SIPS 2026 Online

oUC3: When to leave open versus disclose flexibilities in the research process
2026-05-06 , Track 1

Disclosing flexibilities in the research process (wording of a hypothesis, data collection, processing and analysis) holds researchers accountable for their predictions and fosters rigour in hypothesis testing. Conversely, if flexibilities are left open, other researchers can specify them differently based on different substantive assumptions. To enable rigorous hypothesis testing by others, preregistration of secondary data analysis has been suggested. However, this does not guarantee the desired rigour.

This unconference shall discuss and initiate the implementation of a new approach. The approach allows and obliges researchers to specify the flexibilities before data collection. This may give rise to extensions in study design (e.g. the addition of a questionnaire) and produce different test results, which depend on these specifications and their justifications. Exploratory research naturally arises from what is left over from these discussions, concerning gaps and research beyond the strict limits of confirmatory research.


Landing page: Landing page Please classify your session as the theme it fits best in:: Incentives/Culture - Content related to the incentive structure of science, culture, and norms of science How will the session's content foster diversity & inclusion (e.g., who will present, who will it serve), and how will it improve psychological science?:

Diversity of research: The purpose is to create a tool that integrates (1) the different roles of the original researcher and other researchers who use the same data, and (2) confirmatory and exploratory research.

Improve science: The question of whether to disclose flexibilities in the research process is currently addressed only by templates, which reflect experience-based consensus. As a result, they lack conceptual clarity and rigor. Including exploration in the model gives proper value to this branch of research, counteracting the common practice of using exploratory features in an opaque way for seemingly confirmatory research.

Please note any pre-requisite knowledge/expertise you will expect from attendees (i.e., is the session most appropriate for someone who already has experience with a topic?).:

Just being aware of the replication crisis

See also: Slides for discussion, comments welcome

I am seeking means to make psychological research more falsifiable and transparent in its assumptions, especially for causal questions.