Open Workflows (Emergent session): Open, Inclusive, and Collaborative Neuroimaging

[jsheunis]

Open, Inclusive, and Collaborative Neuroimaging

By Angie Laird, Florida International University

• Theme: Open Workflows
• Format: Emergent session

Abstract

Under the umbrella term of “open science”, the OHBM Open Science SIG provides strong support for open research practices such as open data, open code, and open publishing. But the foundation for this community is the community itself. True innovation is the product of diverse perspectives and backgrounds; thus, an emphasis on inclusivity ultimately benefits the collective. The OHBM Open Science SIG openly welcomes all individuals, but establishing and maintaining an equitable and representative community requires ongoing work. The aim of this emergent session will be to engage in a deeper dialogue regarding the community that we’re collectively striving to build while acknowledging the systemic challenges experienced by members of excluded identity groups. Insight can often be provided by querying adjacent fields and learning about strategies that have been successful at addressing those issues. During this session, we will discuss collaborations in research. How can we facilitate collaborations in neuroimaging? What do “good” collaborations look like? How do individuals benefit from being part of such collaborations? We will examine the successes and failures of the Neuroimaging Analysis Replication and Prediction Study (NARPS), the Psychological Science Accelerator, the Open Knowledge Foundation, and the Open Life Science mentoring program. Together, we will consider the open and inclusive nature of collaborative research teams, improving access to research resources,and how our goals for inclusive science may extend upstream to who we recruit for participation in our research studies.

Useful Links

Tagging @@angielaird

[angielaird]

Discussants

• Rotem Botvinik-Nezer, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA @rotemb9
• Malvika Sharan, The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK @malvikasharan
• Reubs Walsh, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands @reubsjw
• David Selassie Opoku, Growing Gold Farms, Accra, Ghana @sdopoku
• Chuan-Peng Hu, Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany @hcp4715

Useful Links

• Mattermost Channel for discussions prior to, during and after the session
• Neuroimaging Analysis Replication and Prediction Study (NARPS)
• Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA
• Open Knowledge Foundation
• Open Life Science Mentoring Program

Specific talking points / questions (continuously updated):

When we close our eyes and imagine an ideal collaborator, who comes to mind? What do they look like? Where are they located?

@rotemb9

• How can we facilitate collaborations in neuroimaging?
• What are the benefits of such collaborations, to the community/field and to each individual?

@malvikasharan

• Why do you advocate for a collaborative culture in your work?
• What are the unique challenges facing individuals from under-represented groups in science?
• How can we mitigate these challenges?
• Does mentoring play a role?

@reubsjw

• How do the structures of academia in general, and neuroscience in particular, penalise and impede those whose identities, lives, and work counter dominant narratives such as white supremacy, cisheteropatriarchy, neuronormativity/biotypicality etc? Citation metrics, authorships, payment for work etc? How might this be addressed (tenure seems to address these issues only after the most excluded identities have already been forced out)?
• What (if any) methodological considerations can help to redress historical and ongoing injustices within neuroscience; for example, neither "covarying out" nor binary-coding gender in analysis of participants' data produce ethical outcomes within the systems of science for people with minority and/or excluded gender identities and modalities.
• In what ways do we de/value contributions from scholars with lived experience of the phenomenon under study?

@sdopoku

• Open science practices may benefit researchers with limited resources, say for example using publicly shared data. How accessible are current open science resources to researchers in low-income context?
• Why should people or researchers from resource-constrained context invest their limited resources into open, inclusive, and collaborative science?
• What does collaboration mean and look like in different contexts? Are we "forcing" people or researchers from diverse contexts to collaborate under a specific (most likely Western or high-income) collaborative lens?
• What are the arguments or incentives for open, inclusive, and collaborative science for researchers outside dominant scientific fields?

@hcp4715

• How can we strive towards cultural and geographic diversity among our study participants?
• What are the benefits of considering inclusivity in our practices for recruitment and retention?
• Do our conclusions generalize among those who are usually not part of our experimental samples?

[hcp4715]

@angielaird
Thanks for listing the points we gonna discuss. I think I will mainly focus on two points:

• diversity of the sample we are studying;
• diversity of the research questions we are asking.

The 2nd point may overlap a bit with @sdopoku.

[angielaird]

Thanks for joining us to discuss open and inclusive collaborations in neuroimaging!

Here are the links to the studies I mentioned:

• a recent PNAS paper shows that underrepresented researchers do produce higher rates of scientific novelty; however, they also found that these contributions are consistently devalued and discounted.
• This aligns with recent work from Dani Bassett’s lab about gender-based citation bias.

When considering ways in which we devalue contributions from scholars with lived experience of the phenomenon under study, have a look at a US-centric study from last year that demonstrated that the US funding disparity for Black and African American researchers is driven (at least in part) by research interests in health disparities, community-based research, and patient-focused interventions.