4th February 2017, Zürich

 

BOARD of SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, EFPA

 

Board meeting, Zurich, February 11, 2017

 

AGENDA

 

February 11th: Venue:Hotel 25hours, Pfingstweidstrasse 102,10.00 am

 

Attendees: Christoph Steinebach, Jose Maria Prieto, Ann-Charlotte Smedler, Jerome Clerc, Daryl O’Connor, Filip Smolik, Andrea Abele-Brehm, Remo Job.

 

1.      Welcome and introduction.

 

Remo thanks the colleagues to attend the meeting, and reminds us to provide a short resume for the BSA’s webpage.

 

2.      Apologies for absence

 

Christian Korunka, Anca Radulescu, Gregory Collet,

 

3.      Approval of minutes of the Brussels meeting (copy circulated previously)

 

No further comments, minutes from Brussels are approved.

 

4.      Matters arising from minutes (not covered by the present agenda)

 

Due to one member’s request, we discussed the opportunity of changing the date for Paris’ meeting during next fall. We will decide shortly via a doodle.

 

5.      Survey on evidence-based-practice: State-of-the-art

 

First results are presented. The questionnaire was filled in by twenty colleagues from twelve countries: Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Slovenia, Turkish, Finland, Spain, France, Denmark, Cyprus.

The definition for EBPP was approved by the majority of respondents, although the expression “best research” could be risky: “current research” was proposed instead by one respondent.

Whether continued professional development (CPD) is mandatory seems to be half-half (55%-45%), and when it is mandatory EBPP is rarely part of it. Formal monitoring occurs at graduate level in about 50% cases, and very rarely at post-graduate training. For different reasons, several countries express some doubt about the necessity of such monitoring. The same variety of answers can be observed when asked what MA do for helping to promote EBPP. Further, one-third of the responding countries declared having encountered some difficulty for implementing EBPP, and the remaining 2/3 did not.

 

Overall, EBPP is a process-oriented and result-oriented way of thinking, rather than a mere definition of some kind or direct application of research results to practical cases. For example, case studies should be probably included in EBPP, as should we maybe formalize the application of the evidence-based process to teaching.

 

Several exciting questions also arise from these preliminary results:

·         Should we suggest that every interested MA constitutes a Task Force for working on EBPP?

·         EBPP can be considered as a topic research per se. Should we encourage research on it?

·         Can we train psychologists without EBPP?

 

Finally, it appears that we must define more precisely what EFPA exactly wants. The survey is already beneficial since it allowed the BSA to raise awareness of this approach among MAs, which remain totally free to develop and support any type of approach. EBPP can be translated and operationalized in many ways and we all agreed that no normative recommendations should be made, at least for now.

 

The symposium on EBPP during next ECP will hopefully help us to go a step forward.

 

6.      Replicability in Psychology: Actions by the BSA

 

Given the recent replication crisis, we agreed that BSA should lead the way for improving replicability methods. A first step will be the symposium on replicability that we will present at next ECP in Amsterdam, which could be a good opportunity to engender collaborations between countries. For example, a Spanish colleague will act as convenor of a symposium on this topic during the Spanish national congress (early July) and then will attend the ECP a few days later: we could have fruitful discussion with him.

 

7.      BSA Symposia for ECP2017

 

Two one-hour symposia will be held on behalf of BSA, with the broad aim of contributing to improving science in Europe.

First symposium: EBPP. Four colleagues are involved in this symposium (Torun, Barbara, Daryl, Remo). The frame is as follows: explaining the motivation and processes underlying the questionnaire, presenting the results, and discussing the implications and possible actions. Much discussion can arise from presentation: maybe we should inform beforehand the colleagues who answered the survey that it will be discussed during ECP, inviting them to attend the symposium.

Second symposium: Replication. Five colleagues will give a presentation (Jesus, Jerome, Remo, Christoph, Daryl). A short opening will be given by Daryl, and then the presentations with national specificities.

From a practical point of view, Remo asked for having both symposia and the BSA’s regular meeting on the same day during ECP (to be confirmed).

 

8.      Managing and Updating the BSA website

 

Mathias Ziegler has finished his term in the BSA. He was in charge of managing the website for several years. This is an important task, as it is a window for the committee. An estimated workload would be to take an update every two months. Our colleague Filip agreed on doing it. The BSA thanks Filip and the idea is proposed of putting the minutes of the meetings on the website.

 

9.      Liaison with other EFPA boards

 

Mathias Ziegler was the liaison with the Board of Intervention and Prevention, and must be replaced. Ann-Charlotte volunteered for being this liaison.

Andrea is also going to contact the Board of Ethics and see whether there are fruitful possible connections.

We also agreed on inviting the Convener of the Board of Education to meet with us at our Amsterdam’s regular meeting, in order to see how to best collaborate and interact on topics of common interest, e.g. through a liaison, regular meeting of the Boards or Board representatives, etc.?

 

10.  German Data Management proposal

 

Given the current context of open-science movement and the recent so-called replication crisis, the German Psychological Association produced a paper dealing with data management (“Data Management in Psychological Science: Specification of the DFG Guidelines”). This document provides a guideline for researchers on several points which were accordingly discussed during the present meeting: raw and primary data (non-transformed yet digitalized data), data storage (type and cost of repository as well as recommended duration of storage; editors’ role; funding), data sharing (co-authors in a publication; secondary users and potential new collaborations), data privacy and copyrights (sensitive data; data used in a new Research in a non-anticipated way), rights and duties of data users (trust between researchers and no damage on anyone’s reputation).

Apart from the German document itself, we also discussed on pre-registration which is another tool for open-science (and a potential future avenue in PhD students’ training). Pre-registration is based on researchers pre-proposing to a journal the theoretical basis as well as planned methodology and analysis for a future study. If the proposed study is deemed to be a promising one, the journal guarantees the publication of the results, even if they are not statistically significant. We all agreed that it could constitute a good way of publishing results that, otherwise, may never get published especially if non-significant.

 

The Board appreciated the German proposal, considered it innovative, and a good base to allow significant developments. We agreed on writing a letter both to the EFPA’s Executive Committee and to the EP’s Editor Peter Frensch, for letting them know about the German document. German Psychological Association will also be asked whether their document could be put on the EFPA website, with the specification that it is a DPGs document and that it is a work still in progress.

It is also decided that we will invite Peter Frensch to meet us in Amsterdam, and discuss the opportunity of a special issue of EP dealing with open science: the Journal would most probably benefit from a discussion on this topic.

 

11.  Agenda for next meeting (during ECP, Amsterdam)

 

We should discuss whether to propose two special issues in EP: one about open science; and one on EBPP and replication questions.

 

Meanwhile (probably in May), Jerome will circulate the document about PhD standards.

 

12.  Any other business

 

About 2200 abstracts were submitted for next ECP, which is good given the  difficulties the Dutch colleagues have met at the beginning. However, we don’t have the chief of ECP in the BSA, which makes it more difficult to monitor the ongoing of the congress. Remo suggests (and Christoph confirms) that the President of the ECP Scientific Committee, or his/her representative should be co-opted as member of the BSA when the EFPA Assembly choose the ECP proposal. The Board ask the EC to decide on this issue.

 

Next ECP will be hold in Amsterdam (2017), and then Moscow (2019). We should invite the President of the Russian Scientific Committee to our Amsterdam meeting. Who’s next? There has already been a call for the 2021 edition but no country applied so far.

 

The Board of Education is going to publish a special issue on EBPP in Psychology Teaching: this could be a good basis for future discussions with colleagues from this board.

 

Finally, Remo announced us that he will stop acting as BSA Convener, but that he has not fully discussed with his Member Association about this yet. It would be productive to arrive at the Amsterdam meeting with a candidate for the position so that he/she can start right away after that meeting. Ann-Charlotte asked Daryl if he would accept such a role, on the basis of his experience and his competences. Remo will discuss with his MA and Daryl will seriously consider the matter.

 

13.  Close.