Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-06T23:11:31.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open science and epistemic pluralism: A tale of many perils and some opportunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2023

Andrea Bazzoli Open the ORCID record for Andrea Bazzoli [Opens in a new window]
Andrea Bazzoli*
Affiliation:
Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 525 - 528
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Banks, G. C., Field, J. G., Oswald, F. L., O’Boyle, E. H., Landis, R. S., Rupp, D. E., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2019). Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9547-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzoli, A., & Probst, T. M. (2022a). Taking stock and moving forward: A textual statistics approach to synthesizing four decades of job insecurity research. Organizational Psychology Review (Advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221112386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzoli, A., & Probst, T. M. (2022b). Vulnerable workers in insecure jobs: A critical meta-synthesis of qualitative findings. Applied Psychology: An International Review (Advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12415 Google Scholar
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Brabeck, M. M. (2021). Open science and feminist ethics: Promises and challenges of open access. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45, 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211030926 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1982). The unit of behavior (The reflex arc concept in psychology). In Thayer, H. (Ed.), Pragmatism: The classic writings (pp. 262–274). Hackett.Google Scholar
Donmoyer, R. (2012). Two (very) different worlds: The cultures of policymaking and qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 18, 798–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412453128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1344–1360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.11.1344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage.Google Scholar
Guzzo, R. A., Schneider, B., & Nalbantian, H. R. (2022). Open science, closed doors: The perils and potential of open science for research in practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 15, 495–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAbee, S. T., Grubbs, J. B., & Zickar, M. J. (2018). Open science is robust science. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2017.85 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamee, S., & Hosking, D. M. (2012). Research and social change: A relational constructionist approach. Routledge. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., … & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-340-8 Google Scholar
Romaioli, D., & McNamee, S. (2021). (Mis)constructing social construction: Answering the critiques. Theory & Psychology, 31, 315–334. https://doi.org.107.171/0779/5093595345342302909667757 Google Scholar
Shrout, P. E., Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Traynor, C. & Foster, L. (2017). Principles and practice in open science: Addressing power and inequality through “situated openness.” Natural Justice. https://naturaljustice.org/principles-practice-open-science-addressing-power-inequality-situated-openness/ Google Scholar
Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043 Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Macmillan.Google Scholar