The summer continues, and I am balancing online courses with professional and personal travel. I am also trying to clear my desk of data sets collected during the time I was working on the meta-analysis that got published last year. Those data sets are simple replication studies and I am mainly aiming for journals that are open source and access that are receptive to such work. Nothing prestigious, but that is not the goal. The point is simply to keep data out of the file drawer.
I am thinking through how to get back to the basics: mainly focusing on measurements relevant to my area of expertise. Although such work is often viewed as far from glamorous, it is vital. I think I have found some cool folks to work with. Part of my professional travel includes meeting up with some of these people. I am looking forward to it. Much of what I am doing is learning or relearning.
I hope to blog about my experience at SIPS. That is coming up soon. Probably won't post much of anything until later in July. Between what I was observing from the sidelines as the replication crisis unfolded and some professional experiences I wish could have been avoided, I became convinced that I needed to follow the lead of those who are on the front lines to change the psychological sciences for the better. I'll check out some hackathons and unconferences and soak it in. Then I'll figure out how to incorporate what I learn in my methods courses.
I have not had much to say about Qian Zhang's (Southwest University in China) work lately, but that has more to do with 1) a concern that I would be repeating myself at this point and 2) there are folks better positioned to force the issue regarding some serious problems with that lab's published work. It strikes me as prudent to let those who are better able to do so have that space to make it happen. If it makes sense for me to say something further, just know I will. I am sure that those of you who check this blog out know that I was genuinely appalled at what had slipped through peer review. That has not changed and as far as I am concerned this isn't over by a long shot. Let's see how the process plays out. I'll simply state for the moment that it is a shame, as quality research from outside the US and EU is essential to better understanding the nuances of whatever influence media violence cues might have on aggressive cognitive and behavioral outcomes. What I shared with you all about that set of findings only added to misconceptions about media violence, given that the reporting of the methodology and findings themselves was so poorly done.
For now, it's radio silence. I will return in a few weeks.