Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students’ scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students’ attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship

How Does Open Research Impact Student Outcomes? A Big Team Science Review and Evidence Synthesis

In this talk, I will provide a summary of a large-scale review of how embedding open and reproducible scholarship may impact student outcomes across educational contexts. This project aimed to reduce barriers to embed open and reproducible scholarship into research training, by reviewing, synthesising, and clearly articulating how embedding such an approach can confer benefits for students. We provide the first comprehensive review of how integrating open and reproducible science into teaching and learning impacts students, using a large-scale, collaborative, Big Team Science approach. This project focused on interdisciplinary undergraduate and postgraduate students, on an international level. In the talk, I will describe the key findings of the review and also reflect upon the value of employing Big Team Science approaches to the study of open pedagogy

‘Treat GTAs as colleagues, rather than spare parts’: the identity, agency, and wellbeing of graduate teaching assistants

In recent years, the wellbeing of students and staff in Higher Education has received increased attention in pedagogical research. However, the experiences of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs), or PhD researchers who teach alongside their doctoral studies, are notably absent from this literature. In this mixed-methods study, we examined predictors of GTA’s wellbeing in UK institutions. This demonstrated that greater perceived agency and lower levels of over-commitment predicted higher wellbeing. Other variables, including social identity, role pride, work/life balance, effort-reward imbalance, and perceived effectiveness of teaching, did not predict wellbeing. We also qualitatively examined the identity management practices of GTAs, using a brief story completion task. A reflexive thematic analysis generated two dominant themes (1), the ‘paradox of credibility’, whereby GTAs reported grappling with a concern to be perceived as credible and worthy of teaching whilst also managing student expectations about their own knowledge, and (2) GTAs’ desire to use their staff-student role to engage in ‘approachability and advocacy’ with and for students. We end with a set of recommendations for Higher Education Institutions that employ GTAs, informed by first-hand accounts of lived experiences

Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide

Reflexivity is the act of examining one's own assumption, belief, and judgement systems, and thinking carefully and critically about how these influence the research process. The practice of reflexivity confronts and questions who we are as researchers and how this guides our work. It is central in debates on objectivity, subjectivity, and the very foundations of social science research and generated knowledge. Incorporating reflexivity in the research process is traditionally recognized as one of the most notable differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research centres and celebrates the participants' personal and unique lived experience. Therefore, qualitative researchers are readily encouraged to consider how their own unique positionalities inform the research process and this forms an important part of training within this paradigm. Quantitative methodologies in social and personality psychology, and more generally, on the other hand, have remained seemingly detached from this level of reflexivity and general reflective practice. In this commentary, we, three quantitative researchers who have grappled with the compatibility of reflexivity within our own research, argue that reflexivity has much to offer quantitative methodologists. The act of reflexivity prompts researchers to acknowledge and centre their own positionalities, encourages a more thoughtful engagement with every step of the research process, and thus, as we argue, contributes to the ongoing reappraisal of openness and transparency in psychology. In this paper, we make the case for integrating reflexivity across all research approaches, before providing a ‘beginner's guide’ for quantitative researchers wishing to engage reflexively with their own work, providing concrete recommendations, worked examples, and reflexive prompts

Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide

Reflexivity is the act of examining one's own assumption, belief, and judgement systems, and thinking carefully and critically about how these influence the research process. The practice of reflexivity confronts and questions who we are as researchers and how this guides our work. It is central in debates on objectivity, subjectivity, and the very foundations of social science research and generated knowledge. Incorporating reflexivity in the research process is traditionally recognized as one of the most notable differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research centres and celebrates the participants' personal and unique lived experience. Therefore, qualitative researchers are readily encouraged to consider how their own unique positionalities inform the research process and this forms an important part of training within this paradigm. Quantitative methodologies in social and personality psychology, and more generally, on the other hand, have remained seemingly detached from this level of reflexivity and general reflective practice. In this commentary, we, three quantitative researchers who have grappled with the compatibility of reflexivity within our own research, argue that reflexivity has much to offer quantitative methodologists. The act of reflexivity prompts researchers to acknowledge and centre their own positionalities, encourages a more thoughtful engagement with every step of the research process, and thus, as we argue, contributes to the ongoing reappraisal of openness and transparency in psychology. In this paper, we make the case for integrating reflexivity across all research approaches, before providing a ‘beginner's guide’ for quantitative researchers wishing to engage reflexively with their own work, providing concrete recommendations, worked examples, and reflexive prompts

Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide

Reflexivity is the act of examining one's own assumption, belief, and judgement systems, and thinking carefully and critically about how these influence the research process. The practice of reflexivity confronts and questions who we are as researchers and how this guides our work. It is central in debates on objectivity, subjectivity, and the very foundations of social science research and generated knowledge. Incorporating reflexivity in the research process is traditionally recognized as one of the most notable differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research centres and celebrates the participants' personal and unique lived experience. Therefore, qualitative researchers are readily encouraged to consider how their own unique positionalities inform the research process and this forms an important part of training within this paradigm. Quantitative methodologies in social and personality psychology, and more generally, on the other hand, have remained seemingly detached from this level of reflexivity and general reflective practice. In this commentary, we, three quantitative researchers who have grappled with the compatibility of reflexivity within our own research, argue that reflexivity has much to offer quantitative methodologists. The act of reflexivity prompts researchers to acknowledge and centre their own positionalities, encourages a more thoughtful engagement with every step of the research process, and thus, as we argue, contributes to the ongoing reappraisal of openness and transparency in psychology. In this paper, we make the case for integrating reflexivity across all research approaches, before providing a ‘beginner's guide’ for quantitative researchers wishing to engage reflexively with their own work, providing concrete recommendations, worked examples, and reflexive prompts

“I feel more protective over my body:” A brief report on pregnant women’s embodied experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically altered the experiences of pregnant people. For example, the pandemic has disrupted access to healthcare, social distancing has reduced social support, and vaccine rollout has led to safety concerns. Consistent with the Developmental Theory of Embodiment, which posits that our experiences of our bodies are influenced by social factors, studies have revealed an uptick in body dissatisfaction and disordered eating during this time. However, research on pregnant people’s experiences of their body and body image during the pandemic has been largely overlooked. In this exploratory qualitative study, we aimed to broadly understand how the pandemic and quarantine have impacted the way pregnant women (N = 190) in the US and UK relate to their bodies. We used Consensual Qualitative Research-Modified (CQR-M) to analyze pregnant women’s brief textual accounts of their embodied experiences during the pandemic and identified eight core domains across the dataset. Some participants reported no change in their embodied experiences, whereas others reported accounts of appearance and weight concerns, health behavior self-judgment, gratitude for isolation, body appreciation, maternal healthcare concerns, COVID health concerns, and health and safety strategies. We conclude with implications and recommendations for supporting pregnant people and their embodied well-being during health crises

Barriers to flexible sigmoidoscopy colorectal cancer screening in low uptake socio-demographic groups: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise qualitative evidence related to barriers and facilitators of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (FSS) intention and uptake, particularly within low socio-demographic uptake groups. FSS uptake is lower amongst women, lower socio-economic status (SES), and Asian ethnic groups within the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America. METHODS: A total of 12 168 articles were identified from searches of four databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria included: individuals eligible to attend FSS and empirical peer-reviewed studies that analysed qualitative data. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool evaluated the methodological quality of included studies, and thematic synthesis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Ten qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Key barriers to FSS intention and uptake centred upon procedural anxieties. Women, including UK Asian women, reported shame and embarrassment, anticipated pain, perforation risk, and test preparation difficulties to elevate anxiety levels. Religious and cultural-influenced health beliefs amongst UK Asian groups were reported to inhibit FSS intention and uptake. Competing priorities, such as caring commitments, particularly impeded women's ability to attend certain FSS appointments. The review identified a knowledge gap concerning factors especially associated with FSS participation amongst lower SES groups. CONCLUSIONS: Studies mostly focussed on barriers and facilitators of intention to participate in FSS, particularly within UK Asian groups. To determine the barriers associated with FSS uptake, and further understand how screening intention translates to behaviour, it is important that future qualitative research is equally directed towards factors associated with screening behaviour