The report, produced by the BPS, UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) and Practice as Research Advisory Group UK (PRAG-UK) explores how different terms are understood and used among psychology researchers and arts practice researchers.

Its publication comes following a workshop where psychology and arts practice researchers discussed how the terms ‘transparency’, ‘positionality’ and ‘reproducibility’ are – or are not – used by researchers in different fields.

It is hoped the report will inform future work including on how ‘rigour’ is understood among varied research fields.

Andy Tolmie, BPS Research Board Chair and UCL Chair of Psychology and Human Development, said:

“It is great to have the opportunity to discuss with and learn from researchers in the arts. In particular, being able to hear other perspectives on these issues is invaluable for stretching our thinking, and we hope that the reflections in the report will be useful for researchers in both fields in future.”

“It was important to us all that the project sought to understand diversity – not to establish consensus – enabling participating researchers to learn from each other and identify topics of potential interest to the wider research community.”

Neil Jacobs, Head of UKRN’s Open Research Programme, said:

“For UKRN, research should be sufficiently transparent that someone with the relevant expertise can clearly follow — as relevant for different types of research — how it was done, why it was done in that way, the evidence that it established, the reasoning and/or judgements that were used, and how all of that led justifiably to the research findings and conclusions.”

“We’re delighted that the reflections outlined here show some of the factors that affect this in different fields. We hope to support further such opportunities in the future.”

Nick Fells, PRAG-UK Deputy Chair, said:

“PRAG-UK has been very pleased to take part in the discussions outlined in this report. Practice researchers in the arts often take a double role, active not only in research but in cultural production and the creative industries. These discussions have enabled a teasing-out of the finely-balanced judgements often made between prioritising outcomes versus processes of research, and how the understanding of rigour is intimately woven into these judgements. We look forward to continued engagement across disciplines on these issues that are so critical to the future health of creative research.” UKRN will be hosting a webinar on this topic on 18 April 2024

Read the summary report, the joint report in full and the organisers reflections 
Image by freepik