Open Science: Recommendations for Research on School Bullying

被引：0

作者：

Noret N. ^{[1
]}

Hunter S.C. ^{[2
,3
]}

Pimenta S. ^{[4
]}

Taylor R. ^{[4
]}

Johnson R. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Department of Education, University of York, Heslington, York

[2] Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow

[3] Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, Perth

[4] School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow

来源：

International Journal of Bullying Prevention | 2023年 / 5卷 / 4期

关键词：

Bullying research; Open science; Pre-registration; Replication;

D O I：

10.1007/s42380-022-00130-0

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

The open science movement has developed out of growing concerns over the scientific standard of published academic research and a perception that science is in crisis (the “replication crisis”). Bullying research sits within this scientific family and without taking a full part in discussions risks falling behind. Open science practices can inform and support a range of research goals while increasing the transparency and trustworthiness of the research process. In this paper, we aim to explain the relevance of open science for bullying research and discuss some of the questionable research practices which challenge the replicability and integrity of research. We also consider how open science practices can be of benefit to research on school bullying. In doing so, we discuss how open science practices, such as pre-registration, can benefit a range of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative research and studies employing a participatory research methods approach. To support researchers in adopting more open practices, we also highlight a range of relevant resources and set out a series of recommendations to the bullying research community. © 2022, The Author(s).

引用

页码：319 / 330

页数：11

共 92 条

[1]

Allen C., Mehler D., Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early acreer and beyond, PLoS Biology, 17, 5, pp. 1-14, (2019)

[2]

Banks G.C., Field J.G., Oswald F.L., O'Boyle E.H., Landis R.S., Rupp D.E., Rogelberg S.G., Answers to 18 questions about open science practices, Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 3, pp. 257-270, (2019)

[3]

Berdondini L., Smith P.K., Cohesion and power in the families of children involved in bully/victim problems at school: An Italian replication, Journal of Family Therapy, 18, pp. 99-102, (1996)

[4]

Berger R., Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research, Qualitative Research, 15, 2, pp. 219-234, (2015)

[5]

Bishop L., Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44, 3, pp. 255-272, (2009)

[6]

Brandt M.J., Ijzerman H., Dijksterhuis A., Farach F.J., Geller J., Giner-Sorolla R., Grange J.A., Perugini M., Spies J.R., van 'T Veer A., The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication?, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 1, pp. 217-224, (2014)

[7]

Button K.S., Ioannidis J.P.A., Mokrysz C., Nosek B.A., Flint J., Robinson E.S.J., Munafo M.R., Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 5, pp. 365-376, (2013)

[8]

Carter N., Bryant-Lukosius D., Dicenso A., Blythe J., Neville A.J., The use of triangulation in qualitative research, Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 5, pp. 545-547, (2014)

[9]

Chambers C.D., Feredoes E., Muthukumaraswamy S.D., Etchells P.J., Instead of “playing the game” it is time to change the rules: Registered reports at AIMS neuroscience and beyond, AIMS Neuroscience, 1, 1, pp. 4-17, (2014)

[10]

Chiarelli A., Johnson R., Richens E., Pinfield S., Accelerating Scholarly Communication: The Transformative Role of Preprints, (2019)

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 →