Join here:
aarhusuniversity.zoom.us/j/65548867322
No registration necessary.

Progress in psychology has been frustrated by challenges concerning replicability, generalizability, strategy selection, inferential reproducibility, and computational reproducibility. Although often discussed separately, these five challenges may share a common cause: insufficient investment of resources into the typical psychology study. We suggest that the emerging emphasis on big team science can help address these challenges by allowing researchers to pool their resources to increase the amount of resources available for a single study. However, the current incentives, infrastructure, and institutions in academic science have all developed under the assumption that science is conducted by solo Principal Investigators and their dependent trainees. This assumption creates barriers that must be removed if big team science is to be sustainable. We also anticipate that big team science carries unique risks, such as the potential for big team science institutions to monopolize power, become overly conservative, and make mistakes at a grand scale. Big team science institutions must also acquire personnel who are properly compensated and have clear roles, raising risks related to mismanagement and a lack of financial sustainability. If researchers can manage its unique barriers and risks, big team science has the potential to spur progress in psychology and beyond.