Introduction

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Study 1

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Methods

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Results

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Discussion

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Study 2

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Methods

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Results

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

Discussion

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

General discussion

• Structure
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise structure
• Write paragraphs
  • Send to MvA + JMW
• Revise paragraphs

• Chris gives Jan new backup stick
• Jan tests whether he has access to this stick on his laptop

One participant made a remark about the t-test used in the template spreadsheet we used.

"I just did a paired-samples t-test in SPSS, the result in SPSS is t(24) = 5.22, p < .001. Using decimals or not does not really make a difference, so that cannot be the issue, the following website also gives me the same results: http://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/ttestdependent
Perhaps you just have a way more sophisticated method? Or use data transformations?"

The spreadsheet returned t(24)=-4.79, p<.001 whereas the calculator supplied the result

I need to check the origins of this.

I just looked through the survey and found that there is now only one hypothesis. I remember that we had two beforehand. Just double-checking whether this alright?

Comments on the application of ethical principles (cf. Anderson, Martinson, & de Vries, 2007) in this project

Communality: Scientists openly share findings with colleagues

I think we are doing good for this by using GitHub so that everyone has access to all materials.

Universalism: Scientists evaluate research only on its merit, i.e., according to accepted standards of the field.

Does not apply (?)

Disinterestedness: Scientists are motivated by the desire for knowledge and discovery, and not by the possibility of personal gain.

I think this is a very difficult point to reach. I am very excited about the potential results of study, but I am also looking forward to the possibility that this ends up in a publication.

Organized Skepticism: Scientists consider all new evidence, hypotheses, theories, and innovations, even those that challenge or contradict their own work.

As far as I know as this is a pretty new topic, I think we are doing fine on this one.

Governance: Scientists are responsible for the direction and control of science through governance, self-regulation and peer review.

I think we are doing good on this one. First, everything is transparent so that it is possible to be retracted and controlled by others. Second, I think it is good that each step goes through multiple people so that every one is controlled and exerts control.

Quality: Scientists judge each others’ contributions to science primarily on the basis of quality.

Does not apply (?). Also I think it is quite difficult to be free of biases.

My conclusion

According to these principles, I think we are doing allright. The biggest aim to reach, I think, is full transpareny and I enjoy the effort we put into this. Otherwise, some of the things are a bit difficult to judge. For instance, I think it is hard to judge as this time if we are incorporating all evidence and whether we put results first, and personal interests second. This might rather become problematic if results are not as we imagine (Btw, I do not have a clear idea about how the results will look like).

What to improve

Not sure about this, but one things that came to my mind was the following: As I think Project 1 is rather confirmatory, we could already set up the analysis file for the spreadsheet data in advance.

Comment on potential problems in the transcribing process

Separating the transcribing

The problem that we may run into if both Chris and Jan do the transcribing is that Chris will be able to identify the participants based on their voice.
What would be possible disadvantages of this? First, the anonymity of the participants is threatened although this is not unavoidable. Second, if participants report practices that suggest that they may have engaged in fraud in the past, Chris might be in a conflict of interest.
What would be advantages of this? We would speed up the transcribing process.
Suggestion: Jan does the transcribing on his own.

Potential problems during the transcribing

How can Jan solve problems if he runs into problems during the transcribing (for instance, if he cannot understand what is said)?
He has to figure this out on his own (hear recordings multiple times on different days). At the end, Jan can make a list of all problems he had and sends this to Chris.
If the problem involves that another person has to hear the segment and Chris decides that it is highly important to solve this issue, Jan shows Chris the respective segment. If it is judges as not being highly important, Jan makes a comment in the transcript file that he was not able to identify the word (or the other problem he had).

Identifyable information mentioned in interviews

How are information transcribed that could lead to an identification of the speaker?
If Jan thinks that this is an clearly identifying information, he replaces as much information as needed with "[deleted due to anynomity reasons]".
If Jan is unsure about whether an information is an identifying information, he marks this and asks Chris about it (using the transcript, not the original recording).
Chris doublecheckes every transcript and replaces every potential identifying information with "[deleted due to anynomity reasons]".
If Chris thinks that the replacement of an information by Jan was unnecessary, he discusses the case with Jan. If Chris afterwards still thinks that the replacement was unnecessary, he informs Jan about this and Jan replaces the "[deleted due to anynomity reasons]" with the respective information.

• Go through Marcel's final comments
• Update surfdrive files
• Update qualtrics download files (same files as above)

Reply here if I forgot something.

• Update receipts
• Update receipts parts in the interview protocol

Just wondering/doublechecking whether we have the appropriate information (names and email addresses) for sending out the reminders? We checked that today in case I cannot find a date for the meeting, but for the reminders I have already accepted the date.

We have the email addresses from the sampling frame, but not sure whether we can (want to be able to) match them with the appointments.

Chris

• Bring dictaphone to next meeting
• Bring USB to next meeting
• Check with finance what information they need for receipts
• Ask for the advance
• Check the software for transcription
• Review the sampling frame
• Send Jan papers

Jan

• Come up with questions for interviews: Add to Chris' suggestions
• Add instructions on my doodle page (in the overview, not on the doodle page itself)
• Work on step-by-step protocol for after interview (how it is shared (Surfdrive), how we ensure anonymity)
• Write down steps for interview
• Set a quota on qualtrics (no more than 20): Add variable whether they were able to find timeslots so that it can be linked
• Play around with R Markdown (dynamic figure, table, result in running text, citation)
• Read through papers that Chris sends me

List of materials

• Invitation email
• Consent form
• Instructions
• Spreadsheet

@Janto91 could you take a look at my responses to the reviewer comments sometime this week? Would appreciate your input :-) Afterwards, I'll send it to Marcel and Jelte.

https://github.com/chartgerink/2015ori/blob/master/archive/response_ori_rev.md

Hey Chris,

I did what you suggested and checked the quota when actually activating the survey. Unfortunately, while the partial responses are recoded, the quota does not increase accordingly. I tried to find out how to fix it but was not able to so far. If you have time or a hunch, maybe you can take a look into it or I will try to fix it on Friday after exams and presentations.

• Instructions on MeetMe Page have a character limit (No more than 505 characters)

September 19-23

• CHJH: Draft response to reviewer comments ORI grant proposal (proposal, comments). Send to Marcel, Jan, Jelte for feedback (needs to be submitted Sept 30).
• CHJH: overview and structure of materials for study 02 (initial run made in this file)

September 26-30

Chris is away in Utrecht from 26-29 for a course. Available online for feedback and Qs.

• CHJH & JV: revise material overview and potentially contents. Send to MvA and JMW after 1 or 2 revision cycles.
• CHJH: further develop the timeline for projects.
• JV: Setup meetme page for study appointments

• 21st april - 3 transcripts
• 28th april - 3 transcripts
• 5th may - 3 transcripts
• 12th may - 3 transcripts
• 19th may - 2 transcripts
• 26th may - 2 transcripts
• 2nd june - 2 transcripts
• 9th june - 2 transcripts
• 16th june - 2 transcripts
• 23rd june - 2 transcripts
• 30th june - 2 transcripts

@Janto91 please indicate when you've done which one. That way I don't have to e-mail you to ask how things are going each week 😉

Currently computed as t-test due to slacky copy-pasting within materials.

• Check that this is updated.

• Update links in new invitation email

Need to be deleted

• Qualtrics data (location and email-address)
• Email conversations with participants
• Interview schedule excel file (including location, email-address)

Please take a look at the spreadsheet. The formula for the t-value is incorrect. And there are many undefined hidden rows. I tried to make sense out of it, but I can't really understand how to correct this