8th Annual Weight Stigma Conference

Home » Uncategorized » FYI. Call for papers X2

FYI. Call for papers X2

Call for papers #1

The American Psychological Association’s Presidential Task Force on Psychology and Health Equity has released a Call for Papers for a special issue of the American Psychologist, designed to encourage psychologists to think boldly about new models, policy and research to dismantle health inequities.

This issue, “Advancing Innovative Partnerships and Models of Care Delivery to Reach Health Equity,” will address topics that include sources of inequity, integration of care, and effectiveness of psychological treatments for different groups. It will aim to shed light on the roles of psychologists, intersecting systems, and social determinants of health in advancing health equity.

Authors are invited to submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) by August 31, 2021. LOIs and other inquiries should be emailed directly to Dr. Idia Thurston (idiathurston@tamu.edu) with the subject line “AP Special Issue on Health Equity”. Manuscripts are due December 15, 2021.

Manuscripts will undergo peer review prior to a final decision on publication. Papers that are not appropriate for inclusion in this special issue may be rerouted (with the authors’ knowledge and consent) for consideration for publication in American Psychologist as regular papers.

More information: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/amp/how-psychologists-help-achieve-equity-health-care

Deadlines:

  • Letter of intent: August 31, 2021
  • Manuscripts: December 15, 2021

Call for papers #2

British Journal of Social Psychology

Call for Papers:  Open Science, Qualitative Methods and Social Psychology: Possibilities and Tensions

Submission deadline for full papers: 30th September 2021

The British Journal of Social Psychology wishes to invite the submission of papers for a special issue on Open Science, Qualitative Methods and Social Psychology:  Possibilities and Tensions, edited by Peter Branney, Laura Kilby, Madeleine Pownall and Catherine Talbot.

The Open Science movement aims to improve the robustness, replicability, and transparency of psychological science. So far, the movement has responded enthusiastically to concerns over researcher bias and questionable research practices (QRPs), attending primarily to quantitative, deductive, experimental methodologies. While the emergence of Open Science in social psychology might be viewed – in part – as a self-reflexive discipline adapting to research fraud, we might also caution that in the rush to improve our discipline, it is helpful to also pay heed to our history.  A history which invites us to explore the possibility that, regardless of admirable intentions, Open Science risks mirroring the social psychology crisis in the 1970s and 1980s, promoting an increasingly technical and overly individualistic methodological bias towards hypothesis testing.

Despite some notable exceptions (Branney et al., 2019; Chauvette et al., 2019; Haven et al., 2020), the applicability of Open Science to qualitative methodologies in social psychology remains in its infancy, and yet systemic changes – pre-registration and data sharing, for example – are increasingly likely to influence all researchers (Riley et al., 2019). Moreover, these changes appear to disregard long-standing concerns about the inappropriate use of positivist criteria to judge qualitative research (Smith & McGannon, 2018) and potentially undermine recent progress, including that reflected by the American Psychological Association’s support for journal article reporting standards (JARS) for qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2018). Indeed, the British Journal of Health Psychology recognised that these JARS ‘levelled the playing field’ in helping to enhance the quality and transparency of qualitative methods in psychology (Shaw et al., 2019).

Furthermore, efforts to improve ‘reproducibility’, do not align with the co-constructed, subjective approach of much qualitative social psychology (QSP) research. Indeed, the two key principles in the British Psychological Society position statement on open data highlight some of the possibilities and tensions of Open Science for qualitative methods in social psychology; data should be ‘as open as possible; as closed as necessary’ while decisions should be ‘justified and justifiable’. It is crucial therefore, that Open Science is not only suitable for hypothesis-testing but for the diverse epistemological, theoretical and methodological approaches employed in social psychology broadly (Gibson & Smith, 2020).

Indicative contributions and key questions include (but are not limited to):

  • Exploring questions of transparency in the QSP research process
  • Reflections and critical discussions of QSP researcher experiences of Open Science
  • Critical exploration of similarities and differences between the sociology of science and metascience
  • Epistemological, theoretical and/or historical explorations of the current Open Science zeitgeist in social psychology
  • Consideration of what the Open Science movement can learn from QSP particularly as it relates to personal, professional and disciplinary reflexivity as well as ethical and legal issues, such as data protection

We welcome empirical studies, systematic reviews as well as critical, historical and philosophical explorations in social psychology. In the spirit of meaningful engagement with the developing practices of Open Science, we also welcome pre-registered submissions on the questions above, assuming that the pre-registration aligns with the methodological detail in the JARS for qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2018).

Please submit full papers by 30th September 2021 through the BJSP submission portal, Editorial Manager: https://www.editorialmanager.com/bjsp/default.aspx

%d bloggers like this: