Global Engagement Task Force Report Dr. Crystal N. Steltenpohl EVANSVILLE, IN • USA James Montilla Doble METRO MANILA • PHILIPPINES Dr. Dana M. Basnight-Brown NAIROBI • KENYA Dr. Natalia B. Dutra NATAL, RN • BRAZIL Anabel Belaus CÓRDOBA • ARGENTINA Dr. Chun-Chia Kung TAINAN • TAIWAN Dr. Sandersan Onie SYDNEY • AUSTRALIA Dr. Divya Seernani FREIBURG • GERMANY Dr. Sau-Chin Chen HUALIEN • TAIWAN Dr. D. I. Burin BUENOS AIRES • ARGENTINA Dr. Kohinoor Darda PUNE • INDIA AND SYDNEY • AUSTRALIA FEBRUARY 14, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 5 Building Partnerships 10 SIPS Presence at Other Meetings 13 Diversifying Remote Meetings 16 Geographically Diverse Conference Locations 22 Membership and Financial Resources 26 Surveying Open Science Practitioners 30 Appendix Potential Conference Locations ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Global Engagement Task Force would like to thank Dr. Ljiljana B. Lazarević (University of Belgrade, Serbia), Dr. Joseph Hilgard (Illinois State University, USA), Dr. Koki Ikeda (Meiji Gakuin University, Japan), Linh Nguy n (University of Minnesota, USA), Miguel Silan (University of the Philippines Diliman, ễ Philippines), Neha Moopen (Utrecht University Library, the Netherlands), and Rizqy Amelia Zein (Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia) for their assistance with the task force formation and early information gathering. We would also like to thank Dr. Irma Serrano García (University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico), Dr. Lenny Jason (DePaul University, USA), Dr. Hu Chuan-Peng (Nanjing Normal University, China), Lou Shomette (Executive Director, Psychonomic Society, USA), Dr. Nurit Shnabel (Tel-Aviv University, Israel), Dr. Ola Shobowale (European Association of Social Psychology, the Netherlands), Dr. Katie Corker (Grand Valley State University, USA), and Dr. Crystal Hall (University of Washington, USA) for providing additional information and perspectives for this report. Finally, we would like to thank Kristina Arwood (University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN, USA, [email protected]) for her assistance with formatting the report. Red markers denote authors. Blue markers denote contributors. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Society for the Improvement of Psychological initiatives to expand open access practices. Science (SIPS) is an organization whose mission SIPS should also encourage Collabra leader- focuses on bringing together scholars who want ship to support efforts to increase the visibility to improve methods and practices in psycholog- of research and scholars from geographically ical science. The organization reaffirmed in June diverse regions. 2020 that “[we] cannot do good science without diverse voices,” and acknowledged that “right now • SIPS Presence at Other Events the demographics of SIPS are unrepresentative of We recommend SIPS leadership promote and the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepre- attend in-person meetups, workshops, and sentative of the global population. We have work hackathons run by geographically diverse to do when it comes to better supporting Black hosts, in English and other languages. 1 scholars and other underrepresented minorities.” • Diversifying Remote Events The purpose of the Global Engagement Task We recommend SIPS promote and attend Force, started in January 2020, was to explore online events run by geographically diverse suggestions made after the 2019 Annual Confer- hosts, in English and other languages. ence, held in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, around • Geographically Diverse Annual Conference inclusion and access for scholars from regions Locations outside of the United States, Canada, and West- We recommend SIPS hold the annual con- ern Europe (henceforth described as “geograph- ference in geographically diverse regions, ically diverse” regions), a task complicated by the including those traditionally labeled as COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest in several task “Global South,” “Low and Middle Income force members’ countries of residence. This report Countries,” and countries “with developing outlines several suggestions, specifically around research systems.”2 building partnerships with geographically di- verse open science organizations; increasing SIPS • Membership and Financial Resources presence at other, more local events; diversifying We recommend SIPS leadership explore and remote events; considering geographically diverse expand options to support open science annual conference locations; improving member- efforts for scholars from geographically ship and financial resources; and surveying open diverse regions, including adding reduced science practitioners from geographically diverse cost membership tiers, reworking language regions. Our recommendations are summarized around hardship waivers, providing more below, though we urge interested parties to delve travel scholarships for scholars to attend deeper into specific sections. workshops and conferences, and providing mini-grants to open science-related endeav- • Building Partnerships ors across education, research, and service. We recommend SIPS invest time and resources into building relationships with • Surveying Open Science Practitioners regional and field-specific organizations who We recommend SIPS leadership regularly have also been working to engage in open conduct and support surveys to understand science practices, and support reasons surrounding why people join and/ 2 FOOTNOTES or leave SIPS, and the types and rate of 1 Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (2020). SIPS statement condemning racism and police adoption of open science practices among brutality. Society for the Improvement of Psychological SIPS members and psychologists across the Science. http://improvingpsych.org/2020/06/16/ globe. It will also be beneficial to use qualita- racism-and-police-brutality tive methods when a richer understanding of 2 We recognise these labels omit particularities of and perspectives is desired. within each country, which should be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, we made an effort in build- ing on examples and providing advice with enough leeway We do not expect SIPS to enact every single to manage these particularities. one of these suggestions; any action should of course take into account the organization’s ³ Saab, R., Ayanian, A. H., & Hawi, D. R. (2020). The status of Arabic social psychology: A review of values and available resources. Regardless of the 21st-century research articles. Social Psychological specific response to this report, however, it will and Personality Science, 11(7), 917-927. https://doi. org/10.1177/1948550620925224 be important for scholars from geographically diverse regions to be intentionally sought out as ⁴ Bulhan, H. A. (2015). Stages of colonialism in Africa: From occupation of land to occupation of being. Journal of collaborators and leaders,³ whose perspectives on Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 239-256. https://doi. how psychological science can improve are valu- org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.143 able but often overlooked. Historically, our field ⁵ Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. Vintage Books. has not valued researchers or participants who fall outside mainstream perspectives,4,5,6 and the ⁶ Clark, K. B. (1989). Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power. Wesleyan University Press. impacts of this practice are still felt today, inside and outside of academia. It will also be important for the Executive Com- mittee (and SIPS membership, more broadly) to understand and respect that open science prac- tices may look drastically different, depending on geographic region and research area. For example, some scholars may be more interested in quali- tative research or modeling than in experiments, and it might even be the case that psychology as a discipline is not formally recognized as a science in some geographic regions. Scholars from geographically diverse regions may engage primarily in research in the field rather than in labs. Epistemological diversity is not necessarily related to geographic diversity, but there are a significant number of research practices that are missed when the open science movement focuses pri- marily on open science practices heavily steeped in positivist, quantitative research paradigms, like replicability, reproducibility, and a narrow view of 3 what transparency means (e.g., preregistration).7,8 with an open mind. As former SIPS president Of course, SIPS may be able to play a unique Dr. Sanjay Srivastava said in his closing address role in introducing scholars from geographically at SIPS 2019, “SIPS is at its best when it breaks diverse regions to the benefits of psychological through [the natural tendency for people to craft science and open science practices, but it would narrow solutions that just work for themselves, be equally essential for SIPS members to learn and for people and situations they know], when it from the strengths that these scholars have to brings together people with different knowledge 15 offer to the open science community. and concerns to work together.” SIPS — and the open science movement more broadly — should Former SIPS President Dr. Katie Corker said in her question whether the unification of methods and closing remarks during the SIPS 2018 meeting,⁹ tools should even be the goal of open science.16 Any effort to reach a broader audience that does If Open Science is a behavior that means not take the aforementioned considerations and it is not necessarily excessively stable – concerns into