| 1. |
- Schweinsberg, Martin, et al.
(author)
-
Same data, different conclusions : Radical dispersion in empirical results when independent analysts operationalize and test the same hypothesis
- 2021
-
In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. - : Elsevier BV. - 0749-5978 .- 1095-9920. ; 165, s. 228-249
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this crowdsourced initiative, independent analysts used the same dataset to test two hypotheses regarding the effects of scientists' gender and professional status on verbosity during group meetings. Not only the analytic approach but also the operationalizations of key variables were left unconstrained and up to individual analysts. For instance, analysts could choose to operationalize status as job title, institutional ranking, citation counts, or some combination. To maximize transparency regarding the process by which analytic choices are made, the analysts used a platform we developed called DataExplained to justify both preferred and rejected analytic paths in real time. Analyses lacking sufficient detail, reproducible code, or with statistical errors were excluded, resulting in 29 analyses in the final sample. Researchers reported radically different analyses and dispersed empirical outcomes, in a number of cases obtaining significant effects in opposite directions for the same research question. A Boba multiverse analysis demonstrates that decisions about how to operationalize variables explain variability in outcomes above and beyond statistical choices (e.g., covariates). Subjective researcher decisions play a critical role in driving the reported empirical results, underscoring the need for open data, systematic robustness checks, and transparency regarding both analytic paths taken and not taken. Implications for orga-nizations and leaders, whose decision making relies in part on scientific findings, consulting reports, and internal analyses by data scientists, are discussed.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Calderón-Contreras, Rafael, et al.
(author)
-
A regional PECS node built from place-based social-ecological sustainability research in Latin America and the Caribbean
- 2022
-
In: Ecosystems and People. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2639-5908 .- 2639-5916. ; 18:1, s. 1-14
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Sustainability requires a combination of meaningful co-production of locally relevant solutions, synthesis of insights gained across regions, and increased cooperation between science, policy and practice. The Programme for Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) has been coordinating Place-Based Social-Ecological Sustainability Research (PBSESR) across the globe and emphasizes the need for regional scientific nodes from diverse biocultural regions to inform sustainability science and action. In this paper, we assess the strengths of the PBSESR communities in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We provide an overview of PBSESR literature associated with this region and highlight the achievements of two prominent regional networks: The Social-Ecological Systems and Sustainability Research Network from Mexico (SocioEcoS) and the South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability Studies from Uruguay (SARAS Institute). Finally, we identify the potential in these nodes to constitute a regional PECS node in Latin America and discuss the capacity needed to ensure such function. The results of the literature review show that while still loosely interconnected across the region, networks play key roles in connecting otherwise cloistered teams and we illustrate how the SocioEcoS network (focusing on transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge towards sustainability) and the SARAS Institute (focusing on innovative approaches for looking at complex social-ecological problems, rooted in slow science and arts) operate as key connectors in the region. We conclude that these organizations combined can embody a Latin American node for PECS, and would thereby not only contribute to regional but also global capacities to advance the sustainability agenda.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
