-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
Description
I notice that there are many assumptions and radical simplifications where it concerns behavior change.
Human behavior and the psychology from which that behavior originated are complex; there are no simple tricks or solutions (although Ted talks might easily give that impression). Basically, it's tempting to think that as a human, as a scientist, you can constructively think about why researchers do or do not adopt Open Scholarship practices/policies; but you can't (see also https://sciencer.eu/2017/08/when-wishful-thinking-kills-the-tragic-consequences-of-misplaced-faith-in-introspection/).
I think that it would be good to implement this, but since it would basically mean a rewrite of the last bit (e.g. the 'resistance to change' section, but also those preceding it), I thought it would be better to open an issue.
One general model that can be useful in exploring the relevant factors is shown here. Note that this is not a theory as much as a way to structure things you have to think about; but still useful.
Many so-called 'determinants' (psychological variables that may or may not be relevant in a given context) have been identified, as well as many methods for targeting those (see e.g. this list), and there is a protocol for developing interventions for behavior change (Intervention Mapping). Using all this theory (and then not proceeding to first producing evidence) seems a bit of a waste, maybe?