., Jacobs, N., Jean, A., Jefferson, O. A., Jones, C., … Thelwall, M. (2019). An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact. Gates Open Research, 3, 1442. https://doi.org/10.12688/gatesopenres.12958.2
  • Gold, E. R. (2021). The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science. Research Policy, 50(5), 104226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104226
  • Krishna, V. V. (2020). Open Science and Its Enemies: Challenges for a Sustainable Science–Society Social Contract. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030061
  • McKibban, A. R., & Steltenpohl, C. N. (2019). Community organizing, partnerships, and coalitions. In L. A. Jason, O. Glantsman, J. F. O’Brien, & K. N. Ramian (Eds.), Introduction to Community Psychology. Rebus. https://press.rebus.community/introductiontocommunitypsychology/chapter/community-organizing-partnerships-and-coalitions/
  • Okafor, I. A., Mbagwu, S. I., Chia, T., Hasim, Z., Udokanma, E. E., & Chandran, K. (2022). Institutionalizing open science in Africa: Limitations and prospects. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 7, 855198. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frma.2022.855198/full
  • Perkmann, M., & Schildt, H. (2015). Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations. Research Policy, 44(5), 1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.006
  • Shaw, D. L. (2017). Focus: Drug development: Is open science the future of drug development? The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 90(1), 147. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5369032/

Reflexivity and positionality

Examines how the social positions, values, and relationships shape research questions, design, data collection, analysis, and reporting.

  • Field, S. M., & Derksen, M. (2020). Experimenter as automaton; experimenter as human: exploring the position of the researcher in scientific research. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00324-7
  • Field, S. M., & Pownall, M. (2025). Subjectivity is a Feature, not a Flaw: A Call to Unsilence the Human Element in Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ga5fb_v1
  • Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
  • Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2007). Challenges of Critical Reflection: ‘Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained.’ Social Work Education, 26(5), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470601118662
  • Goldblatt, H., & Band-Winterstein, T. (2016). From understanding to insight: using reflexivity to promote students’ learning of qualitative research. Reflective Practice, 17(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1134471
  • Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360
  • Hope, E. C., Brugh, C. S., & Nance, A. (2019). In search of a critical stance: Applying qualitative research practices for critical quantitative research in psychology (Version 1.0) [Data set]. University of Salento. https://doi.org/10.1285/i24212113v5i2p63
  • Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735
  • Lazard, L., & McAvoy, J. (2017). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144
  • Mao, L., Mian Akram, A., Chovanec, D., & Underwood, M. L. (2016). Embracing the Spiral. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916681005
  • Pham, J., Perry-Wilson, T., Holmes, K., Schroeder, G., Reyes, A., & Pollok, M. (2025). The power of decolonizing research practices. The Professional Counselor, 15(1). https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/the-power-of-decolonizing-research-practices
  • Phurisamban, R., Luna, E., Eyster, H. N., Chignell, S., & Koppes, M. (2025). Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just. Ecosphere, 16(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70168
  • Reid, A.-M., Brown, J. M., Smith, J. M., Cope, A. C., & Jamieson, S. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0412-2
  • Field, S. M., & Derksen, M. (2020). Experimenter as automaton; experimenter as human: exploring the position of the researcher in scientific research. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00324-7
  • Field, S. M., & Pownall, M. (2025). Subjectivity is a Feature, not a Flaw: A Call to Unsilence the Human Element in Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ga5fb_v1
  • Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
  • Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2007). Challenges of Critical Reflection: ‘Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained.’ Social Work Education, 26(5), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470601118662
  • Goldblatt, H., & Band-Winterstein, T. (2016). From understanding to insight: using reflexivity to promote students’ learning of qualitative research. Reflective Practice, 17(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1134471
  • Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360
  • Hope, E. C., Brugh, C. S., & Nance, A. (2019). In search of a critical stance: Applying qualitative research practices for critical quantitative research in psychology (Version 1.0) [Data set]. University of Salento. https://doi.org/10.1285/i24212113v5i2p63
  • Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019). Social Identity Map: A Reflexivity Tool for Practicing Explicit Positionality in Critical Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075
  • Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735
  • Kapiszewski, D., & Wood, E. J. (2021). Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 948–964. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720004703
  • Lazard, L., & McAvoy, J. (2017). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144
  • Mao, L., Mian Akram, A., Chovanec, D., & Underwood, M. L. (2016). Embracing the Spiral. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916681005
  • Martin, J. P., Desing, R., & Borrego, M. (2022). POSITIONALITY STATEMENTS ARE JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG: MOVING TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE PROCESS. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 28(4), v–vii. https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2022044277
  • Pham, J., Perry-Wilson, T., Holmes, K., Schroeder, G., Reyes, A., & Pollok, M. (2025). The power of decolonizing research practices. The Professional Counselor, 15(1). https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/the-power-of-decolonizing-research-practices
  • Prosser, A., (2025). Unheard, or unspoken? How listening to qualitative researcher voices will shape the future of open research [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/vnm7p
  • Prosser, A., (2025). Unheard, or unspoken? How listening to qualitative researcher voices will shape the future of open research [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/pxcy5
  • Reid, A.-M., Brown, J. M., Smith, J. M., Cope, A. C., & Jamieson, S. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0412-2
  • Steltenpohl, C. N., Lustick, H., Meyer, M. S., Lee, L. E., Stegenga, S. M., Standiford Reyes, L., & Renbarger, R. L. (2023). Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 47–59. KB. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7

Research with students (under- and graduate)

Examines structured ways to involve undergraduates and postgraduates in research, course-based projects, lab apprenticeships, and multi-site replications/consortia. Covers pedagogy, supervision and authorship practices, training in open and reproducible methods, and evaluation of learning, equity, and research quality.

  • Bauer, G., Breznau, N., Gereke, J., Höffler, J. H., Janz, N., Rahal, R.-M., Rennstich, J. K., & Soiné, H. (2022). Teaching Constructive Replications in the Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ejkws
  • Boyce, V., Mathur, M. B., & Frank, M. C. (2023). Eleven years of student replication projects provide evidence on the correlates of replicability in psychology. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dpyn6
  • Burks, R. L., & Chumchal, M. M. (2009). To Co-Author or Not to Co-Author: How to Write, Publish, and Negotiate Issues of Authorship with Undergraduate Research Students. Science Signaling, 2(94). https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.294tr3
  • Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Lawrence, N., & Munafò, M. R. (2019). Grassroots Training for Reproducible Science: A Consortium-Based Approach to the Empirical Dissertation. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 19(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725719857659
  • Button, K. S., Lawrence, N. S., Chambers, C. D., & Munafò, M. R. (2016). Instilling scientific rigour at the grassroots. The Psychologist, 29(3), 158-159. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/instilling-scientific-rigour-grassroots
  • Button, K. (2018). Reboot undergraduate courses for reproducibility. Nature, 561(7723), 287–287. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06692-8
  • Chopik, W. J., Bremner, R. H., Defever, A. M., & Keller, V. N. (2018). How (and Whether) to Teach Undergraduates About the Replication Crisis in Psychological Science. Teaching of Psychology, 45(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318762900
  • Giuliano, T. A., Kimbell, I. E., Olson, E. S., & Howell, J. L. (2022). High impact: Examining predictors of faculty-undergraduate coauthored publication and presentation in psychology. PLOS ONE, 17(3), e0265074. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265074
  • Bang Jensen, B., Bresee, B., Dreier, S. K., Farrokhi, R., Gade, E. K., Jeffers, W., Morris, M. H., Pabbaraju, C. S., Salehian, K., Sharifi, A., Schuett, A., Sirikupt, C., Thomas, E., & Villa, D. (2023). The Lab as a Classroom: Advancing Faculty Research Through Undergraduate Experiential Education. PS: Political Science & Politics, 56(4), 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096523000033
  • Lundwall, R. A., Hodges, C. B., & Kotter, A. D. (2019). Balancing Needs in Publishing With Undergraduate and Graduate Students at Doctoral Degree-Granting Universities. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00295
  • Morales, D. X., Grineski, S. E., & Collins, T. W. (2017). Increasing Research Productivity in Undergraduate Research Experiences: Exploring Predictors of Collaborative Faculty–Student Publications. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(3), ar42. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-11-0326
  • Norcross, J. C. (2014). Getting involved in research as an undergraduate: Nuts and bolts. Psychology Student Network. The American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2014/01/research-undergraduate.
  • Plakhotnik, M. S. (2022). Co‐authoring with undergraduate students: An emerging process from the semi‐periphery of the world of science. Learned Publishing, 35(3), 332–340. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1469
  • Pownall, M., Azevedo, F., König, L. M., Slack, H. R., Evans, T. R., Flack, Z., Grinschgl, S., Elsherif, M. M., Gilligan-Lee, K. A., de Oliveira, C. M. F., Gjoneska, B., Kalandadze, T., Button, K., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Terry, J., Albayrak-Aydemir, N., Děchtěrenko, F., Alzahawi, S., … Baker, B. J. (2023). Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes. Royal Society Open Science, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.221255
  • Pownall, M., Terry, J., Collins, E., Sladekova, M., & Jones, A. (2023). UK Psychology PhD researchers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences of open science. Cogent Psychology, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2023.2248765
  • Tripp, A., & Hayes-Harb, R. (2023). Care-full and reproducible research: Teaching research skills and ethics to undergraduate researchers using critical replication studies. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 153(3_supplement), A212–A212. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0018689
  • Wagge, J. R., Brandt, M. J., Lazarevic, L. B., Legate, N., Christopherson, C., Wiggins, B., & Grahe, J. E. (2019). Publishing Research With Undergraduate Students via Replication Work: The Collaborative Replications and Education Project. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00247

Science communication and public outreach

We should not do science so it stays among scientists, we should do science so it reaches and impacts the general population, as well as funding agencies, community members, interested parties, and policy makers. Effective science communication builds trust in science and counteracts misinformation.

Slow Science/Slow Scholarship

The scientific process is characterized by its methodical, deliberate nature, aimed at the comprehensive understanding of phenomena rather than the immediate resolution of societal issues. This approach, prioritizing the pursuit of knowledge over the fulfillment of performance targets, facilitates the development of trust between researchers and various stakeholders, including the academic community and the general public. It emphasizes the importance of inclusivity, ensuring that research outcomes are beneficial across diverse groups, particularly those that have been historically marginalized. The emphasis is placed on thoroughness and precision within the research process, rather than the rapidity of outcomes.

Types of academic, non-academic, & alt-academic positions

There are many interesting career options beyond academia for those who are currently in the academic system. These can be research based (e.g. research for non-profit and for-profit organisations), teaching based (e.g. in schools, applied higher-education, and universities), science communication roles, data related roles (e.g. data steward, FAIR advocates, data scientist), and beyond!

JUST-OS