14 research outputs found
Identifying Opportunities for Accessible Feedback in Research
No full text-
This is the project page for the Leverhulme Trust funded project entitled "Identifying Opportunities for Accessible Feedback in Research". This project was led by Prof Thomas Rhys Evans, Roksana Sobolak and Magda Skubera at the University of Greenwich (UK).
-
Original Aims & Objectives: Feedback is an important mechanism to support education, development and quality within research. However, many established feedback mechanisms within research are inaccessible, particularly to Early Career Researchers and marginalised communities. The open research movement has promoted a number of research practices that could establish feedback across the research cycle, however uptake and perceived efficacy is often questioned. As such, facilitated through the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) community, the global transdisciplinary survey (N = 867) captures the scope of feedback processes adopted by researchers and maps feedback opportunities from across the research cycle.
-
Broad Findings & Conclusions: Our analyses have revealed a landscape still marked by structural inequalities, over-reliance on informal networks, and underuse of open and institutional mechanisms. The findings of this study suggest that most feedback strategies are perceived as helpful, underscoring the value of seeking feedback throughout the research process. Institutions and research communities need to actively encourage researchers to diversify their feedback sources and adopt a broader range of mechanisms. However, a cultural shift is needed to normalise feedback-seeking behaviours and reduce the fear or stigma that can accompany them. Findings underscore the need for cultural and structural change: normalising feedback-seeking behaviours, investing in collaborative infrastructures, embedding open research practices, and investigating responsible use of AI. By diversifying feedback avenues and reinforcing inclusive mentorship and institutional support, academia can move towards a more equitable and rigorous research environment
Identifying Opportunities for Accessible Feedback in Research
No full textResearch feedback mechanisms are often inaccessible, particularly for Early Career Researchers (ECRs) and those from marginalised communities. Typically, the most commonly adopted feedback strategies are obtained from gatekeepers during the dissemination stage, which is suboptimal as critical research decisions—such as methodology and analysis—have already been made. Moreover, these systems are characterised by known inadequacies. For instance, peer review during the dissemination phase of academic journal publication is a closed process, through inconsistent quality and susceptibility to various biases, including those related to researcher demographics and institutional reputation. As a result, ECRs and researchers from marginalised groups encounter significant barriers to accessing meaningful feedback and achieving positive outcomes due to the pervasive interpersonal and structural biases embedded within these traditional mechanisms.
The open scholarship movement advocates for the idea that knowledge should be shared openly, transparently, and inclusively, with a commitment to rigour, reproducibility, and cumulative progress. This movement has catalysed significant developments in the structures, procedures, and communities of research, broadening the range of feedback mechanisms available to researchers. For example, the use of Registered Reports allows for feedback and publication decisions to be made prior to data collection, ensuring resource efficiency. Importantly, many of these new strategies are designed to be less dependent on privilege, making them more accessible to all researchers, regardless of background.
By increasing the diversity of and awareness about feedback opportunities across different disciplines, we can enhance the quality of research environments and support a broader range of talent. Facilitated by the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT) community, this proposed global transdisciplinary survey aims to document the feedback processes currently adopted by researchers and map accessible feedback opportunities throughout the research cycle
The relative contributions of risk taking propensity, response inhibition, and attentional bias in adolescent alcohol consumption.
No full textAlcohol misuse is the biggest risk factor for death, ill-health and disability among 15-49-year-olds in the UK (Burton & Sheron, 2018). Drinking alcohol is typical among adolescents (44% of 15–19-year-olds in Europe drink alcohol) and heavy episodic (“binge”) drinking is more prevalent among adolescents than the general adult population (WHO, 2018). Identifying the determinants of early alcohol consumption is therefore a public health priority. One factor shown consistently to influence the (mis)use of alcohol in both adulthood and adolescence is attentional bias – that is, the preferential attention allocated involuntarily towards alcohol cues (see Field et al., 2014; Pennington et al., 2020). Furthermore, adolescence is characterised more generally by heightened reward sensitivity and risk-taking behaviours (Defoe et al., 2015; Galván, 2013) as well as reduced capacity to inhibit automatic and impulsive behaviours that are contextually inappropriate (Diamond, 2013; López-Caneda et al., 2014). Behavioural research has revealed relationships between these alcohol-unspecific cognitive sub-processes (risk taking propensity and response inhibition) and alcohol-specific processes (attentional bias and consumption; Fernie et al., 2010; van Hemel-Ruiter et al., 2015a; 2015b). However, some studies have used behavioural tasks that have recently been shown to be unreliable (e.g., the visual probe task; see Jones et al., 2018), and there is a lack of research in this important area. This project aims to examine the relative contributions of risk taking propensity, response inhibition, and alcohol-related attentional bias in adolescent alcohol consumption. It will also assess whether risk taking propensity and response inhibition interact to predict alcohol-related attentional bias and consumption in adolescence. Two-hundred and fifty-eight participants, aged between 18 (UK legal drinking age) and 25 (late adolescence) will complete experimental tasks that measure risk taking propensity (the Balloon Analogue Risk Taking [BART] Task), response inhibition (Go/No-Go Association Task), alcohol-related attentional bias (Visual Conjunction Search Task) and a self-report measure of their alcohol consumption over the past week (Alcohol Timeline Follow-back). This research will provide insights into the psychological mechanisms driving alcohol consumption in adolescence, which has the potential to inform policy decisions and corporate social responsibility, as well as the development of tailored interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm
International initiatives to enhance awareness and uptake of Open Research in psychology: a systematic narrative review
No full textConcerns about the replicability, reproducibility, and transparency of research have ushered in a set of practices and behaviours under the umbrella of ‘open research’. To this end, many new initiatives have been developed that represent procedural (i.e., behaviours and sets of commonly used practices in the research process), structural (new norms, rules, infrastructure, and incentives), and community-based change (working groups, networks). Objectives: To outline international initiatives that enhance awareness and uptake of open research practices in the discipline of psychology. Methods: A systematic, narrative review was conducted in three stages: (1) a web search to identify open research initiatives in psychology; (2) a literature search to identify supporting publications; and (3) a hand search of grey literature. Eligible initiatives were coded into a narrative theme of procedural, structural, or community-based change. Results: A total of 187 initiatives were identified; 30 were procedural (e.g., toolkits, resources, software), 70 structural (e.g., policies, strategies, frameworks), and 87 community-based (e.g., working groups, networks). Discussion: Open research is progressing at pace through various initiatives that share a common goal to reform research culture. We hope that this review promotes their further adoption and facilitates coordinated efforts between individuals, organisations, institutions, publishers, and funders
International Initiatives to Enhance Awareness and Uptake of Open Research in Psychology: A Systematic Mapping Review
No full textSleep-Impulsivity-Behaviour - Study 2
No full textSelf-injurious behaviour, such as biting, scratching, head banging and body punching, occurs at very high rates in children with autism and intellectual disability (ID). As many as 1 in 2 children with autism and ID will show self-injurious behaviour, and in most cases these behaviours persist beyond childhood. Unfortunately, self-injury is a primary cause of family stress, and often leads to placement breakdown resulting in children requiring specialist residential placements away from the family home. In the Sleep-Impulsivity-Behaviour (SIB) Study, we are particularly interested in whether specific sleep difficulties, for example problems with falling asleep, problems with staying asleep, or problems with sleeping at the wrong time in a 24-hour cycle, lead to more frequent and more severe self-injury
International Initiatives to Enhance Awareness and Uptake of Open Research in Psychology: A Systematic Narrative Review
No full textBackground: Concerns about the replicability, reproducibility, and transparency of research have ushered in a set of practices and behaviours under the umbrella of ‘open research’. To this end, many new initiatives have been developed that represent procedural (i.e., behaviours and sets of commonly used practices in the research process), structural (new norms, rules, infrastructure, and incentives), and community-based change (working groups, networks). Objectives: To outline international initiatives that enhance awareness and uptake of open research practices in the discipline of psychology. Methods: A systematic, narrative review was conducted in three stages: (1) a web search to identify open research initiatives in psychology; (2) a literature search to identify supporting publications; and (3) a hand search of grey literature. Eligible initiatives were coded into a narrative theme of procedural, structural, or community-based change. Results: A total of 187 initiatives were identified; 30 were procedural (e.g., toolkits, resources, software), 70 structural (e.g., policies, strategies, frameworks), and 87 community-based (e.g., working groups, networks). Discussion: Open research is progressing at pace through various initiatives that share a common goal to reform research culture. We hope that this review promotes their further adoption and facilitates coordinated efforts between individuals, organisations, institutions, publishers, and funders
GW4 21-22: Devaluation effects in food-specific response inhibition training: An independent conceptual replication
No full text
