The November 2020 special issue of Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienneopens in new window features articles discussing elements of research seen as causes for and responses to the replication crisis. The editors of this special issue discuss practical implications of the research and how to build a cumulative science.
What is the special issue about?
The past decade has seen much debate and controversy over the replication crisis: the failure to reproduce many of psychology’s most prominent findings. The editors of this special issue asked researchers and thought leaders in different subdisciplines of psychology to reflect on where we stand on the replication crisis after a decade or more of discussion and to suggest how to build a cumulative science. The articles comment on topics related to elements of research seen as causes for and responses to the crisis, including theory, measurement, preregistration, data analysis, questionable research practices, publication policies, research collaborations, and quantitative literature reviews.
What is the significance of the issue?
Canadian psychology journals have not focused much attention on the crisis. The irony is that two articles published in Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne predicted the current crisis. In 1991, Adair speculated that in 20 years the field would be in a crisis arising from “piles of issues, without many being settled.” Moreover, Gendreau in 2001 anticipated some of the responses to the current crisis: “The replacement of significance testing with point estimates and confidence intervals, the use of practical effect size statistics, the establishment of data repositories, and a renewed focus on replication.” This special issue seeks to address the attention gap in both the field and the journal by featuring prominent researchers from Canada and the U.S. It provides an integrative view of the crisis across the subfields of psychology from research conception to publication by many prominent researchers and advocates of better science.
Tell us about a few key takeaways.
Although there are no easy solutions to the replication crisis, the authors in this special issue acknowledge the sincere efforts by researchers to produce research that can be replicated. No area of psychology is immune to the crisis, and there is no one cause for replication failures. More needs to be done, but the first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is a problem and psychology has done that. Some specific takeaways include:
- the need for more theory based confirmatory work in psychology;
- the need to intensify focus on measurement issues;
- the need to focus on preregistration of studies;
- the need to consider how effect sizes and meta-analyses have their own limitations; and
- the need to focus on all parts of the research process, including the onus on journal editors, as the gatekeepers of science, to promote and reward best practices.
What are some practical implications of the articles featured in the issue?
The contributors to the special issue have produced thoughtful and thought-provoking ideas on the current status of the replication crisis at all stages of the research process.
- All contributors share the view that the current replication crisis is an opportunity to address legitimate research issues and to adopt better research practices.
- A number of the contributors speak to the importance of graduate training to produce more replicable research.
Awareness and training is critical, whether one is a first-time undergraduate researcher or a seasoned veteran of research battles. Through collaboration and conversation, we will build a cumulative psychological science.
Note: This article is in the Core of Psychology topic area. View more articles in the Core of Psychology topic area.