Replication as a Social Movement - A Cartography of (International) Replication Initiatives in the Behavioral, Social, and Cognitive Sciences.

研究的可重复性一直是许多研究领域方法论标准的核心关注点。当前的“复制危机”与过去的辩论有许多共同的担忧，并承诺通过澄清可复制性作为一个概念并更新方法标准以适应日益跨学科和数字化的研究环境，从而改善不同领域的研究。然而，目前提高可复制性的努力已经发展到超越早期争论的水平：关注点不再局限于特定领域，而是跨学科的。争论甚至延伸到更广泛的超科学公众。但最重要的是，辩论导致了行动，越来越多的实际研究重复和发布结果，以及创建鼓励和增加重复研究实际数量的基础设施。这些复制举措将成为研究的主要对象。许多人认为，复制研究不仅是对提高特定领域研究质量的贡献，而且是一个新的跨学科研究领域（“复制科学”、“元研究”）的核心部分。 根据之前关于新兴研究领域的科学研究，我们将复制计划概念化为一种社会运动。新兴研究领域不仅需要新的研究问题、方法或概念，还需要积极行动和机构工作来建立新期刊、新协会、新研究项目等。因此，将复制科学概念化为一项社会运动，可以捕捉认知方面（问题、方法、概念）以及机构（合作、组织、资金）。我们将收集有关社会、行为和认知科学中所有复制计划的信息，并提供该领域的“制图”。为了调查认知和制度方面，将使用两个主要数据源：这些倡议的已发表材料（论文、协议、网站等）以及与利益相关者的定性访谈。分析将通过三个方法论步骤进行——文献综述、内容分析和新实用主义话语分析——重点关注论证结构和制度结构。贡献将有三方面：首先，制图将提供该领域的概述。其次，话语分析将为新兴研究领域的科学研究贡献案例研究。复制计划和复制科学的案例对该文献具有战略意义，因为它声称是“元”表明一个不寻常的案例，即新兴的研究领域不是跨学科的，而是跨学科的。第三，该分析将为复制科学领域的研究人员提供信息，例如关于复制概念和方法，以改进复制设计和作为社会运动的机构工作。

The replicability of research has been a central concern for methodological standards in many research fields. The current “replication crisis” shares many concerns of older debates and promises to improve research across different fields by clarifying replicability as a concept and by updating methodological standards to an increasingly interdisciplinary and digital research environment. However, the current efforts to improve replicability have grown to a level that surpasses earlier debates: Concerns are no longer confined to specific fields, but have become cross-disciplinary. Debates even extend to larger extra-scientific publics. But most importantly, debates have led to action, with an increasing number of actual replications of studies and publishing the results as well as creating infrastructures that encourage, as well as increase the actual number of replication studies. It is these replication initiatives that will be the primary object of study.Replication studies are a central part of what many are seeing not just as contributions to improving research quality within a specific field but as a new, cross-disciplinary field of research (“replication science”, “meta research”). In line with previous research in science studies about emerging research fields we conceptualize replication initiatives as a social movement. Emerging research fields not only require new research questions, methods, or concepts, but also activism and institutional work to found new journals, new associations, new study programs, etc. Conceptualizing replication science as a social movement, thus, allows for capturing the epistemic aspects (questions, methods, concepts) alongside with the institutional (collaboration, organization, funding).We will collect information on all replication initiatives in the social, behavioral, and cognitive sciences and provide a “cartography” of the field. To survey epistemic and institutional aspects, two main data sources will be used: published materials from these initiatives (papers, protocols, websites, etc.) and qualitative interviews with stakeholder. Analysis will run in three methodological steps – literature review, content-analysis, and neopragmatic discourse analysis – by focusing on argumentative structure and institutional structure. The contribution will be three-fold: First, the cartography will provide an overview of the field. Second, the discourse analysis will contribute a case study to the science studies of emerging research fields. The case of replication initiatives and respectively replication science holds a strategic relevance for this literature, as its claim to be “meta” suggests an unusual case where an emerging research field is not inter- but transdisciplinary. Third, the analysis will provide information to researchers in the field of replication science, e.g. about replication concepts and methodologies to improve replication designs and institutional work as a social movement.