Categories
Collabra Funding General

Call for Proposals: SIPS-Collabra Registered Report Funding Partnership

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) and the journal, Collabra: Psychology, together invite researchers to propose empirical research projects that will be considered in parallel for research funding by SIPS and a publication decision by Collabra: Psychology

With this registered report funding partnership (RRFP), we seek to encourage empirical research that 1) addresses questions in hard-to-reach populations or otherwise seeks to maximize generalizability, and 2) reflects rigorous, inclusive psychological science that is open and reported transparently regardless of results. 

Proposals will be formatted as a stage 1 registered report, described below. All topics and approaches that fit the aims and scope of Collabra: Psychology are welcome. Although the registered report article format was optimized for confirmatory research, we welcome quantitative, qualitative, confirmatory, exploratory, and computational modeling approaches. 

REGISTERED REPORT FORMAT

As noted by the Center for Open Science, “Registered Reports are a form of empirical journal article in which methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered and peer-reviewed prior to research being conducted. High quality protocols are then provisionally accepted for publication before data collection commences. This format of article… eliminates a variety of questionable research practices, including low statistical power, selective reporting of results, and publication bias, while allowing complete flexibility to conduct exploratory (unregistered) analyses and report serendipitous findings.”

A stage 1 registered report (RR) contains an introduction, method section, and (optionally) any pilot data. The introduction sets the context for key research questions with reference to supporting literature and explains how the proposed research will advance our understanding of hard-to-reach populations or maximize generalizability. The method section describes the design, subjects  (if applicable), materials, procedure, and analysis plan. Analysis of pilot data can be presented to substantiate aspects of the proposed research.

RRFP PROCESS IN BRIEF

Researchers responding to this call for proposals will describe their proposed research in a stage 1 RR manuscript. For detailed instructions about writing a stage 1 RR, see pages 3-6 of the Collabra: Psychology Registered Reports detailed guidelines. See also Collabra’s tips for avoiding desk rejection at stage 1 on pages 8-10. 

When the stage 1 RR is ready, the lead contributor will submit the stage 1 RR to Collabra: Psychology by the deadline. SIPS and Collabra: Psychology will independently evaluate the proposed research in parallel. 

SIPS will make funding decisions; possible outcomes include denial or approval of funding. Collabra: Psychology will make publication decisions; possible outcomes include rejection, invitation to revise, or in-principle acceptance. In-principle acceptance means “the article will be published pending successful completion of the study according to the exact methods and analytic procedures outlined, as well as a defensible and evidence-bound interpretation of the results” (p. 5 of the guidelines). 

Funding and publication decisions will be based on a commitment to support research that prioritizes addressing questions in hard-to-reach populations or otherwise seeks to maximize generalizability and research that is rigorously and transparently conducted, statistically sound, adequately powered, fairly analyzed, and worthy of inclusion in the scholarly record. 

Funding is not contingent on achieving in-principle acceptance at Collabra: Psychology.

Pending satisfaction of conditions described under Award Information below, SIPS will award funds to lead contributors who were granted funding regardless of the outcome at Collabra: Psychology

ELIGIBILITY

Contributors at any stage of their career at any type of institution are eligible to apply. 

The lead contributor must be a member of SIPS and may request a dues waiver if financial assistance is needed to join. Lead contributors may submit only one application per deadline. Collabra: Psychology’s Editor-in-chief, Collabra: Psychology’s Senior Editors, and members of the SIPS Executive Committee are ineligible to be lead contributors.

We encourage and will give preference to projects led by scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: scholars who are members of one or more groups that are underrepresented in psychological science, scholars in training (e.g., students, postdocs), scholars who earned their doctoral degree within the last seven years, scholars working in circumstances where research is challenging or support is limited, and scholars outside Canada, Europe, and USA.

AWARD INFORMATION

Contributors may request up to $2,500 USD. SIPS intends to commit $5,000 USD total across 2-10 awards. In addition, if the lead contributor does not have access to funds for the article processing charge through their institution, they may request a waiver from Collabra: Psychology

Funds may not be used for salary support for personnel or indirect costs to institutions. Funds may be used to cover a stipend for consultants necessary to conduct the research (e.g., undergraduate or graduate research assistance).

Release of SIPS funds to the lead contributor is contingent on the following conditions:

  1. The lead contributor must submit the decision letter from Collabra: Psychology to SIPS. 
  2. The lead contributor must commit to carrying out the proposed research. If contributors no longer plan to conduct the research, they should decline the SIPS award.
  3. For stage 1 RRs involving research with human or animal subjects, the lead contributor must submit documentation of approval or exemption from their institutional review board / ethics committee / animal care and use committee to SIPS. (Some research may require approval or exemption by regulatory bodies at other contributors’ institutions. The research cannot proceed until all approvals or exemptions are in place.) 
  4. If Collabra: Psychology rejects the stage 1 RR, the lead contributor must preregister their final stage 1 RR on the Open Science Framework or post a preprint on PsyArXiv and submit the URL to SIPS prior to commencing data collection for the project.

APPLICATION TIMELINE

The application process will combine funding review by SIPS with peer review by Collabra: Psychology. The deadline to submit the stage 1 RR is 1 August 2022. The process will unfold on the following timeline:

1 March 2022

SIPS will announce its registered report funding partnership with Collabra: Psychology
1 August 2022

Contributors will submit a stage 1 RR to Collabra: Psychology. (Submission link below.)  The stage 1 RR should present an introduction, method, analysis plan, and results of any pilot studies, if applicable. It should adhere to Collabra: Psychology’s editorial policies. When submitting to Collabra: Psychology, authors should include a cover letter indicating that the stage 1 RR is being submitted for consideration via the SIPS-Collabra Registered Report Funding Partnership. 
~August to October 2022

Collabra: Psychology will review the stage 1 manuscript and relay word to the lead contributor. Possible outcomes include rejection, invitation to revise, or in-principle acceptance. In parallel, SIPS will make in-principle funding decisions after removal of contributor information from proposals and relay word to the lead contributor. Possible outcomes include denial or conditional approval of funding.
November 2022 and beyond

Assuming funding conditions are met, SIPS will release funds to the lead contributor of stage 1 RRs that receive a decision from Collabra: Psychology, whatever the outcome. This ends SIPS involvement in the partnership. Contributors will then conduct the research and write the stage 2 RR. The stage 2 RR should present the introduction, method, results, and discussion after data collection and analysis. Contributors submit their stage 2 RR with a cover letter to Collabra: Psychology written according to journal guidelines. Possible outcomes include rejection, invitation to revise, or acceptance for publication by the journal. 

HOW TO APPLY

  1. Write a stage 1 RR that includes the following sections:
  • A title page (page 1) showing the title, names and affiliations of all contributors. 
  • An abstract (page 2) summarizing the research.
  • An introduction that sets the context for key research questions with reference to supporting literature. If applicable, explain how the proposed research will advance our understanding of hard-to-reach populations or maximize generalizability.  
  • A method section that describes the design, subjects (if applicable), materials, procedure, and analysis plan. 
  • A references section for works cited in the proposal; these do not contribute to the word limit.
  1. The lead contributor should submit the stage 1 RR to Collabra: Psychology by 1 August 2022. Submit here.
  2. List the lead contributor as the corresponding author. 
  3. Indicate in the cover letter that the stage 1 RR should be considered via the SIPS-Collabra Registered Report Funding Partnership
  4. When prompted by the editorial staff at Collabra: Psychology, complete the two required submission questionnaires. One has journal-required fields; the other has the SIPS-required fields noted at the bottom of this call for proposals.

QUESTIONS AND SPONSORSHIP

Questions? Please email sips@improvingpsych.org.

Sponsored by: SIPS membership dues and donations, and Collabra: Psychology via waiver of the article processing charge for some contributors at the journal’s discretion

SIPS-COLLABRA RRFP SUBMISSION QUESTIONNAIRE FIELDS

1. Please provide the names and role(s) of all contributors to the research. For roles, please succinctly describe what each contributor will do in service of the project; if applicable, consider using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy:

2. Lead Contributor’s Last/Family Name:

3. Lead Contributor’s First/Given Name:

4. Lead Contributor’s Institution:

5. Lead Contributor’s Email address:

6. Title of the manuscript submitted to Collabra: Psychology:

7. Which of the following describes the lead contributor? (Select all that apply):

  • SIPS member (required)
  • Agrees to share stage 1 RR publicly if funded (required)
  • Scholar who is a member of a group that is underrepresented in psychological science
  • Scholar in training position (e.g., student, postdoc)
  • Scholar who earned their doctoral degree within the last seven years
  • Scholar working in circumstances where research is challenging or support is limited
  • Scholar living and working outside Canada, Europe, and USA

8. Which of the following describes the proposed research? (Select all that apply):

  • Addresses questions in hard-to-reach populations
  • Seeks to maximize generalizability

9. Does the project involve human or animal subjects? (yes/no)

10. Provide a timeline for research activities, and a budget covering up to $2,500 USD in research expenses. The budget may not include salary support for personnel or indirect costs to institutions. The budget may include a stipend for consultants necessary to conduct the research (e.g., undergraduate or graduate research assistance):

Categories
Conferences General

Call for Proposals: SIPS 2024 Conference Hosting


Call for Proposals to Host the 2024 SIPS Conference

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) is excited to issue a call for proposals to host its annual conference in 2024. We are particularly interested in receiving proposals for conference locations outside Canada, Western Europe, and the United States. 

Background

To date, SIPS has planned its annual conferences exclusively in Canada, Western Europe, and the United States (see table below). As noted in the Global Engagement Task Force Report commissioned by SIPS, “When major conferences are held in only one or two geographic regions, less financially secure scholars are systematically excluded, which limits the exposure of their perspectives to an international community” (Steltenpohl et al., 2021, p. 8). The authors of the task force therefore recommended that “SIPS hold the annual conference in geographically diverse regions, including those traditionally labeled as ‘Global South,’ ‘Low and Middle Income Countries.’” Doing so will enable contributions by all international stakeholders, which will in turn allow us to generate the best ideas for how to improve psychological science. 

YearLocation# Registered
2016Charlottesville, VA, USA~100
2017Charlottesville, VA, USA~200
2018Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA271
2019Rotterdam, the Netherlands521
2020Remote/online1197
2021Remote/online1012
2022Victoria, BC, CanadaTBD
2023Padova, ItalyTBD
SIPS Conference Sites

The Proposal

Brief proposals for hosting the 2024 SIPS Conference should focus mostly on logistics such as where the conference events would take place (hotel/institution and in what city and country) and roughly how much it would cost, whether the site has sufficient space to accommodate typical conference sessions, accessibility of the nearest airport, and accessibility of affordable lodging and meals. (To get a sense of typical conference sessions, please refer to programs from past conferences, available here.)

SIPS conferences are financed by SIPS in large part through registration fees, sponsorships, and donations; therefore, proposals for hosting the conference do not need to consider how the conference will be funded. That said, hosts are welcome to note sources of funding they could contribute or obtain to defray the costs of the conference. Similarly, the scientific program for SIPS conferences is coordinated by a program committee that works together with the logistics committee to plan the conference. The program committee evaluates submissions and creates the schedule of events. Therefore, proposals for hosting and handling the logistics of the conference do not need to address the scientific program. 

Evaluation

The table below lists the criteria that proposals should address and how they will be evaluated. 

CriteriaInformation about this criterion is scarce or not applicable.This criterion is partially met.This criteria iscompletely met.
Host Characteristics
The conference is hosted by an individual or group committed to SIPS and improving psychological science in general.
The host(s) have previous experience with this kind of event or have demonstrated skills that are relevant to doing so.
Conference Site
The conference site facilities are adequate for ~500 participants and typical conference session activities (universities or similar are preferred due to cost effectiveness).
The site has spaces that facilitate networking and informal exchange among participants.
The site is close to eateries, lodging, and transportation venues.
Approximate cost to reserve the site
Advantages & Limitations
The proposal addresses potential advantages of the conference location (e.g. accessibility, funding sources that can be applied for, local SIPS or similar communities in the area) 
The proposal addresses potential limitations of the conference location (e.g., laws or local ordinances that target marginalized members of the SIPS community, potential travel/visa restrictions)
Financial, Travel, and Timing Considerations
The proposed costs are acceptable.
The proposal specifies the nearest airport and its distance to the conference site
The date proposed for the event is appropriate; it should occur in June or before.
Are the organizers interested in hosting the SIPS conference in a subsequent year if the proposal is not selected for 2024? (the answer to this question has no bearing on 2024 selection)YesNo
Criteria for Evaluating SIPS 2024 Conference Hosting Proposals

Submission

Upload a single pdf of the proposal to the survey linked here by 1 May 2022. Complete proposals will be reviewed by the SIPS Executive Committee based on the criteria noted above. There is no formal word/page minimum or maximum but proposals are meant to be brief.

Please direct any questions to sips@improvingpsych.org. We are excited to discuss your ideas for a proposal prior to submission; feel free to request a conversation before investing effort in your proposal. Similarly, the EC reserves the right to request a conference call with potential hosts to address questions about their proposal before making a decision.

Categories
General

Call for Proposals: Grants-In-Aid to Reduce Barriers to Improving Psychological Science

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) wants to provide a mechanism for its members to advance the SIPS Mission outside the confines of the annual conference. To that end, we are delighted to announce the availability of grants-in-aid for projects that will reduce barriers to improving psychological science.

We define projects broadly. Examples of projects in alphabetical order include (but are not limited to) educational resources, interactive media, preconferences, small in-person gatherings to complement online conferences, social networks, software, tutorials, webinars, and workshops. Applicants should, however, feel free to submit projects not captured in these examples or propose to build on existing projects.

ELIGIBILITY

Contributors at any stage of their career at any type of institution are eligible to apply. The lead contributor must be a member of SIPS and may request a dues waiver if financial assistance is needed to join. Lead contributors may submit only one application per deadline. Members of the SIPS Executive Committee are ineligible to be contributors. 

We encourage and will give preference to projects led by scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: scholars who are members of one or more groups that are underrepresented in psychological science, scholars in training (e.g., students, postdocs), scholars who earned their doctoral degree within the last seven years, scholars working in circumstances where research is challenging or support is limited, and scholars outside Canada, Europe, and USA.

AWARD INFORMATION

Contributors may request up to $2,500 USD. SIPS intends to commit $5,000 USD total across 2-10 awards. 

Funding requires open sharing of the grant application and grant output for awarded projects. Contributors may apply a license to the application and output, if desired.

Funding for proposals involving research with human or animal subjects will only be released after receiving documentation of approval or exemption from the lead contributor’s institutional review board / ethics committee / animal care and use committee. Some research may require approval or exemption by regulatory bodies at other contributors’ institutions. The research cannot proceed until all approvals or exemptions are in place.

Funds may not be used as salary support for personnel or indirect costs (i.e., overhead) to institutions. Funds may be used to cover a stipend for consultants necessary to conduct the project (e.g., undergraduate or graduate project assistance).

HOW TO APPLY

Submit your proposal here. The proposal includes the following fields:

Please provide the names and role(s) of all contributors to the project. For roles, please succinctly describe what each contributor will do in service of the project; if applicable, consider using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy:

To be eligible for a grant-in-aid, the lead contributor must be a SIPS member who agrees to share the grant application and grant output publicly if funded. 

The lead contributor assumes primary responsibility for submitting the proposal and corresponding with SIPS as needed about the proposal. If the grant-in-aid is awarded, the lead contributor assumes responsibility for receiving the funds and carrying out the project.

If you are not a SIPS member, please join before proceeding further with this application by clicking here. If financial assistance is needed, you may request a dues waiver here before joining.

Lead Contributor’s Last/Family Name:

Lead Contributor’s First/Given Name:

Lead Contributor’s Institution:

Lead Contributor’s Email Address:

Which of the following describes the lead contributor? (Select all that apply):

  • SIPS member
  • Agrees to assume primary responsibility for submitting the proposal and corresponding with SIPS as needed about the proposal
  • Agrees to receive the funds and carry out the project if funds are awarded
  • Agrees to share grant application publicly if funded
  • Agrees to share grant output publicly if funded
  • Scholar who is a member of a group that is underrepresented in psychological science
  • Scholar in training position (e.g., student, postdoc)
  • Scholar who earned their doctoral degree within the last seven years 
  • Scholar working in circumstances where research is challenging or support is limited
  • Scholar living and working outside Canada, Europe, and USA

Title of the project:

Abstract summarizing the project in up to 480 characters (~80 words):

Does the project involve human or animal subjects? (yes/no)

A proposal addressing the following:

  • Describe the project with supporting literature (up to 3600 characters, which is ~600 words; character limit includes in-text citations). The strongest proposals will articulate a rough timeline and the product(s) to be generated upon completion.
  • Explain how the project reduces a barrier to improving psychological science. If proposing to build on an existing project, explain how the proposed project will advance the work. (up to 1200 characters, which is ~200 words)
  • Provide a budget of up to $2,500 USD. The budget may not include salary support for personnel or indirect costs to institutions. The budget may include a stipend for consultants necessary to conduct the project (e.g., undergraduate or graduate project assistance). (up to 1200 characters, which is ~200 words)
  • Provide full references for works cited in proposal (no maximum character count):

DEADLINE

Submit your proposal by 15 January 2022. You will receive a copy of your responses at the email address you provide as confirmation of submission. We anticipate notifying lead contributors about the outcome of their request for funding on or near 15 March 2022. 

Questions? Please email sips@improvingpsych.org.

Sponsored by: SIPS membership dues and donations

This call for proposals is an adapted version of SPSSI’s Grants-in-Aid Program.

Categories
Conferences General

Diversity Re-Hack at SIPS 2021

Kimberly Quinn

Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Access (IDEA) Committee

Following the SIPS 2021 virtual conference, session leaders were invited to respond to a survey to reflect on their diversity and inclusiveness practices.

They were prompted to consider diversity in a number of ways:

  1. Identity-based forms of diversity (e.g., gender expression, sexuality, race and ethnicity, neurodiversity)
  2. Geographic diversity (researcher location, culture)
  3. Career-stage diversity (academic: undergraduate students, (post)graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty; non-academic: probationary/temporary versus permanent)
  4. Institutional diversity (high schools, two-year / community colleges, undergraduate institutions, Masters-granting institutions, PhD-granting institutions, nonacademic organizations)
  5. Resource diversity (institutional support and infrastructure, money, time)

Of the 55 session leaders contacted, 28 (51%) responded to the survey. Eight of the 55 sessions were explicitly diversity-focused (and four leaders of diversity-focused sessions responded to the survey), whereas the remaining 47 sessions were not (and 24 of these session leaders responded to the survey).

Session leaders replied to five questions. Key themes in their responses are summarized below (along with my own reflections and/or recommendations, where applicable).

Note that I sometimes distinguish between inclusion and access. I refer to inclusion as people’s real or perceived sense of being recognized and respected in their identities, and access as people’s opportunities to obtain and make use of knowledge or resources.

What did you do to foster diversity and inclusion in this session?

Session leaders reported working toward both access and inclusion. 

Inclusion-directed activities included the following:

  • Highlighting session leader diversity
  • Acknowledging session leader positionality (including epistemic positionality, e.g., positivist versus constructivist views on knowing)
  • Creating welcoming spaces (e.g., encouraging personal introductions, welcoming and teaching attendees how to share their pronouns on the virtual platforms)
  • Creating accessible and inclusive spaces (e.g., using small breakout rooms to give more  attendees the opportunity to participate, allowing the use of text-based chat in addition to or instead of speaking, enabling asynchronous contributions via shared documents)
  • Being attentive to disability and neurodivergence (e.g., using live captioning, recording sessions when the content or contributions were not private, using colorblind-friendly colors in materials, making materials available offline, providing preparation materials in advance)
  • Being attentive to identity-related issues in the presentation of session materials (e.g., acknowledging that gender-dichotomized data in a demonstration data set did not reflect expansive definitions of gender)

Access-directed activities included the following:

  • Being attentive to resource diversity (e.g., relying exclusively on open-source software)
  • Being attentive to knowledge diversity (e.g., conducting pre-session surveys to gauge knowledge, sharing background papers in advance, overviewing introductory concepts at start of session)
  • Advertising in advance (e.g., via Twitter) to attract broader attendance

One comment stood out for highlighting a potential topic for future discussion. A session leader noted that they had devoted a lot of attention to career-stage diversity and power structures while also neglecting identity-based diversity and power structures. In my mind, this comment serves as an implicit call for intersectionality as a topic of discussion. All of our various identities—based on race, gender, sexuality, (dis)ability status, but also on less conventionally considered variables such as career stage, institutional type, and so on—have the potential to combine in ways that create different forms of privilege versus exclusion. We have an opportunity, and perhaps even an obligation, to consider how identities that impact inclusion and identities that impact access might interact in ways that are particularly detrimental to the scientific community by virtue of who they exclude from scientific activity and discourse.

Who will benefit from the knowledge disseminated / materials developed in the session?

Sessions leaders generally responded that beneficiaries would be sessions attendees and anyone interested in the knowledge and/or skills targeted in the session. They referred primarily to researchers, instructors, and students as those who would benefit. One notable exception was a reflection that had a “hidden curriculum” flavor to it, noting that early-career researchers, scholars in the Global South, and scholars at smaller and/or teaching-focused institutions might be particularly likely to benefit.

Reflecting on the similarity of responses to this question highlighted for me that the question was likely unclear. It might be interesting for session leaders to consider who would likely be interested in the session content and/or outputs. Would the ideas, methods, etc. appeal to all researchers, instructors, and/or students in the relevant domain? In so doing, session leaders might also consider defining who they include in each of these stakeholder categories and identifying groups or individuals who would likely not be interested in the session content and/or outputs. Should efforts be made to reach, appeal to, and serve these groups or individuals? If so, how?

Who might be left out, overlooked, or otherwise less able to benefit?

Session leaders again tended to focus on whether conference attendees were able to attend their sessions, reflecting on geographic diversity and session timing, attendee language barriers, and so on. There were some reflections on whether cultural norms and values might constrain the relevance of session content or prevent full engagement and open discussion. Another response reflected on the largely online nature of SIPS (with its virtual conference and the generally high engagement of SIPS-oriented scholars on Twitter). 

There were also a few reflections on the time, resource, or financial burden of adopting advocated practices. This kind of reflection might be useful for future consideration. Focusing less on sessions themselves and more on the products and practices that result from these sessions, session leaders might benefit from asking who has the ability and desire to use them. Perhaps more importantly, who doesn’t use the products and practices, and why? Should efforts be made to adapt products and practices to these people? If so, how?

What can you (as session organizer) and/or SIPS do to expand who can benefit? What can you (as session organizer) and/or SIPS do to address barriers?

Note. These questions were asked separately, simply to provide respondents with different ways to frame the issue. Responses to the two questions (unsurprisingly) mirrored each other, so the summaries have been combined here.

My summary for these questions is brief, because most of the responses recapitulate what we’ve heard before when asking about how to improve access and inclusion: a need to consolidate all of the outputs from SIPS efforts over the years to prevent redundancy and make identification of and access to information easier; a need to translate materials into multiple languages to address language diversity; a call for consistent automatic captioning of videos to address both language barriers and disability; and a desire to maintain the virtual conference format (or at least adopt a hybrid format) to address geographic and financial diversity. 

Responses also echoed past discussions calling for efforts to integrate epistemic diversity (i.e., diversity in approaches to “knowing,” such as positivism versus constructivism) into replicable science discussions and practices and for SIPS to publicly address and acknowledge the  colonial and imperial histories in psychology and their ongoing impact.

Finally, one respondent acknowledged not knowing how to better foster inclusiveness in a session focused on a specific methodological issue, and this resonates with me as someone who teaches quantitative research design (acknowledging its particular positivist standpoint). When I first considered whether my own pedagogy supported diversity and inclusion, I thought my mandate was to think about how I presented issues of race, gender, and the like, and to ensure that the research I highlighted included female, Black, Indigenous, People of Color, or LGBTQI+ authors, and I know from conversations with others that I was not alone in this understanding. I struggled with this in the context of research methods teaching because so many of the classic readings and even much contemporary work comes from White men. It took me a while to realize that fostering diversity and inclusion was also about my audience (i.e., my students). The issues aren’t just about the materials we present (i.e., whether we promote work from minoritized scholars) and the activities we ask people to engage in (e.g., whether we talk about race), but also how we do that. How do we engage everyone in our audience—students in our classes or participants in our SIPS sessions—and ensure that they feel valued and included?

This respondent recommended that SIPS provide training or tips to foster inclusion. My hope is that future session leaders can look to the examples described above as a starting point, and that SIPS takes up this recommendation.

A closing reflection

As noted above, session leaders were encouraged to consider diversity in terms of identity, geography, career stage, institution type, and resource availability. My sense is that the community’s discussions in recent years have done much to promote the first three types of diversity, but much less the last two. To be clear, we still have much to do on every dimension. However, until we seriously consider the constraints imposed by limited time, support, and infrastructure and how these constraints shape research practice, we will have limited success in our mission to improve psychological science.

Categories
General

Global Engagement Task Force Report

The SIPS Global Engagement Task Force has finished their report on issues affecting inclusion and access of scholars from regions outside the US, Canada, and Western Europe. It includes suggestions for reaching, including, and supporting these scholars, such as working with local open science groups, holding conferences in geographically diverse locations, and improving membership and financial resources.

A pretty version is hosted on PsyArXiv.

The report has been officially published at Collabra: Psychology.

Categories
General

SIPS EC Statement Condemning Anti-Transgender Bigotry and Violence

Rhetoric and violence against transgender people have become widespread. This increase has been accompanied by debates in mainstream academic spaces that undermine the lived experiences of transgender people and erroneously pit transgender people against cisgender women’s safety and rights. Psychology has not been exempt from this. 

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Executive Committee (SIPS EC) condemns anti-transgender bigotry and violence and denounces attempts to invalidate transgender people’s gender identity under the guise of putative scientific facts. This pseudoscientific rhetoric goes against scientific consensus and empowers behaviors that threaten the dignity, well-being, and human rights of transgender people. 

The SIPS EC also affirms its commitment to inclusivity; the Society cannot realize its mission of achieving a broad and diverse research community without being inclusive. Making the field of psychology better requires enabling people with different identities and perspectives to come together to share ideas and knowledge. That members of transgender and gender diverse communities must worry about being harassed, threatened, and assaulted is unacceptable; the egregious harm caused to transgender people is compounded by the loss of their contributions to their scholarly communities. 

Feminism and gender equality are not threatened by accurate and respectful attention to the rights of the transgender community—they are incomplete without it. The SIPS EC, therefore, calls on its members and the larger psychological science community to support transgender scholars and communities by reporting anti-transgender behavior everywhere it occurs, including SIPS events (see our Code of Conduct). We also ask that you read and consider signing this open letter about a high court decision earlier this month that limited self-report of legal sex on the 2021 census in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  

A scientific community that does not provide psychological safety to all scientists perpetuates harm to those who are targeted and alienates researchers who strengthen the science.

If you wish to signal your support for this statement by the SIPS EC, please complete this form. We will add you to a list of signatories on our website.

Resources:

Fatal Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in 2021

SIPS Twitter Thread re: SAGE Methods, February 18, 2021

Open Letter on Collecting High Quality Census Data on Sex and Gender 

SIPS Mission Statement

Signed,

SIPS Executive Committee

The following individuals co-sign this statement:

Heather Urry, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Tufts University
Siobhan Thomas, MS, PhD Researcher, School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork
Lisa DeBruine, PhD, Professor, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow
Tomiko Yoneda, MS, Graduate Student, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria
Rodrigo de Almeida, MA, Psychologist, Psychology, University of the Basque Country
Esther Maassen, MS, Tilburg University
Jamie Cummins, PhD, Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University
Madeline Harms, PhD, Visiting Assistant Professor, Psychology, Macalester College
Crystal Steltenpohl, PhD, Assistant professor, Psychology, University of Southern Indiana
Marco Schauer
Jens Fuenderich, MA, University of Erfurt
David Bauer, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Viterbo University
Benjamin Le, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Psychology, Haverford College
Yurik Yang, BA, Crisis Center Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia
Gwen van der Wijk, MA, PhD candidate, Psychology, University of Calgary



Categories
General

SIPS EC Statement Condemning Anti-Asian Bigotry and Violence

The horrific rise of the COVID-19 pandemic over the past year has sparked an equally horrific rise in racism and vicious attacks against Asian people.* In the most recent stark example just last week, a shooter in Atlanta, Georgia, USA murdered eight people, including six Asian women. Sadly, the rise in anti-Asian racism and violence is not limited to the United States; it is a global phenomenon.

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science Executive Committee (SIPS EC) condemns anti-Asian bigotry and violence. The SIPS EC is committed to working against anti-Asian bigotry and violence, white supremacy, and bias in all of our activities. Last summer the EC released a statement on anti-Black racism and police brutality; while some of the activities highlighted there have the potential to benefit Asian researchers and members of other minoritized groups, we do not assume that they will be sufficient to address all problems for all communities. Moreover, we understand this to be an ongoing process and remain committed to continuing to build a safe, diverse, inclusive community. 

For now, we call on ourselves and everyone in the psychological science community to support scholars who are targets of anti-Asian harassment or violence. If we observe demeaning, harassing, or aggressive behavior against someone else, Asian or otherwise, we must speak up. And if we belong to organizations that sponsor communal scientific activities like workshops and conferences, let’s ask them to establish clear codes of conduct that support inclusive engagement (see, for example, the Code of Conduct for SIPS events). 

The people killed in the shootings in Atlanta, their families, and their communities are very much in our thoughts: Daoyou Feng, Hyun Jung Grant, Suncha Kim, Paul Andre Michels, Soon Chung Park, Xiaojie Tan, Delaina Ashley Yaun, and Yong Ae Yue. Also in our thoughts are the Asian members of our scientific community who are most deeply affected by the increasing bigotry and violence against Asian people everywhere. 

If you wish to signal your support for this statement by the SIPS EC, please complete this form. We will add you to a list of signatories on our website.

Resources:

*Covid-19 Fueling Anti-Asian Racism and Xenophobia Worldwide, May 12, 2020

SIPS Statement Condemning Racism and Police Brutality, June 16, 2020

*As Lunar New Year approaches, many Asians worry about future journeys, February 11, 2021

*The Rise In Anti-Asian Attacks During The COVID-19 Pandemic, March 10, 2021

What we know about the victims of the Atlanta shootings, March 20, 2021

SIPS Mission Statement

Asian Mental Health Collective

Signed,

SIPS Executive Committee

The following individuals co-sign this statement:

Heather Urry, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Tufts University
Lisa DeBruine, PhD, Professor, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow
Tomiko Yoneda, MS, Graduate Student, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria
Esther Maassen, MS, Tilburg University
Jamie Cummins, PhD, Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University
Madeline Harms, PhD, Visiting Assistant Professor, Psychology, Macalester College
Crystal Steltenpohl, PhD, Assistant professor, Psychology, University of Southern Indiana
Marco Schauer
Tianze Sun, BA, PhD Candidate, Psychology, The University of Queensland
David Bauer, PhD, Professor, Psychology, Viterbo University
Benjamin Le, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Psychology, Haverford College
Yurik Yang, BA,Crisis Center Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia
Gwen van der Wijk, MA, PhD candidate, Psychology, University of Calgary


Categories
General

SIPS Statement Condemning Racism and Police Brutality

The Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) condemns racism and police brutality in the United States, where white supremacy and oppressive policing practices threaten the lives and well-being of Black people. George Floyd. Breonna Taylor. Ahmaud Arbery. Tony McDade. We mourn their murders and the thousands of lives taken by state violence and police brutality.

The white supremacy at the root of this violence is also present in the world of psychological science – it is deeply ingrained in our admissions and hiring processes, our professional incentive structures, our classrooms, our departments, and our societies. Although academia may seem far removed from police departments and political offices, SIPS members play a role in constructing the community in which we all live. If we continue with ‘business as usual,’ we will perpetually recreate a community that tacitly endorses falsehoods like:

  • Science conducted by wealthy white Americans, on samples of wealthy white Americans, can serve everyone
  • Teaching about psychology means focusing on contributions of white men and women
  • Covert white supremacy is not a problem in academia

If we are more vigilant, we will find ourselves with many opportunities to challenge, question, and undermine those falsehoods.

SIPS was founded on the principle of continuing self-improvement. We cannot do good science without diverse voices, but right now the demographics of SIPS (which can be viewed here) are unrepresentative of the field of psychology, which is in turn unrepresentative of the global population. We have work to do when it comes to better supporting Black scholars and other underrepresented minorities. With this in mind, we are taking the following actions:

  • We will partner with other societies whose mission is to increase the number of Black people and other underrepresented minorities in psychology. As a first step, some of us have applied to join the SPARK Society’s network of volunteers that will provide a “first review” for underrepresented minority trainees, giving rapid and constructive feedback on manuscripts before they are submitted to a journal.
  • At this year’s conference, we will host a hackathon entitled “Attracting and Retaining Members from Regional and Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds that are Underrepresented in SIPS” with the intent of continuing an ongoing conversation about ways to address this problem. We will assign an Executive Committee member to build on this work and conduct a survey aimed at identifying barriers to involvement with SIPS and open science. (Update 6/29/20: Heather Urry is now the Executive Committee managing this effort.)
  • We will introduce a new category for SIPS Mission Awards  that will recognize meta-scientific work addressing inclusivity within academia (nominations can be submitted here).
  • We will post this statement on our website along with this link for submitting suggestions to lengthen and improve this plan of action. We will add updates as we make progress on these items, making ourselves accountable to the SIPS community.

These are small steps in a much longer journey. Lasting change will take the same kind of careful, persistent, and collaborative work that the SIPS community has devoted to advocating for more open and reproducible science. With these steps, we express our commitment to doing this work, and to dismantling systemic racism within the SIPS community and academia.

Signed,

Alexa Tullett, on behalf of the SIPS Executive Committee
Kimberly Quinn, on behalf of the SIPS Diversity Committee

This statement was written collaboratively by the following individuals (listed alphabetically):

Joanne Chung
Katie Corker
Melissa Kline
Benjamin Le
Hannah Moshontz
Kimberly Quinn
Alexa Tullett
Heather Urry

Categories
General

SIPS Demographics Report

This document reports the collected demographics of the active SIPS membership as well as the registrants for the free online SIPS2020 conference.

Active members

The following report is based on the records retrieved from Wild Apricot of 483 currently-active members (as of May 21, 2020).

Nationality. Active members represent 30 countries. 53% of members are from the USA (44%) or Canada (9%). 32% of members are from Europe: 8% from Germany, 8% from the Netherlands, 5% the UK, and 1% or fewer from each of several other European countries. A further 8% are from East Asia and the Pacific, with 5% from Australia and New Zealand and a combined 3% from China, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, The Philippines, and Hong Kong. Less than 1% are from South Asia, Latin America & the Caribbean, North Africa and the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa combined. 6.5% of members do not have a country listed.

Race and ethnicity. Most active members report being white (68%) or Asian (12%). 2% identify as Middle Eastern or North African, and only 1% identify as Black. 2.5% report being Latino/Hispanic/Chicano/Puerto Rican. Race and ethnicity information was collected via checklist, so any one member might be counted in several of these categories. 11% did not provide race and ethnicity information.

Gender. Membership is 47% male and 43% female, with 10% not reporting their gender. Less than 1% of members reported a gender besides male or female.

Sexual orientation. Regarding sexual orientation, 52% report being heterosexual, 6% bisexual, 4% gay or lesbian, and 1% self-described with another label. Nonresponse is an issue, as 25% did not indicate a sexual orientation, and 12% indicated that they preferred not to report an orientation.

Transgender identity. Less than 1% of members reported transgender status. Nonresponse may be an issue, with 43% of members not indicating cis/transgender identity.

Career stage. 37% are in a faculty position, 15% are postdocs, 33% are graduate students, and 1% are undergraduate students. 8% did not indicate their career stage, and 5% indicated a career stage outside of these categories. Of the faculty positions, 54% are tenured (or equivalent), 20% are tenure-track (or equivalent), and 9% are visiting or adjunct. 16% of faculty reported indicated some other form of position.

SIPS 2020 registrants

The following report is based on the registration information of 1000 registrants for the online SIPS 2020 conference (as of June 15, 2020).

Nationality. Registrants for SIPS2020 represent 49 countries. 36% are from the United States (30%) or Canada (6%). 52% are from Europe and Central Asia (16% UK, 8% Germany, 7% Netherlands, 3% Turkey, 3% Spain, and many more). 8% are from East Asia and the Pacific (3% Australia, 2% New Zealand, and less than 1% from Philippines, Hong Kong, Indonesia, China, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore.). 2% are from Latin America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru). 1% is from India. Less than 1% are from the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa combined.

Gender. Registrants are 32% male and 47% female, with 21% not reporting a gender. 1% of members indicated a gender besides male or female.

Race and ethnicity. 55% of registrants are White, 11% Asian, 3% Middle Eastern and/or North African, and 1% Black. 4% report being Latino/Hispanic/Chicano/Puerto Rican. Again, race and ethnicity information was collected via checklist, so any one member might be counted in several of these categories. 27% of registrants did not provide race and ethnicity information.

Sexual orientation. Regarding sexual orientation, 39% of registrants report being heterosexual, 6% bisexual, 4% gay or lesbian, and 1% self-described with another label. Nonresponse is an issue, as 42% did not indicate a sexual orientation, and 8% indicated that they preferred not to report an orientation.

Transgender identity. Less than 1% of registrants indicated transgender status. 54% did not indicate cis/transgender identity.

Career stage. 22% are in a faculty position, 12% are in postdoctoral training, 36% are graduate students, and 3% are undergraduate students. 22% did not indicate their career stage, and 4% indicated a career stage outside these categories. Of the registrants in faculty positions, 42% indicated being tenured, 22% indicated being tenure track, and 15% indicated being non-tenure-track. A further 21% of faculty indicated having another kind of position (e.g. research scholar in a private corporation or non-profit organization).

Categories
General

repliCATS Pre-SIPS Workshop & Travel Grants

Edit (March 29, 202o): The repliCATS pre-SIPS workshop is cancelled. More information on remote participation coming soon.

The repliCATS project will run a pre-SIPS workshop about evaluating published research claims and predicting the likely outcome of replication studies. 100 travel grants of US$550 are available to those who live outside the immediate area. This is a full (long) day workshop, running the day before SIPS at the SIPS conference venue : 20 June (8:15am-5:30pm) at the Victoria Conference Centre located at 720 Douglas Street, Victoria, British Columbia. Lunch and coffee are included.

Read more about the repliCATS project here. Register your interest in the pre-SIPS workshop here.

Please note: The grants are reimbursements, not upfront payments (sorry, not our fault!). “Outside the immediate area” means more than ~2 hour commute away, but preference may be given to those travelling further. There will also be up to 50 unfunded spots at the workshop—you don’t have to accept money to attend.