“I’ve done some research….” You’re planning a city trip. Where to stay? Which places to visit? Opening times? How to reach the places you want to go? The answers to these questions are not the result of real research. You just looked things up. “Research shows that…” You’re wondering what the latest insights are about a topic that you’re interested in. What does the current research tell you?

It’s not clear what happened — yet. But the best explanation, sociologists say, involves forms of matter and energy not currently known to social science. By René Bekkers April 13, 2021 Updated 6:20 p.m. CET Evidence is mounting that a tiny social particle seems to be disobeying the known laws of society, scientists announced on Wednesday, a finding that would open a vast and tantalizing hole in our understanding of the community.

A key element of open science is to provide access to the code and data that produces the results you present. Guidelines for the organization of your data and code are based on two general principles: simplicity and explanation. Make verification of your results as simple as possible, and provide clear documentation so that people who are not familiar with your data or research can execute the analyses and understand the results.

1. What is Open Science? Open science is science as it should be: as open as possible. The current practice of open science is that scientists provide open access to publications, the data they analyzed, the code that produces the results, and the materials. Open science is no magic, no secrets, no hidden cards, no tricks; what you see is what you get.

In the public debate, the rise in inequality is linked to criticism of private philanthropy, not only as being a strategy to reduce feelings of guilt, but also as a way to evade taxes, buy goodwill, and favor causes that are benefiting the rich rather than society as a whole. Rutger Bregman famously called for increased taxation of the rich, instead of praise for their philanthropy. The two are not mutually exclusive, as the graph below shows.

To what extent is blood donation motivated by altruism? Donating blood is ‘giving life’ and it is often seen as an act of sacrifice. In a new paper forthcoming in the journal Health & Place, co-authored with Tjeerd Piersma, Eva-Maria Merz and Wim de Kort, we checked whether blood donors continue to give blood when the sacrifice becomes more costly.

Heeft jouw organisatie de afgelopen maanden de nieuwste technologie ingezet om tijdens de Coronacrisis door te kunnen gaan? Of zou jouw organisatie beter met technologie moeten leren omgaan? Hoe veel vertrouwen heb je dat jouw organisatie sterker uit de pandemie zal komen? Welke zorgen heb je voor de komende maanden?

pdf Transparency is a key condition for robust and reliable knowledge, and the advancement of scholarship over time. Since January 1, 2020, I am the Area Editor for Experiments submitted to Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly (NVSQ), the leading journal for academic research in the interdisciplinary field of nonprofit research.

Including a Checklist for Hypothesis Testing Research Reports * See https://osf.io/6cw7b/ for a pdf of this post Academia critically relies on our efforts as peer reviewers to evaluate the quality of research that is published in journals. Reading the reviews of others, I have noticed that the quality varies considerably, and that some reviews are not helpful.

Can everyone hear me? Does my hair look OK? What does the audience think about what I just said? Did I answer the most important questions? Some of these worries are the same now in the Webinar Age as for an old style Pre-COVID-19 in-person conference presentation, but many are new. In a webinar setting it is very difficult to get cues from the audience. Solution: organize an honest feedback channel, separate from your audience.

We all spend way too much time preparing applications for research grants. This is a collective waste of time. For the 2019 vici grant scheme of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) in which I recently participated, 87% of all applicants received no grant. Based on my own experiences, I made a conservative calculation (here is the excel file so you can check it yourself) of the total costs for all people involved.