One of the pathways by which the scientific community confirms the validity of a new scientific discovery is by repeating the research that produced it. When a scientific effort fails to independently confirm the computations or results of a previous study, some fear that it may be a symptom of a lack of rigor in science, while others argue that such an observed inconsistency can be an important precursor to new discovery. Concerns about reproducibility and replicability have been expressed in both scientific and popular media. As these concerns came to light, Congress requested that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conduct a study to assess the extent of issues related to reproducibility and replicability and to offer recommendations for improving rigor and transparency in scientific research. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science defines reproducibility and replicability and examines the factors that may lead to non-reproducibility and non-replicability in research. Unlike the typical expectation of reproducibility between two computations, expectations about replicability are more nuanced, and in some cases a lack of replicability can aid the process of scientific discovery. This report provides recommendations to researchers, academic institutions, journals, and funders on steps they can take to improve reproducibility and replicability in science.

Performative methods are playing an increasingly prominent role in research into historical production processes, materials, and bodily knowledge and sensory skills, and in forms of education and public engagement in classrooms and museums. This book offers, for the first time, sustained, interdisciplinary reflections on performative methods, variously known as Reconstruction, Re-enactment, Replication, Reproduction and Reworking (RRR) practices across the fields of history of science, archaeology, art history, conservation, musicology and anthropology. Each of these fields has distinct histories, approaches, tools and research questions. Researchers in the historical disciplines have used reconstructions to learn about the materials and practices of the past, while anthropologists and ethnographers have more often studied the re-enactments themselves, participating in these performances as engaged observers. In this book, an interdisciplinary group of authors bring their experiences of RRR practices within their discipline into conversation with RRR practices in other disciplines, providing a basis for interdisciplinary cross-fertilization.

Providing an overview of key issues in theory and practice, Replication Research in Education is designed to identify and discuss the benefits and challenges facing replication studies in education. Both clear and practical, this groundbreaking volume covers how to introduce, develop, conduct, report, and discuss these studies, and the issues they raise for policy and practice. Bridging theory and practice, this book considers what replication research should look like, how it should be conducted, and how to judge when it has been successful. It enables researchers to plan and conduct studies successfully, from their earliest stages through to completion. This key text: brings together in a single volume, existing issues, claims and counterclaims, discourses, and practices of replication; introduces, covers, and extends this field of research, indicating its possibilities and limits; expands and adds to existing discussions and practices; will enable researchers to design, conduct, evaluate, and critique studies. The comprehensive and exhaustive coverage of issues and practices within Replication Research in Education make it a 'must read' for all novice and experienced educational researchers who are considering, conducting, and reviewing replication studies in education.

A wide-ranging discussion of factors that impede the cumulation of knowledge in the social sciences, including problems of transparency, replication, and reliability. Rather than focusing on individual studies or methods, this book examines how collective institutions and practices have (often unintended) impacts on the production of knowledge.

This collection examines what happens when one country’s experience of dealing with its traumatic past is held up as a model for others to follow. In regional and country studies covering Argentina, Canada, Japan, Lebanon, Rwanda, Russia, Turkey, the United States and former Yugoslavia, the authors look at the pitfalls, misunderstandings and perverse effects–but also the promise–of trying to replicate atonement. Going beyond the idea of a global or transnational memory, this book examines the significance of foreign models in atonement practices, and analyses the role of national governments, international organisations, museums, foundations, NGOs and public intellectuals in shaping the idea that good practices of atonement can be learned. The volume also demonstrates how one can productively learn from others by appreciating the complex and contested nature of atonement practices such as Germany’s, and also by finding the necessary resources in the history of one’s own country.

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.