Mapping the discursive dimensions of the reproducibility crisis: A mixed methods analysis

To those involved in discussions about rigor, reproducibility, and replication in science, conversation about the reproducibility crisis appear ill-structured. Seemingly very different issues concerning the purity of reagents, accessibility of computational code, or misaligned incentives in academic research writ large are all collected up under this label. Prior work has attempted to address this problem by creating analytical definitions of reproducibility. We take a novel empirical, mixed methods approach to understanding variation in reproducibility discussions, using a combination of grounded theory and correspondence analysis to examine how a variety of authors narrate the story of the reproducibility crisis. Contrary to expectations, this analysis demonstrates that there is a clear thematic core to reproducibility discussions, centered on the incentive structure of science, the transparency of methods and data, and the need to reform academic publishing. However, we also identify three clusters of discussion that are distinct from the main body of articles: one focused on reagents, another on statistical methods, and a final cluster focused on the heterogeneity of the natural world. Although there are discursive differences between scientific and popular articles, we find no strong differences in how scientists and journalists write about the reproducibility crisis. Our findings demonstrate the value of using qualitative methods to identify the bounds and features of reproducibility discourse, and identify distinct vocabularies and constituencies that reformers should engage with to promote change.

Automated summary

The core themes of reproducibility discussions are the incentive structure of science, transparency of methods and data, and the need for reform in academic publishing. Additionally, three distinct clusters of discussion focus on reagents, statistical methods, and the heterogeneity of the natural world. There are discursive differences between scientific and popular articles, but no strong differences in how scientists and journalists write about the reproducibility crisis.