Kinds of Replication: Examining the Meanings of "Conceptual Replication" and "Direct Replication".

Although psychology's recent crisis has been attributed to various scientific practices, it has come to be called a "replication crisis," prompting extensive appraisals of this putatively crucial scientific practice. These have yielded disagreements over what kind of replication is to be preferred and what phenomena are being explored, yet the proposals are all grounded in a conventional philosophy of science. This article proposes another avenue that invites moving beyond a discovery metaphor of science to rethink research as enabling realities and to consider how empirical findings enact or perform a reality. An enactment perspective appreciates multiple, dynamic realities and science as producing different entities, enactments that ever encounter differences, uncertainties, and precariousness. The axioms of an enactment perspective are described and employed to more fully understand the two kinds of replication that predominate in the crisis disputes. Although the enactment perspective described here is a relatively recent development in philosophy of science and science studies, some of its core axioms are not new to psychology, and the article concludes by revisiting psychologists' previous calls to apprehend the dynamism of psychological reality to appreciate how scientific practices actively and unavoidably participate in performativity of reality.

Open Psychology: transparency and reproducibility / Psicología abierta: transparencia y reproducibilidad / Psicologia Aberta: transparência e reprodutibilidade

Abstract: I describe the attempt by a group of psychologists to reform the discipline into an Open Science (which I will call 'Open Psychology'). I will first argue that their particular version of Open Science reflects the problems that gave rise to it and that it tries to solve. Then I will describe the infrastructure that this group of people is putting in place to facilitate transparency. An important function of this infrastructure is to restrict what are called 'researcher degrees of freedom'. In Psychology, transparency is as much about closing down as it is about opening up. I will then focus on the flagship project of Open Psychology, the Reproducibility Project. According to the Open Psychologists, the neglect of replication is at the core of Psychology's current problems, and their online infrastructure offers the perfect framework to facilitate replication and give it a place in the field's research process. But replication, I will argue, is not just an epistemological, methodological issue: it implies a particular ontology and tries to enact it. The Reproducibility Project, and Open Psychology generally, can be considered as social experiments, that attempt not only to reform Psychology, but also to perform a new psychological object.

Resumen: En este artículo describo el intento de un grupo de psicólogos de reformar la disciplina en una Ciencia Abierta (la cual llamo 'Psicología Abierta'). Primero, argumentaré que su versión particular de Ciencia Abierta refleja los problemas que le dieron origen y los cuales ella intenta resolver. A continuación, describiré la infraestructura que este grupo de personas está implementando para facilitar esta transparencia. Una función importante de esta infraestructura es restringir los llamados 'grados de libertad del investigador'. En Psicología, la transparencia buscada se refiere tanto a delimitar cuanto sobre expandir las investigaciones. Posteriormente, me centraré en el proyecto emblemático de la Psicología Abierta, el Proyecto de Reproducibilidad. De acuerdo con los Psicólogos Abiertos, el descuido acerca de la replicación está en el corazón de los problemas actuales de la Psicología, y su infraestructura en línea ofrece el soporte perfecto para facilitar la replicación y darle un lugar en el proceso de investigación de campo. Pero la replicación, argumentaré, no es sólo una cuestión epistemológica, metodológica: implica una ontología particular e intenta ponerla en acción. El Proyecto de Reproducibilidad, y la Psicología Abierta de forma general, pueden ser considerados experimentos sociales, cuyo esfuerzo reside no sólo en reformar la Psicología, sino también en realizar/performar un nuevo objeto.

Resumo: Descrevo a tentativa de um grupo de psicólogos de reformar a disciplina em uma Ciência Aberta (a qual eu nomeio 'Psicologia Aberta'). Primeiro, argumentarei que sua versão particular de Ciência Aberta reflete os problemas que lhe deram origem e os quais ela tenta resolver. Em seguida, irei descrever a infraestrutura que esse grupo de pessoas está implementando para facilitar a transparência. Uma função importante dessa infraestrutura é restringir os chamados 'graus de liberdade do pesquisador'. Em Psicologia, transparência é tanto sobre delimitar quanto sobre expandir. Posteriormente, focarei no projeto emblemático da Psicologia Aberta, o Projeto de Reprodutibilidade. De acordo com os Psicólogos Abertos, a negligência acerca da replicação está no cerne dos problemas atuais da Psicologia, e sua infraestrutura online oferece o suporte perfeito para facilitar a replicação e dar a ela um lugar no processo de pesquisa de campo. Mas a replicação, argumentarei, não é apenas uma questão epistemológica, metodológica: implica uma ontologia particular e tenta operá-la. O Projeto de Reprodutibilidade, e a Psicologia Aberta de forma geral, podem ser considerados experimentos sociais, cujo esforço reside não apenas em reformar a Psicologia, mas também em performar um novo objeto psicológico.

Dolutegravir as maintenance monotherapy for HIV (DOMONO): a phase 2, randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The high genetic barrier to resistance of dolutegravir might allow for its use as maintenance monotherapy in patients with HIV. We investigated whether dolutegravir monotherapy was non-inferior to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for maintaining virological suppression in patients with HIV-1 infection successfully treated with combination ART. METHODS: We did this open-label, phase 2, randomised non-inferiority trial at two medical centres in the Netherlands. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) were on combination ART, had been virologically suppressed (HIV RNA <50 copies per mL) for at least 6 months, and had CD4 nadirs of 200 cells per µL or higher, HIV RNA zeniths of 100 000 copies per mL or less, and no history of virological failure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based block randomisation method (variable block sizes of 4 and 6), to switch to dolutegravir monotherapy (50 mg once a day) either immediately or after a delay of 24 weeks of continued combination ART. Randomisation was stratified by HIV RNA zenith (<50 000 copies per mL vs 50 000-99 999 copies per mL). Investigators and patients were not masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV RNA viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL at week 24, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. We did analyses in the on-treatment and intention-to-treat populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02401828. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2015, and Feb 4, 2016, we randomly assigned 51 patients to the immediate switch group and 53 patients to the delayed switch group. One patient who received immediate monotherapy discontinued treatment at week 12 because of disturbed sleep. At week 24, dolutegravir monotherapy was non-inferior to combination ART, with plasma HIV RNA loads of 200 copies per mL or higher observed in 2% (1/50) of patients in the immediate switch group and in no patients in the delayed switch group (difference 2%, 95% CI -5 to 12). Of patients assigned to the delayed switch group, 47 (89%) switched to dolutegravir monotherapy at week 24, two (4%) of whom subsequently discontinued monotherapy because of headache (n=1) and disturbed sleep (n=1). Eight (8%) of the 95 patients who remained on dolutegravir monotherapy had virological failure; all had therapeutic plasma concentrations of dolutegravir. In three (38%) of the eight patients, mutations associated with resistance were detected in the integrase gene. According to a predefined stopping rule, detection of these mutations led to premature study discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Dolutegravir monotherapy was non-inferior to combination ART at 24 weeks. However, virological failure continued to occur thereafter and led to dolutegravir resistance. Dolutegravir should not be used as maintenance monotherapy. FUNDING: Erasmus Trustfonds.

Turning men into machines? Scientific management, industrial psychology, and the "human factor".

In the controversy that broke out in 1911 over Frederick W. Taylor's scientific management, many critics contended that it ignored "the human factor" and reduced workers to machines. Psychologists succeeded in positioning themselves as experts of the human factor, and their instruments and expertise as the necessary complement of Taylor's psychologically deficient system. However, the conventional view that the increasing influence of psychologists and other social scientists "humanized" management theory and practice needs to be amended. Taylor's scientific management was not less human than later approaches such as Human Relations, but it articulated the human factor differently, and aligned it to its own instruments and practices in such a way that it was at once external to them and essential to their functioning. Industrial psychologists, on the other hand, at first presented themselves as engineers of the human factor and made the human mind an integral part of management.