Strategy for Culture Change

June 11th, 2019, Brian Nosek

Strategy for Culture Change

Behavior change is hard.  Whatever its faults, the status quo is familiar and the warts are known.  The status quo is also easy to maintain. Just do nothing, inertia takes care of everything.  We even have a tendency to defend the status quo. We’d rather believe that the way it is, is the way it should be.

Overcoming the allure of the status quo is helpful but not sufficient to change behavior.  Many behavior change strategies focus on providing reasons to have the motivation to change, and skills and knowledge to have the ability to change.  If I know what to do, want to do it, and believe that I can do it, then I’ll do it, right?


A focus on the individual’s skills, motivation, and sense of self-efficacy is sometimes sufficient to change behavior. But, the focus on the individual can miss a key barrier to change—the culture.

People are embedded in social and cultural systems.  Those systems shape behavior by [1] communicating norms—this is what people do, this is what people should do, [2] providing incentives—this is what people are rewarded for doing, and [3] imposing policies—this is what you have to do to be part of this system.

Interventions that provide individual motivation and ability to change may be rendered ineffective because of strong norms, incentives, and policies that counter the intended behavior.  Ironically, this can worsen conditions because the individuals have knowledge and motivation to do the new behaviors, but feel powerless against a culture that does not value or promote those behaviors.

When norms, incentives, and policies are misaligned with desired behavior, a much more encompassing strategy is needed to effect culture change.  Here is our strategy to change the research culture to accelerate discovery, solutions, and cures. The same concepts can be applied to other culture change efforts.

Our mission at the Center for Open Science (COS) is to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility of research. Our behavior change targets are to get researchers to show their work and to share.  In the present culture, standard practice is that research teams operate independently and share their findings in publications that summarize what the team learned.  Usually, publications only share successes, and it isn’t possible to see what other things were tried to evaluate the credibility of the findings that are reported. In our future culture, standard practice would make the process of discovery transparent with researchers registering their plans to make all studies discoverable, and so that initial plans can be compared with the final outcomes and conclusions.  Also, in our future culture, by default, researchers would share the materials, protocols, and data that they produced in the research so that others could confirm, challenge, extend, or reuse the work. All these behavior changes are in service of accelerating science and reducing waste.

Sounds great right?  An advantage for COS’s mission is that the values we promote—transparency, self-skepticism, reproducibility—are nearly universally endorsed by the research community.  Moreover, most researchers have the motivation to produce reproducible findings and be transparent in how they arrived at those findings.  And, many researchers already have knowledge to get started with registration and sharing data and materials.

With a focus on individuals, everything is ready for change—the new behaviors are values aligned, people have motivation to do the behaviors, and many have the ability to start the behavior.  But, a focus on individuals is not sufficient. The research culture maintains a dysfunctional constellation of incentives and policies that are blocking widespread change toward showing work and sharing.  In particular, the currency of research advancement is publication.  Publishing frequently and in prestigious journals is the key to getting a job, keeping a job, and earning the rewards of scholarship such as grants and more publications.  But, not everything gets published. Researchers are rewarded more for obtaining findings that are [1] novel as opposed to incrementally building on or affirming existing findings, [2] positive—showing a treatment is effective or things are related—as opposed to negative—finding things are ineffective or unrelated, and [3] tidy—showing evidence that all fits together neatly.

These are good things, but they don’t happen in science very often because researchers are studying things that they don’t yet understand. Progress can be slow. But, because the reward system is clear and competition for limited positions in science is strong, individuals are faced with compelling cultural incentives that lead to shortcuts, selective reporting, and other behaviors that undermine the credibility of the findings—and none of which support showing your work or sharing.  Researchers have the values for transparency, but are skeptical that the culture rewards the behaviors associated with those values.

Given this cultural context, we will not succeed in changing the research culture by focusing on individuals’ motivation and ability to be open and reproducible with their research.  We must pursue a comprehensive change strategy.

COS culture and behavior change model

COS’s strategy for culture and behavior change requires five levels of intervention represented by the pyramid above. These levels are progressive, reflecting the fact that successful implementation of higher levels depends on successful implementation of lower levels. Infrastructure is the base of the pyramid making behavior change possible. We maintain the open-source Open Science Framework (OSF) for researchers to be able to show their work and share.  Researchers can register their studies, post their data and materials openly or with protected access for sensitive materials, and share their outcomes at any time to accelerate and ensure communication regardless of whether it will ever be published.  

To facilitate adoption for busy researchers, OSF needs to be easy to use and integrate with researchers' existing workflows.  OSF users can connect popular services together (e.g. GitHub, Dropbox), and the service can be used privately to help with collaborative management among research teams during the research lifecycle.  This way, their private collaborative management work is seamlessly integrated with transitioning to make some or all of that work transparent or accessible to others.

The infrastructure at the base of our culture change pyramid is reinforced by addressing norms, incentives, and policies.  For shifting norms, we are trying to make the desired behaviors visible. For example, when journals adopt badges to acknowledge authors who preregister their studies and share their data and materials, those badges become signals to other researchers reading those articles that others in my field do these behaviors (descriptive norm setting), and the journal and others value these behaviors (prescriptive norm setting).  Visibility of desired behaviors is critical to accelerate adoption among those that are willing but have not yet adopted.

Incentive and policy interventions address the reward systems.  Publication as the currency of advancement is deeply embedded in the research culture.  So our strategy began with nudging the incentives in the publication process to align with values for transparency and reproducibility.  For example, rather than rewarding researchers contingent on the results they obtain (novel, positive, tidy results), we promote a publishing model called Registered Reports in which journals make decisions about publication based on the importance of the research question and the quality of the methodology. The journal evaluates the research before knowing what results will be obtained.  Researchers are rewarded for rigorous research and making clear their precommitments. This retrofits the existing reward structure with a relatively simple intervention that is values-aligned.

By attending to the critical decision points in an existing reward system, sometimes small interventions can have dramatic impacts without the unforeseeable consequences of needing to destroy and reinvent an entire reward system.  We are now pursuing similar incentive and policy changes at the other key decision points—awarding of grants by funders and hiring and promotion by institutions. An organizing framework called the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines provides a mechanism for aligning values, incentives, and policies across the major drivers of the research culture—journals, funders, and research institutions.

When behavior change requires culture change, it is essential to consider the structural features of the culture and how they enable and constrain individuals to behave according to their intentions and values.  Successful, normative, incentive, and policy interventions require effective infrastructure that provides easy transitions from how they behave today. Likewise, enacting that behavior change requires sensible incentives and policies that align with the behavioral tools available to individuals.  For widespread embrace, the changing behavior must be visible to the community to stimulate the diffusion of innovation.

In a future post, I will discuss how the pyramid for behavior change connects with the classic and contemporary models of adopting new technologies.

Recent Blogs

The Content of Open Science

What Second Graders Can Teach Us About Open Science

What's Going on With Reproducibility?

Open Science and the Marketplace of Ideas

3 Things Societies Can Do to Promote Research Integrity

How to Manage and Share Your Open Data

Interview with Prereg Challenge Award Winner Dr. Allison Skinner

Next Steps for Promoting Transparency in Science

Public Goods Infrastructure for Preprints and Innovation in Scholarly Communication

A How-To Guide to Improving the Clarity and Continuity of Your Preregistration

Building a Central Service for Preprints

Three More Reasons to Take the Preregistration Challenge

The Center for Open Science is a Culture Change Technology Company

Preregistration: A Plan, Not a Prison

How can we improve diversity and inclusion in the open science movement?

OSF Fedora Integration, Aussie style!

Replicating a challenging study: it's all about sharing the details.

Some Examples of Publishing the Research That Actually Happened

How Preregistration Helped Improve Our Research: An Interview with Preregistration Challenge Awardees

Are reproducibility and open science starting to matter in tenure and promotion review?

The IRIS Replication Award and Collaboration in the Second Language Research Community

We Should Redefine Statistical Significance

Some Cool New OSF Features

How Open Source Research Tools Can Help Institutions Keep it Simple

OSF Add-ons Help You Maximize Research Data Storage and Accessibility

10 Tips for Making a Great Preregistration

Community-Driven Science: An Interview With EarthArXiv Founders Chris Jackson, Tom Narock and Bruce Caron

A Preregistration Coaching Network

Why are we working so hard to open up science? A personal story.

One Preregistration to Rule Them All?

Using the wiki just got better.

Transparent Definitions and Community Signals: Growth in the Open Science Community

We're Committed to GDPR. Here's How.

Preprints: The What, The Why, The How.

The Prereg Challenge Is Ending. What's Next?

We are Now Registering Preprint DOIs with Crossref

Using OSF in the Lab

Psychology's New Normal

How Open Commenting on Preprints Can Increase Scientific Transparency: An Interview With the Directors of PsyArxiv, SocArxiv, and Marxiv

The Landscape of Open Data Policies

Open Science is a Behavior.

Why pre-registration might be better for your career and well-being

Interview: Randy McCarthy discusses his experiences with publishing his first Registered Report

Towards minimal reporting standards for life scientists

Looking Back on the Prereg Challenge and Forward To More Credible Research

OSF: Origin, growth, and what’s next

A Critique of the Many Labs Projects

The Rise of Open Science in Psychology, A Preliminary Report

Strategy for Culture Change

New OSF Registries Enhancements Improve Efficiency and Quality of Registrations

Registered Reports and PhD’s – What? Why? How? An Interview with Chris Chambers

How to Collaborate with Industry Using Open Science

How to Build an Open Science Network in Your Community

Seven Reasons to Work Reproducibly

COS Collaborates with Case Medical Research to Support Free Video Publishing for Clinicians and Researchers

Advocating for Policy Improvements at Your Institution

Announcing a joint effort to improve research transparency: FAIRSharing and TOP Guidelines

OSF as a tool for managing course-embedded research projects

Journals test the Materials Design Analysis Reporting (MDAR) checklist

Now you can endorse papers on OSF Preprints with Plaudit

Many Labs 4: Failure to Replicate Mortality Salience Effect With and Without Original Author Involvement

Approach and vision for the OSF Preprint infrastructure

Conflict between Open Access and Open Science: APCs are a key part of the problem, preprints are a key part of the solution

Re-engineering Ethics Training: An Interview with Dena Plemmons and Erica Baranski

Answering Your Preregistration Questions

UBC leads the way as first Canadian institutional OSF member

2019 Recap: OSF Growth and Open Knowledge Exchange

Getting Started with OSF

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.