Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:12:10.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unbearable limitations of solo science: Team science as a path for more rigorous and relevant research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2022

Alison Ledgerwood ,
Cynthia Pickett ,
Danielle Navarro ,
Jessica D. Remedios  and
Neil A. Lewis Jr. Open the ORCID record for Neil A. Lewis Jr. [Opens in a new window]
Alison Ledgerwood
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA95616, USA. [email protected]://www.alisonledgerwood.com/
Cynthia Pickett
Affiliation:
Office of the Provost, DePaul University, Chicago, IL60604, [email protected]://csh.depaul.edu/faculty-staff/faculty-a-z/Pages/psychology/cynthia-pickett.aspx
Danielle Navarro
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of New South Wales, 2052Sydney, [email protected]://djnavarro.net/
Jessica D. Remedios
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA02155, [email protected]://as.tufts.edu/psychology/social-identity-and-stigma-lab
Neil A. Lewis Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY14853, USA. [email protected]://neillewisjr.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Both early social psychologists and the modern, interdisciplinary scientific community have advocated for diverse team science. We echo this call and describe three common pitfalls of solo science illustrated by the target article. We discuss how a collaborative and inclusive approach to science can both help researchers avoid these pitfalls and pave the way for more rigorous and relevant research.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e81
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albornoz, D., Posada, A., Okune, A., Hillyer, R., & Chan, L. (2017). Co-constructing an open and collaborative manifesto to reclaim the open science narrative. Expanding Perspectives on Open Science: Communities, Cultures and Diversity in Concepts and Practices, 293–304.Google Scholar
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1–79). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychology 3(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(2):426–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowers, J. S., & Davis, C. J. (2012). Bayesian just-so stories in psychology and neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin 138:389–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, J. A., & Trope, Y. (2004). Stereotype-biased search and processing of information about group members. Social Cognition 22:650–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological Science 4:5–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44:20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disis, M. L., & Slattery, J. T. (2010). The road we must take: Multidisciplinary team science. Science Translational Medicine 2(22):22cm9–22cm9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupas, P., Modestino, A. S., Niederle, M., & Wolfers, J. (2021). Gender and the dynamics of economics seminars (No. w28494). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 2:156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Norris, D., & Pouget, A. (2012). How the Bayesians got their beliefs (and what those beliefs actually are): Comment on Bowers and Davis (2012). Psychological Bulletin 138:415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IJzerman, H., Lewis, N. A., Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., DeBruine, L., Ritchie, S. J., … Anvari, F. (2020). Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nature Human Behaviour 4(11):1092–1094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011). Bayesian fundamentalism or enlightenment? On the explanatory status and theoretical contributions of Bayesian models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34:169–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, L., Simpson, D., & Gelman, A. (2019). The experiment is just as important as the likelihood in understanding the prior: A cautionary note on robust cognitive modeling. Computational Brain & Behavior 2(3):210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, N., & Sidney, S. (1996). Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA study of young black and white adults. American Journal of Public Health 86(10):1370–1378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ledgerwood, A., Hudson, S. T. J., Lewis, N. A. Jr., Maddox, K. B., Pickett, C. L., Remedios, J. D., … Wilkins, C. L. (2021). The pandemic as a portal: Reimagining psychological science as truly open and inclusive, Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gdzue.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2(4):34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mays, V. M., Cochran, S. D., & Barnes, N. W. (2007). Race, race-based discrimination, and health outcomes among African Americans. Annual Review of Psychology 58:201–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McShane, B. B., & Böckenholt, U. (2014). You cannot step into the same river twice: When power analyses are optimistic. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9:612–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, M. C., Mejia, A. F., Mejia, J., Yan, X., Cheryan, S., Dasgupta, N., … Pestilli, F. (2020). Open science, communal culture, and women's participation in the movement to improve science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(39):24154–24164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Premachandra, B., & Lewis, N. Jr (2021). Do we report the information that is necessary to give psychology away? A scoping review of the psychological intervention literature 2000–2018. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974774.Google ScholarPubMed
Remedios, J. D., & Sanchez, D. T. (2018). Intersectional and dynamic social categories in social cognition. Social Cognition 36:453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, C., & Dunning, D. (2018). Overconfidence among beginners: Is a little learning a dangerous thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 114:10–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarsons, H. (2017). Recognition for group work: Gender differences in academia. American Economic Review 107:141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, I. H., & Buchanan, N. T. (2014). Multiple groups, multiple identities, and intersectionality. In Benet-Martínez, V. & Hong, Y.-Y. (Eds.), Oxford Library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 160–180). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50:755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauber, S., Navarro, D. J., Perfors, A., & Steyvers, M. (2017). Bayesian Models of cognition revisited: Setting optimality aside and letting data drive psychological theory. Psychological Review 124:410–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Welsh, M. B., & Navarro, D. J. (2012). Seeing is believing: Priors, trust, and base rate neglect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 119(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, T. V., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review 118:357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar