SIPS planning - HackMD

--- title: SIPS planning tags: --- # Planning for SIPS unconference session ## Basic info **Session title**: <h3>Getting psychology to the people: creating topical 'Wikis' that target crisis-relevant issues</h3> **23 June, 3-4.30pm UK time** Held via Zoom (will post link nearer the time; I've submitted to the organisers already) **Leader**: Dawn **Support**: Ulrike **Moderator**: Jessie ## Some links **_SIPS links_** * [Official conference landing page](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pE5dg1a6Elxo_r6FnBJZHJkawHYtA2O9fkuhCdjcAjU/edit#)---includes session description * [Official OSF](https://osf.io/vw84u/)---includes links mentioned below, and also the Handbook is uploaded there **_SciBeh's own links_** * [Welcome to session participants](https://hackmd.io/@scibeh-sips/welcome)---includes links to Knowledge Base & Wiki * [Note-taking space](https://hackmd.io/@scibeh-sips/notes) * [Whiteboards](https://jamboard.google.com/d/18pX8FEkWoE8yuV23to4nXws8JBq7Fd3bNYBRMdG77PU/edit?usp=sharing) ## Session plan _At all times, a moderator is required to be keeping track of the waiting room. They will be sent a list of participants. For each name in the waiting room, they should search this list (ctrl+F or cmd+F) and if the name is on the list, let them in._ ### Housekeeping **Lead**: Dawn **Timing**: 5mins **Materials**: [Slides](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Vv1pqOtOS-de9hjyEIDsMEWrWmRpcGoDgRGY7P3gvSA/edit#slide=id.gdbf4739954_0_12) * Introduce session: * This is the session on "Getting psychology to the people"---we will be discussing how psychology responded in the COVID-19 crisis and sharing our experience with a grassroots project to improve crisis knowledge management * Dawn & Ulrike to introduce themselves briefly ==10s!!== * Reminder of [rules](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PeGUhnXUAGU3R_RZ731nz6ziwidWMMot9jSc7kj8Cs8/edit): * Don’t share landing page links on social media during the session (this is to avoid Zoom bombing, because the Zoom link is there) * No photos or screenshots without permission of all in attendance. **Recording via zoom should be announced at the start of a session.**---check if anyone is _not_ okay with recordings; my intention is not to share recordings that has anyone's faces. * Attendees may leave at any time; joining does not mean you need to stay for the whole session * Please follow the [code of conduct](http://improvingpsych.org/sipsinaction/code/) (which is basically be respectful to one another) * No one is required to switch on cameras. That said, if you are comfortable with it, we would love to see who we are talking to. * Set out agenda for session ### Introductions ([highly recommended by SIPS](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PeGUhnXUAGU3R_RZ731nz6ziwidWMMot9jSc7kj8Cs8/edit)) **Lead**: Dawn **Timing**: 5 mins **Materials**: None needed To do this in 2 rounds, we will return to this again to get them to give initial thoughts on the topic * Each participant to share in chat: * Who they are * Career stage * Poll: * Have you ever been in a situation where you felt uncomfortable giving your honest scientific opinion or critique? * Do you think scientific debate is currently structured in such a way as to promote constructive criticism? ### Setting the scene for the discussion Intro to SciBeh and the work we do (and WHY SciBeh) **Lead**: Ulrike (for connecting researchers) and Dawn (for connecting to public) **Timing**: 15mins **Materials**: [slides](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Vv1pqOtOS-de9hjyEIDsMEWrWmRpcGoDgRGY7P3gvSA/edit#slide=id.gdbf4739954_0_96) * Covid accelerated the systemic problems endemic in how psychological science progresses, and projected it into the policy space as well---problems like lack of transparency, groupthink * SciBeh started with trying to address the question of how do we do crisis-relevant science? * And how do we do psychology in a way that is maximally relevant to the people who need to use it, e.g., for evidence based decision making? * Opening the black box of "crisis-relevant science", there are several key components to it, the intellectual steps to reach crisis-relevant science: open science, epistemic diversity, policy-relevance, being public-facing * SciBeh is about implementing these elements * Focusing on knowledge aggregation, consensus, and dissemination * We try and make tools for this to happen, knowing there are a lot of endemic structural problems we cannot shift * How do we make it possible for researchers with different perspectives to be part of the research conversation? * We tried to leverage extant social media tools (talk about success and failure here) * We built a team of volunteers to work on different parts of the knowledge environment * How do we get diverse perspectives feeding into policy & practice? (and feeding BACK) and how do we increase access to scientific knowledge? * Practical example: Wiki * Receives contributions from diverse sources (but not scoring well on WEIRDness) * Bit of history about how it came about and how we brought people into it * And channel for public to feed back in as well * Challenges with keeping it going * Other examples of SciBeh's work: knowledge base, search tools, preprint rubric **Diversity topic to remember here (from our submission)**: "how researchers from different backgrounds can be included in the consolidation of psychological knowledge: we need diverse voices in psychological research as a field that purports to study human behaviour should not leave out certain groups." "how can critical recommendations from psychological science be communicated to a wider audience: it should not just be majority communities that benefit from psychological research." ### Discussion time **Lead**: Dawn & Ulrike (possibly in breakout rooms, jumping between them if needed) **Time**: 45-60mins **Materials**: [Note space](https://hackmd.io/@scibeh-sips/notes) | [whiteboard](https://jamboard.google.com/d/18pX8FEkWoE8yuV23to4nXws8JBq7Fd3bNYBRMdG77PU/edit?usp=sharing)   <sub>5 of each have been set up; I'm not anticipating more than 50 attendees = 10 per breakout room</sub> **Introduction, part 2: getting perspectives** Attendees to share about (on the [whiteboard](https://jamboard.google.com/d/18pX8FEkWoE8yuV23to4nXws8JBq7Fd3bNYBRMdG77PU/edit?usp=sharing)): * Have you ever been in a situation where you felt uncomfortable giving your honest scientific opinion or critique? * Do you think scientific debate is currently structured in such a way as to promote constructive criticism? (Relate this back to the introduction question we asked, and then link it into further discussion) **"Over to you": Deeper discussion** Poll people on discussion topics they want to contribute to, assign breakout rooms if needed 5 discussion topics: 1. How do we connect researchers and public needs? 2. How do we make researchers comfortable adding their voices to scientific spaces? 3. How do we balance being transparent with “legitimate anonymity” in scientific discourse? 4. What would “success” look like? 5. How do we convert these questions into meta-science research? Areas we had spoke about in planning: * Wiki in practice: challenges? * How do we build this in a way that works? * How to make ECRs comfortable? * How to make minorities comfortable? * How to balance time needed for contributions with quality of critique? * Incentives? * ==Also check [workshop summary report]() and discourse paper for topics and discussion points== There may be things we haven't thought of, we hope participants will have more these insights!  ==Possible discussion aims to keep in mind==: * Hackathon proposal for a concrete product * Develop concrete ideas for writing a framework, position piece/statement, * Manifesto for change ### What happens next? **Lead**: Dawn & Ulrike **Time**: last 5mins of session (or whenever it organically draws to a close) **At end of discussion, COLLECT names/emails of those who wish to take things further/join SciBeh.**