Inclusive, open, and replicable developmental science: A descriptive study

• In Event: Are We Encouraging Open, Reproducible, and Inclusive Science? The Metascience of Developmental Science

Abstract

Introduction. The replication crisis and non-inclusive “WEIRD” sampling has plagued psychological science (Heinrich et al., 2010), including developmental science (Nielsen et al., 2017). Specifically, research has focused heavily on largely White and Western-hemisphere samples, neglecting the global and cultural processes that shape development. There have also been calls to enhance rigor and reproducibility through open and transparent practices. Unfortunately, there are little to no data on these research practices in developmental science, which makes it difficult to pinpoint areas of strength and opportunities to improve our field.
The 2021 biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) was virtual, with all research posters available for viewing and download. This provided a unique opportunity to take a snapshot of the field with respect to inclusive, open, and replicable science practices. The present study seeks to characterize whether and how research presented at a large developmental psychology conference reflects inclusive (who is studied), open (what is shared), and replicable (how it’s studied) science best practices. The study reflects SRCD’s strategic plan and commitment to interdisciplinarity, international representation, and issues around culture and diversity. We examined two questions: (1) How diverse and inclusive is developmental research? (2) To what extent are principles of open and reproducible science reflected in developmental research?
Method. We systematically examined all posters (N = 2,615) presented at the 2021 SRCD biennial meeting. As shown in Table 1, posters were coded on predetermined dimensions on inclusivity (e.g., geographic diversity, career level of presenters), openness (e.g., sharing of data/materials), and replicability (e.g., preregistered analyses, replication studies). Research design (e.g., quantitative/qualitative) and data collection method (primary/secondary) were also coded.
Results. Inclusivity: Student researchers were first-author on nearly 60% of all posters. More than 75% of posters featured a first author from the United States, with Europe, Canada, and Asia representing the next three most represented regions (8.7%, 8.0%, and 4.0%, respectively). Only about one-third of posters clearly stated the geographic location of study participants. Openness. Only five percent of posters shared data or materials, either on the poster or via a link. Replicability: Posters indicating that all or part of their analyses were preregistered or attempted to replicate a previous finding represented just 2.1% and 1.3% of all posters, respectively. General features: Only 5.2% of all posters featured qualitative or mixed methods research, and just 15.5% of posters analyzed secondary data.
Implications. Developmental science is heavily skewed towards particular types of research—namely, quantitative studies that feature largely American researchers and Western-hemisphere study samples. Open science practices are still extremely uncommon in developmental research, even after more than a decade since the replication crisis first emerged in psychology. Although these findings are sobering, these data provide a much-needed baseline by which the field of developmental science can benchmark progress on making the field—as well as our research—as inclusive and open as possible.

Authors

• Matthew H Kim, University of Kentucky
  Presenting Author

• Kristen Buford

• Alexa Ellis, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

• Pamela Davis-Kean, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Chellam Antony, University of Kentucky

• Claire Braun

• Tabetha Hurst

• Julia Todd