Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Resistance to change, thinking about behavior change more generally #13

Open
Matherion opened this issue Jul 27, 2018 · 3 comments
Open
Assignees

Comments

@Matherion
Copy link
Contributor

I notice that there are many assumptions and radical simplifications where it concerns behavior change.

Human behavior and the psychology from which that behavior originated are complex; there are no simple tricks or solutions (although Ted talks might easily give that impression). Basically, it's tempting to think that as a human, as a scientist, you can constructively think about why researchers do or do not adopt Open Scholarship practices/policies; but you can't (see also https://sciencer.eu/2017/08/when-wishful-thinking-kills-the-tragic-consequences-of-misplaced-faith-in-introspection/).

I think that it would be good to implement this, but since it would basically mean a rewrite of the last bit (e.g. the 'resistance to change' section, but also those preceding it), I thought it would be better to open an issue.

One general model that can be useful in exploring the relevant factors is shown here. Note that this is not a theory as much as a way to structure things you have to think about; but still useful.

Many so-called 'determinants' (psychological variables that may or may not be relevant in a given context) have been identified, as well as many methods for targeting those (see e.g. this list), and there is a protocol for developing interventions for behavior change (Intervention Mapping). Using all this theory (and then not proceeding to first producing evidence) seems a bit of a waste, maybe?

@Protohedgehog
Copy link
Contributor

This is awesome, thanks @Matherion. Do you think, given the potential complexity of these revisions, and the looming deadline (ie today), that these could be integrated with the second version, when the time comes? Seems like this is important to include!

@Protohedgehog
Copy link
Contributor

@Matherion Heads up! Working on version 2 of this now. Do you think it would be possible to integrate some of what you mentioned here.

@Protohedgehog
Copy link
Contributor

Pinging @Matherion again about this. Any thoughts? Do you think you might have a bit of time to contribute on this still? :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants