Tag Archives: Research

Where Science Meets Policy Part 2: How to Write Academic Papers for a Broad Range of Stakeholders

Mary Fernandes, Renee Cloutier, Travis Loughran, Melanie Arenson

If you’re here after our last post on “Involving Stakeholders in Every Step of Your Research”, welcome back! In our last post, we discussed what a stakeholder is, why we should involve
them in our research work, and how we can efficiently do so. However, we shouldn’t stop there! One next step to increasing the impact that your research has on policy is to effectively convey your completed work to these invested stakeholders. This can be hard to do, so below are a few tips that might make this easier.

First, write with stakeholders in mind.
In order to write a paper that will affect public policy, first ask yourself the questions, “who will read this?”, and, “who will be affected by this?” (Purdue University, OWL). Frame your scientific paper with this audience in mind, whether it be policy makers, insurance companies, businesses, local citizens, patients, or providers. Remembering your unique audience will allow you to communicate your work at the level of your reader. With the policy implications of your work in mind, you might also carefully consider the right journal to submit to. For example, you could choose to submit your work to a journal that is less niche than you might normally submit to and more general or policy focused.

Always lead with the “why”, not the “what”.
Then, ask yourself why your work should matter to your stakeholders. Discuss these reasons succinctly and clearly to grab your stakeholders’ attention before describing what it is you did. By failing to address the “why”, you might lose your stakeholders from the very beginning. But how do you ensure that your reasons for your study line up with those of your stakeholders? How do you identify what your “why” is?

Figuring that out will require you to really understand your stakeholders’ concerns. Hopefully, you were able to use the above strategies to include stakeholders while planning your research, but if you did not, it’s not too late to do so. Speak to them with a goal of truly understanding their principal concerns. Ask them questions about what they would like to see solutions to. Discuss your project with them and inquire about their feedback and unique insights into the usefulness of your work. Once you have a clear idea of what policy problems your project can tackle, lead with it. Keep in mind that a policy problem is not always the same as a scientific problem.

Continue reading →

Graduate Student Researchers Win Big!

The results are in: 15 exceptional graduate student projects have been selected from the pool of highly-competitive applications for the Psychological Science Research Grant (PSRG). This $1,000 grant, sponsored yearly by APAGS, is used to fund innovative research projects in psychological science. All APA graduate student affiliates are eligible, resulting in a diverse pool of applications from schools across the country who are studying a variety of topics in psychology and neuroscience. Given the importance of diversity-focused research, additional funding was specifically reserved for those studies that substantially address issues of diversity as defined by the APA’s 2017 Multicultural Guidelines.

Below is a brief review of the 2018 winners and their projects:

  • Mónica Acevedo-Molina (University of Arizona) will be studying the influence of bilingualism on memory in Hispanic individuals. Mónica aims to understand how bilingualism impacts the specificity of autobiographic memory in Hispanics, as well as the influence of inhibition on that specificity.
  • Brooke Bartlett (University of Houston) will be studying the role of distress tolerance in the relationship between trauma cue reactivity and posttraumatic stress disorder symptom severity. Specifically, Brooke aims to understand whether distress tolerance moderates that relationship, above and beyond the impact of important factors such as the amount of trauma a person has experienced, as well as any other mental health conditions they may be battling.
  • Alexis Blessing (The University of Texas at San Antonio) will be studying ways to reduce the public stigma associated with media depictions of service members and veterans. Specifically, Alexis believes that self-compassion may buffer negative responses to stigmatizing media accounts of violent acts by veterans with PTSD.
  • Brittney Evans (Drexel University) will be studying the feasibility and acceptability of a remote parent coaching intervention for parents of children who are overweight or obese. The goal of this intervention is to increase the use of adaptive parenting techniques and decrease the use of ineffective parenting practices in order to improve child behaviors during mealtimes.
  • Maya Godbole (City University of New York, CUNY) will be studying the effect of sex discrimination policies on women’s expectation of bias and performance in organizations. Specifically, Maya aims to understand whether the inclusion of language that explicitly acknowledges subtle forms of sexism in policy documents influences women’s participation in organizations as well as their performance expectations.
  • Taylor Hendershott (Washington University in St. Louis) will be developing a brief tool for assessing people’s spatial navigation strategy use and ability. This type of task will allow for the targeted assessment of cognitive functions and will be useful for academics and clinicians working to understand and measure the cognitive impairment associated with neurodegenerative diseases.
  • Tiffany Jenzer (University at Buffalo, SUNY) will be studying the relationship between emotion regulation strategies and alcohol use. Specifically, Tiffany aims to understand how the ability to choose between a variety of emotion regulation strategies, as well as the ability to pick a strategy that appropriately fits the situation impact alcohol use.
  • Parisa Kaliush (University of Utah) will be studying the intergenerational effects of mothers with a history of childhood maltreatment. Specifically, Parisa aims to understand whether maternal parasympathetic activity during pregnancy explains the relationship between their history of childhood maltreatment and their newborn’s emotional reactivity and attention.
  • Nathan Kearns (University of North Texas) will be studying the role of traumatic stress and alcohol on driving behaviors. Specifically, Nathan will be investigating both the independent and additive effects of trauma-related stress and acute alcohol intoxication on driving-related risk-taking.
  • Lilian Yanqing Li (University of California, Irvine) will be studying novel strategies for addressing emotion regulation deficits in people with schizophrenia and schizotypy. Lilian aims to understand if third-person self-talk is an effective strategy for regulating negative emotions, without requiring additional cognitive control.
  • Albert Ly (Loma Linda University) will be studying diabetes treatment adherence among a diverse sample of adults. Albert aims to understand the role culture and U.S. generational status play in disease-related distress and treatment adherence.
  • Melissa McWilliams (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) will be evaluating the impact of integrated text message coaching as an added supplement to behavioral parent training. In particular, Melissa will be studying whether text message coaching improves parenting practices, as well as parental engagement in and attitude about the parent training curriculum.
  • Tommy Ho-Yee Ng (Temple University) will be studying the nature of reward processing for children of parents with unipolar depression and bipolar disorder. Tommy aims to understand how reward processing may be deficient in these children compared to healthy controls, as well as if children of parents with bipolar disorder can be differentiated from children of parents with unipolar depression based on their reward processing.
  • Fallon Ringer (Florida State University) will be studying the role of suicide-related internet use in suicide risk. Fallon aims to understand if suicide-related internet use is associated with greater suicidal ideation, intent, and prior suicidal behaviors, as well as fearlessness about death.
  • Selime Salim (Miami University) will be studying the relationship between sexual victimization and suicidality among bisexual women. In particular, Selime aims to understand the role stigma, internalized sexism, and social reactions to sexual assault disclosure play in that relationship.

Congratulations to all of the winners!

Want your name to be featured next year? Be sure to apply! Applications are due in early December for the 2019 PSRG. Remember: grant writing has many benefits, including being a wonderful way to think critically about your research ideas, have valuable discussions with your mentor(s), and boost your resume. Worried you don’t know how to write a grant? Check out this great post by the Association for Psychological Science with tips and tricks.

The APAGS Science Committee would like to acknowledge and thank the following reviewers for their help and support  in reviewing applications this year: Alyssa DeVito, Rachel Sweenie, Laura Werner, Megan Williams, Amy Wing-Lam Chong, Steven Hobaica, Amanda Sanchez, Kyle Simon, Elyssa Berney, Juan Pantoja-Patino, Taymy Caso, and Elizabeth Louis.

 

Written by:
Melanie Arenson, B.S., Member, APAGS Science Committee
Renee Cloutier, M.S., Chair, APAGS Science Committee

Where Science Meets Policy Part 1: Involving Stakeholders in Every Step of Your Research

Where Science Meets Policy

Part 1: Involving Stakeholders in Every Step of Your Research

Melanie Arenson, Renee Cloutier, Travis Loughran, Mary Fernandes

There is a well-known lack of consistent translation of scientific research into public policy. To address this, the scientific community has instituted a substantial push to involve “stakeholders” in our research, in order to make it more targeted, translatable, and impactful. But what does that mean practically, and how do we do it?

What is a stakeholder?

According to the American Psychological Association, stakeholders include anybody that could be influenced by the research you conduct (e.g., they have a “stake” in it). What does that look like? Well, imagine you’re developing a new intervention for adolescents. Stakeholders for such a project might include the people receiving and providing the treatment (e.g. the adolescent and therapist), as well as the child’s parents, teachers, and peers, the administrators in both the treatment setting and the school, and the policy-makers dictating the allocation of school-based resources. Depending on your area of research, this group of stakeholders may expand to include businesses, insurance companies, curriculum writers, and nonprofits.

Why involve them at all?

Too often in academic settings, we formulate a question, conduct the research in our labs, find exciting results, publish a paper in an academic journal, and then that research gets cited by other academics in other academic journals. The problem with that? The information we’ve discovered doesn’t ever actually leave the world in which it was created.

Stakeholders, if engaged properly, are uniquely positioned in two ways to help change that: (1) their opinions can be sought to ensure that the questions we ask, the research paradigms we create, and the treatments we develop appropriately reflect the real-world applications that interested us in the first place; and (2) they hold connections that can help with dissemination when we find those really cool results. They are mired in the frequently messy reality that we try to emulate in our labs, and understand what is feasible and what isn’t because they live it, day to day, in a way we as researchers rarely do. They also hold connections in the community and have specialized insights into the most appropriate and impactful way to translate our research to the populations that need to hear it the most.

So how do we involve them?

This can depend on your setting, but below are a few options:

1)    Use your existing network. Most likely, you can think of a few stakeholders you already know, whether in a professional or personal context. One of the easiest ways to get stakeholders involved is to ask those people to have coffee with you and chat. If they’re interested in what you’re doing they might be a good person to get involved, but they also can likely suggest people they know that might be able to help.

2)    Focus groups are extremely helpful. They can be used as sources for more permanent stakeholder involvement (e.g. you can recruit stakeholders that will remain involved for the duration of the project), but they also are formalized way to engage stakeholders just as they are.  Recruit as broad of a range of stakeholders as you can, know the questions you want to ask, and be prepared to lightly guide a discussion. Keep in mind that it may be helpful to group participants by stakeholder type, depending on your project and the diversity of stakeholders. If someone seems particularly insightful, motivated, and you think they may be good fit for your research team, talk to them about the possibility of getting more involved (and keep a list of these types of people as possible stakeholders for future projects!).

3)   Use conferences to build connections. When you’re talking to colleagues about your research, don’t forget to talk about recruiting stakeholders (they may know someone that would be a perfect fit!), and attend talks that are related to the research you want to do as they may give you an idea for stakeholders you haven’t thought of. Check the program for any stakeholder-related gatherings, which may include a talk by patients, booths run by educators and/or companies, or division-specific events related to specific providers.

4)   Don’t forget about your professional organizations. Many organizations have committees and departments dedicated to influencing and crafting policy. These sub-organizations can connect you and your academic work to the policy arenas you want to influence. Reach out to committee members and tell them about your research and the implications you think it has. They’ll be perfectly positioned to help you translate your findings to the community stakeholders you want to reach. They also may be able to direct you resources and stakeholders you haven’t thought of.

5)   Finally, use your research. Talk to your participants, their parents, and the community connections you use to recruit your sample, and ask them if they would like a summary of your findings once your research is complete. If you haven’t already built a relationship with them, offering to reach out (and taking the time to do it!) is a great foundation. Similar to focus groups, if you think any of those people would be a good fit for your research, offer the opportunity for them to get involved in future projects.

Breaking the academic loop:

Once you have successfully designed, executed, and analyzed your research project, how do you convey the findings to a broad range of stakeholders? Researchers and policy makers often have different decision-making processes, time-lines, vocabularies, and incentives (Brownson, Royer, Ewing, & McBride, 2006; Grande et al., 2014), which create barriers to effective communication. Overcoming these barriers requires several, multi-level actions, many of which will be addressed in this series. Follow us for our next piece on how to write academic papers for a broad range of stakeholders.

 

References:

Brownson, R. C., Royer, C., Ewing, R., & McBride, T. D. (2006). Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. American journal of preventive medicine, 30(2), 164-172.

Grande, D., Gollust, S. E., Pany, M., Seymour, J., Goss, A., Kilaru, A., & Meisel, Z. (2014). Translating research for health policy: researchers’ perceptions and use of social media. Health Affairs, 33(7), 1278-1285.

 

Introducing APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards

Earlier this year the APA revised its Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS). Originally published in 2008, the 2018 revision provides much-needed updates to APA’s standards for publication and reviews timely issues of debate revolving around reproducibility and preregistration. In addition and for the first time, JARS incorporates guidelines for writing about qualitative/mixed methods research, meaning that the JARS is now specific to either the use of quantitative methods (JARS-Quant) or qualitative (JARS-Qual). Both JARS are accessible as open access publications and appear alongside an editorial introducing the standards within a recent issue of the American Psychologist:

JARS-Quant: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research in Psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report

JARS-Qual: Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report

Editorial: Journal Article Reporting Standards

The JARS-Quant and JARS-Qual papers are excellent resources when considered in full. Below we’ve compiled several reasons why APAGS members may be interested in considering these resources when designing and reporting results from their own research and when serving as reviewers.

JARS-Quant

  1. Guidance on how to report non-experimental research

While the JARS-Quant was originally written to offer guidance on how to report studies with experimental manipulations, the 2018 revision offers new guidance on how to report results from studies that are observational, correlational, or which use a natural design (See JARS-Quant Table 3). This expands the scope of JARS considerably and is a much-welcomed resource for those of us who complete non-experimental research.

  1. Inclusion of sophisticated statistical approaches

As the need for more sophisticated statistical approaches for analysis continues to grow, JARS-Quant now offers guidance on what to report when using structural equation modeling (SEM), Bayesian statistics, meta-analytic research methods, and single-case studies (e.g., N-of-1 studies). Inclusion of these diverse approaches to analyzing data offer students up-front transparency in terms of what APA considers appropriate for reporting results from these less ‘straight-forward’ approaches. 

  1. Reporting standards for replication studies

Given heightened interest surrounding issues of reproducibility in psychological science, JARS-Quant provides new guidelines for what to report when publishing a replication study. Authors should consider suitability of replication studies for their individual studies; yet, these guidelines offer a good starting point for what details to consider including in a manuscript so that your study can be considered for replication. Conversely, these guidelines are informative when attempting to replicate another scientist’s work. As new cultural shifts in our field that recognizes the importance and value of replicability, this provides helpful guidance on what information is useful and needed in published manuscripts in order to foster replication science. 

JARS-Qual

  1. Detailed discussion on what constitutes qualitative research and best reporting practices

The JARS-Qual includes a comprehensive yet basic primer for any reader interested in what constitutes qualitative research. In particular, the standards offer guidance regarding the number of participants that typically appear in qualitative research, the types of hypotheses that are tested, modes of data collection, and ways in which hypotheses may be validated. These guidelines further provide much needed clarification on what information needs to be reported and how. 

  1. Recommendations for reviewers reading qualitative research

As editorial board members for Translational Issues in Psychological Science, we often hear from student reviewers that they do not feel comfortable reviewing qualitative manuscripts given a lack of expertise in this arena. As such, we were thoroughly impressed to learn that detailed recommendations for reviewers appear within JARS-Qual (Table 1) to help these individuals better evaluate qualitative research integrity. These guidelines are written in lay language and provide examples of what sections should appear within a qualitative manuscript, thereby providing necessary details to keep handy when consuming qualitative research. 

  1. Inclusion of standards for mixed methods designs

As quantitative and qualitative research vary considerably in terms of design and analysis structure, it is particularly nice to see an entire section detailing how to integrate both methods (See section: Mixed Methods Article Reporting Standards [MMARS]). This makes the JARS-Qual a comprehensive tool for any investigator wishing to complete a stand-alone qualitative study or, alternatively, using limited qualitative data collection to help inform quantitative work.

 

Author Bios

Jacklynn Fitzgerald, PhD currently serves as the APAGS Member-at-Large for Research and Academic Affairs. She is a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Department of Psychology, where she studies the impact of psychological trauma on neural functioning during emotion and emotion regulation. Outside of the lab she considers ways training in psychological science can be improved, and is committed to advancing under-represented students in the sciences, particularly women. She can be contacted here.

Renee Cloutier, MS currently serves as the APAGS Science Committee Chair. She is a fifth year doctoral student in the Experimental Psychology/Behavioral Science program at the University of North Texas and is a F31 recipient from NIDA/NIH. She studies the role of anxiety and social context in substance use behaviors/cognitions among adolescents and emerging adults. In addition to her research, she seeks ways to promote science within psychology and devotes her time to mentoring younger students. She can be contacted here.

How well are psychology programs addressing diversity training? National survey reveals results

The American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) Committee on the Advancement of Racial and Ethnic Diversity (CARED) and Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (CSOGD) recently finalized a mixed-methods study that explored the impact of diversity on the program and training experiences of APAGS members. Graduate students from programs across the United States, shared their perspectives on diversity and inclusion issues in their clinical and research training, courses, mentorship, and everyday interactions in their programs. The accompanying infographic presents a snapshot of some of the most relevant findings. The final page  provides some additional resources in addition to specific recommendations provided by students for how to improve programs’ diversity training and better support students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. For more information on the study, contact J. L. Stewart.  Please also view the full results and tables.

APAGS Diversity Infographic_Page_1APAGS Diversity Infographic_Page_2

 

APAGS Diversity Infographic_Page_3APAGS Diversity Infographic

Editor’s Note: This infographic was developed by the following APAGS members (listed alphabetically): Klaus Eickhoff Cavalhieri, Lincoln Hill, Kiet Huynh, J. L. Stewart, Joelle Taknint, and María D. Vázquez.