Interviewee 06: All right.

Interviewer: So, yeah, thank you again for agreeing to this interview. And we have mentioned it before, but just for the record, the interview is being recorded and will be transcribed by myself and my student research assistants with the help of a local large language model. Is that OK with you?

Interviewee 06: Yeah.

Interviewer: Brilliant. So the aim of this study is to find out more about open science practices in linguistics. And linguistics is a very broad field. So my first question would be, where do you situate yourself within this broad field of linguistics?

Interviewee 06: I'd say I'm with the psycholinguistic part, although my PhD was like also on a phonetic subject. So, for example, I went to more like phonetic, phonology conferences than actually psycholinguistic conferences. So I would say I'm in the middle between like phonetics and psycholinguistics.

Interviewer: Cool. And we'll start with you and your personal associations with open science practices. So what do you personally associate with open science, or what are open science practices to you?

Interviewee 06: Pre-registrations, for example. I think this is like, so that's what I did for all of my studies that I ran, just to actually make sure that. Okay, there was just something popping up on my screen. Sorry. Yeah, just so to think about what you want to do and then stick to the plan. And if you like not stick to the plan, then just, you know, write in your paper, for example, why you diverge from what you originally planned. Also, I think just like making your data available. Afterwards, like as long as you can, I mean, no one can actually see this video. Then afterwards, but you know, read the transcript and, or for example, with me, like reaction time data, you can't, you know, go back to, oh yeah, this is person A, this is person B, but you just see a bunch of reaction times and then that's this one person. So I guess like data privacy is still in place. Then just, you know, share your scripts online. Yeah, that's what I would say is open science. For me.

Interviewer: And we talk about open science or that's what we've been talking about so far. But linguistics is often considered to be a humanities rather than a science. And so for some humanities scholars, open science is not like the appropriate term. And some people prefer to speak of open research or of open scholarship. Often open scholarship is thought of as being broader and encompassing science, open research and open education. And I wonder whether you have any thoughts on this. Which terms or term do you think is better suited for linguistics?

Interviewee 06: I don't really see the difference there. I mean open education. Yes I feel like I applied for a job with open education. Actually and that's really in terms of how can you like make school more open in a way you know that you share your I don't know, your exams or something online or if you have like a plan for the school year or something and then you share this with other teachers. I would like have this as a like say okay this is not like not really open science but with like open science, open research, open scholarship I don't really see a difference there. To be honest because I mean I know when I started linguistics and then I first studied biology and then people said oh yeah but now you're not doing science anymore and I'm like why not? And then, yeah, but syntax is rather like a science, you know, like, and then I was like, no, it's, I mean, you do research. So it's basically the same thing. It's not really, if it's like a natural science or like humanities, it doesn't matter to me. So I would say, yeah, with the scholarship, I'm, yeah, but open science and open research definitely are synonym for me.

Interviewer: I'm going to continue using the term open science in this interview but I understand it very broadly. So for me it's an umbrella term and you're welcome to use whichever term you think is most suitable. And yes, I'd like to speak a little bit now about to find out a little bit about your own experiences of open science practices. You've already mentioned that you have pre-registered all of your studies. And so, yeah, the question would be which kind of open science practices you've practiced yourself and why. So, you know, what encouraged you or what motivated you to try these things out?

Interviewee 06: So in the beginning, it was because my supervisor and the postdoc working at the project at that time encouraged me to do this because I thought, okay, it's like just the usual practice that you do. Um, and then in my second year, I guess it was, we organized a workshop, like an umbrella, workshop with the PROJECT with PERSON actually on open science PROJECT. And, there I really realized in a way how important it is to actually make your data open and accessible. Also, in terms of the reproducibility crisis that we had going on in the field, or still is going on in the field, like in, I guess, in all of in most of the scientific fields. And also, I mean, it's when you think about what you are going to do in the beginning, then, and I, for example, had a null result. And then I was like, okay, but I mean, I stick to everything that I said I would do. And we thought about that. So I was quite sure that it was really not there, that my study at least did not measure what I wanted it to measure. Yeah. So, but I felt like, okay, I'm sticking to this plan. And then in the end, like even the reviewers were like, yeah, we welcome this because I mean, the null result is also important and you stick to your plan and you did everything you said. And then there was an additional Bayesian model that also was inconclusive. So I put it up on OSF and everyone could just like, you know, see, okay, yeah, they really did nothing wrong here. So yeah, in the beginning, it was just that I was like, okay, I have to do this. But then I was like, okay, I'm actually, I think it's a good thing that people can then just like reproduce your data in a way or your findings, not your data, but your findings. And then you can just, yeah. Yeah. I guess that's it. 

Interviewer: Yeah. And so you've shared your data whenever it was possible in terms of data protection. Yeah and scripts as well and yeah additional analysis by the sounds of things as well. Really interesting. And also to hear that you attended a workshop with PERSON. Yeah you know from other areas. It's really interesting. Um yeah and actually I don't know have you attended ReproducibiliTea in the HumaniTeas? 

Interviewee 06: No, sorry. 

Interviewer: No, that's totally fine. I just couldn't quite remember, so I thought I should ask. And so we're now going to move away from your personal experiences and associations and try and think about the broader field of linguistics, but you're welcome to, you know, to think about the subdisciplines that you're most familiar with. As far as you can tell, how widespread are open science practices in in these areas? And which practices are linguists aware of and which ones are actually practiced and which ones maybe less so or very rarely?

Interviewee 06: I feel like that the phonetics part of linguistics. It feels like they are more open to open science in a way because just because I think they are, in my mind, they are more advanced than other fields of linguistics. I know my colleague is working with children who have a PROJECT disability and they can't do anything open science related because it's videos, it's transcripts. And they say that the transcripts are in a way, can't be made public. I don't know why because I guess I read the transcript and I can't, I mean I corrected the transcripts I went through them and said no this is correct, this is not correct. So I don't see and I didn't know which child was who. But in a way they say no they can't really use oh they can't really practice open science. I think it's with basically everything that's like en vogue, that people say, oh yeah, I'm going to do this, but then they actually don't practice open science. I feel like in, at least in the studies that I read or in the, where I went to like conferences and there were like proceedings papers, a lot of people actually said here, here is my script, here's my data. And I also read, I mean, I basically just read phonetics or psycholinguistic studies. And I'd say like 30% actually made their data public. And sometimes I even looked into like supplementary material on OSF or on whatever website they were on. And sometimes they're like, ah, okay, this is what they meant. So I felt like, okay, this really helped me in a way. But I think right now it's still like in Kinderschuhe. So it's like everyone is talking about this, but I don't think that a lot of people are actually sharing their data or their scripts. Although I guess it's like a requirement even like now for some journals. So, but yeah. 

Interviewer: Yeah. So when you say phonetics feels more advanced, do you mean advanced in terms of methods or awareness or practices of open sciences? What do you mean exactly?

Interviewee 06: Both, actually. So I feel like, it feels that I'm not sure. So I know that a lot of psycholinguistic studies or people still do like SPSS or some ANOVAs or in psychology, for example. And then when now frequentist models are more like used more and more. And I think a lot of people actually like in phonetics science, like go to Bayesian now and try to do this and try to be, as precise as possible. Also, I feel like there is just like, I guess it's just because I also know some people who work in this field and who are like advancing like data visibility or open science practices and stuff. I mean, with PERSON, for example, she does sociolinguistics. I guess this is also a part where open science like started and it's practiced probably, I mean, with her at least. So I guess there is just like a few known people who actually preach, hey, you have to practice open science and then people who are close to them also do this and then maybe they cooperate and then they are, oh yeah, this is like actually a good thing. So let's do this now. And then it swaps over in a way. Yeah, but it feels like, I don't know why, but it just feels like phonetics is, yeah, I don't know. It's just, like, more advanced. So they use more up-to-date, like, statistical analyses. And also, just, like, the way they. And it felt like with most of the posters and talks I attended, at least, I mean, it was huge conferences, so I don't know. But they actually said, here is my script. Here is my data. Here is this. Here you can read this. And here's another paper. Here is this. And it was just like this. Hey, we really want you to get what we were doing here. And we really want you to. Like if you disagree with us then here is what we made out of this. But maybe if you have another opinion then just feel free to criticize us and feel free to say so. But this is what our hypothesis is based on and I feel like other areas like psycholinguistics is more closed like more in the closet in a way and say no I don't want to share everything because I'm afraid that I did something wrong. Maybe. But yeah, maybe this is also because like in psycholinguistics, you'd rather try to test hypotheses or just like frameworks. And in phonetics, you'd rather like this. Hey, this is what I have. What do we make of this? But I found this, you know, it's in this way more open and more advanced than other areas. Maybe?

Interviewer: Yeah, it's really interesting. It sounds like it's almost a different culture.

Interviewee 06: Yeah, definitely. I mean, like it's like in the phonetics conferences, I felt like everyone was friendly and everyone was supportive. And in the psycholinguistics conferences, it was rather like this. Aha hmh. And then people were looking down on you and you're just like, OK, I mean. You also were a PhD student at some point. Nothing makes you actually better. I mean, you're just older, so yay you. And in the phonetics area, it felt like everyone was just working with each other. So maybe this is why I feel like they are more practicing open science more, because it's just like rather a community than a person being attacked in a way by other people because they feel like, oh no, this is wrong. Or, oh no, this is super cool. Why didn't I think about this? Yeah.

Interviewer: Yeah, it's really interesting. And you mentioned that open science practices are en vogue, I think is the term you used. So that would suggest, I mean, correct me if I understood you wrong, that even researchers who maybe don't practice open science practices are aware of them. And would you say that's the case, that people are aware of it and then maybe they don't practice them, but they are broadly aware of what's possible or what is going on in other subdisciplines?

Interviewee 06: I feel like yes. Like with the PhDs in PROJECT, we also talked about open science. I mean, obviously, some of us, like me included, we actually organized this workshop on open science. And then a friend was also asking, but I'm doing field work. So how does this apply to me? Yeah. Then it was like this. Yeah, sure. You can just maybe not, I mean, it's different then because it's like explorative data or explorative analysis, actually not data. But you can still say, hey, I might I hypothesize that I might find this or I might find this. Um and just in this way be open about this. And then you know practice open science in a way. But like now their supervisors also know about open science and I guess they already knew before. But it's just like this. It's just coming more and more into the thinking. I guess so because people are just like you see it now more. I mean I saw it during my PhD. I saw oh here's open science and there is open science. And during my master's which I also did at CITY I heard nothing of. I have heard nothing of open science. So I guess and I wouldn't say that my supervisor is super advanced in open science. I guess it's just that she's like oh this is the state of the art now. So I'm doing this mm-hmm, but it's not really that she's like advancing this. I feel like, but I don't know. I mean, I can't look into her brain, but yeah.

Interviewer: Yeah, that's really, really interesting. So what do you think contributes to these different levels of uptakes of open science practices in different disciplines or maybe different research groups, different universities? What do you think are some of the reasons, the factors?

Interviewee 06: I think it's just like, for example, if you know some people who are really, really into open science, I'd say, and they are in a way associated with your university or with a, I don't know what, like with a study that you're doing and you're cooperating, then maybe you are more prone to also practice open science. Or to talk to your colleagues about this. Or you have you attend a university and then there is a conference and then there is like a workshop on this. Um but I think it's maybe it's also university policies but some universities actually say hey we really want this. So we talked about this the other day with a friend of mine who's doing his PhD in CITY and we talked about ChatGPT and then he was like yeah INSTITUTION he thinks was one of the first to actually have like a guideline how to use ChatGPT or how to use open AI in general not just open AI but like these tools and how to actually what's allowed what's not. And he says CITY does not. So nowadays there are students and then you're just like this yeah but this is I mean you know that this was written with ChatGPT, but you can't do anything about this. So I feel like there might be a link between these two as like not just like ChatGPT and open science, but just like these, if there are guidelines for the university or not. And I think that I feel like people are lazy. So if they don't have to do something and they don't, they might not do it because they are not forced to do it unless they have like this intrinsic fire burning in them or make their data public for example. So yeah and with the with the different areas I think it's just that. I think for some it's more suitable than for others like but I mean there are like a lot of like CHILDES for example. There are corpora. I mean why not just you know make your field work data also public so other people can work with it? But I feel like with like fieldwork, for example, I mean, you really, really do a lot of, oh, I'm just going to close my program here. So you really, really do a lot of, you put a lot of effort into like collecting the data, then transcribing the data, then translating the data that you might not want others to also just use it, you know, so that you feel like this is mine. And I want to take everything, like I want to, really work with the data and get everything out of it and then if I if I’m done with it then other people can have it. Maybe this is like the kind of thinking that's there because like with me like with reaction time data I mean yeah it is a pain to collect data to find the students but in the end I mean it's like a 20-minute experiment. So if other people can like benefit from these data sure go ahead use it use it as a reference whatever but it's not that. I mean I did put effort into this but I guess it's nothing compared to a field work effort that yeah, that's really, really interesting.

Interviewer: And when we think of open science practice in linguistics, specifically as opposed to psychology or other fields, do you think there are any specificities of linguistics that need to be taken into consideration, like to adapt open science practices to linguistics?

Interviewee 06: Uh compared to what?

Interviewer: Compared to other disciplines, so I’m particular I’m thinking of psychology and medicine. That are kind of you know at the forefront of open science in general or have started many of these discussions.

Interviewee 06: I don't really think so because what's I mean it's just that for example medicine deals with a different kind of data in a way. I mean, they test, for example, if some drug is working or not. And it's basically what I'm doing, if a prosodic manipulation is working or not. So I don't feel like there is really a difference. I feel like, okay, we have to, like, describe our, like population in a way like you know the participants and say okay I mean in medicine half of them get the treatment half of them get the placebo. For example. For me no everything gets the treatment it's okay I know it's working but it's not and then I feel like I mean, what you want to make public is actually everything that makes the reader understand what you did and understand your data. And I don't feel like it's different for medicine, psychology, linguistics or biology or physics, engineering, whatever. I don't feel like there is a difference because it's all I mean, we all work with a group. And with a subgroup of something, and then we want to apply this to the whole population. So I don't think there is a difference.

Interviewer: That's really interesting. You've finished your PhD now, but if you think back to your PhD time, what would you have needed to do more open science? Or did you have everything you needed?

Interviewee 06: I feel like sometimes I could have neded more support but I feel like this during my whole PhD I needed more support. It was not just open science. I mean it was just like this here. Do this. And then when I had questions about this okay but how long do I have this embargo there for example on OSF? And then my supervisor just told me yeah I don't know what you're talking about. Then I was like okay but then just click through this whole process of the pre-registration and then just tell me what you do usually with this, for example. There I could have needed, for example, with the pre-registration more support. In the end, I felt like, okay, I mean, what do I need to actually understand what other people did? It's the data and it's a script. Like it's the raw data and the script. So I felt like, okay, this is what I need. And then for example, with the workshop, I realized, okay, there is much more to open science. Like these, like, for example, open science is also accessibility. So if you have like, if you can just like upload it on, ResearchGate, for example, although ResearchGate, you also have to have an account. But on your personal website, there is like a preprint or something. And there I didn't know anything about that. And I know that my supervisor is strictly against things like this. Because she's like, yeah, but she's afraid that actually, people are going to steal your idea and then do another paper on this. So there I felt like I could have had more support just that we could talk about this in a way. But in terms of strictly just like script, pre-registration and data, I felt like, okay, I'm prepared for this, but I think this is really just like a tiny, tiny bit of open science. And there was so much more. And yeah, there, I guess, I mean, probably with the ReproducibiliTeas, you actually talk about stuff like that, but it was like, for me, it was either too late or I was just, I was like, okay, I'm going to leave this anyway behind. So it's really, it's nice to have but then I also I was juggling two jobs and then I was like no I really just have to concentrate on this one thing which is finishing the PhD and then everything else can come later.

Interviewer: Yeah, time is always a factor as well. Yeah, I have one more question, which is, I sometimes have the impression, this is a very personal impression, that open science advocates tend to speak among themselves. Like I often feel, among other things at ReproducibiliTea, that we're, it's a nice group, but sometimes I feel like we are talking to each other, like we're preaching to the choir or preaching to the converted. And I was wondering whether, A, you feel the same? And, B, how you think we might be able to reach out to more linguists, the ones that don't come, you know?

Interviewee 06: Yeah, so I think I agree with you, but that's just because we all live in our bubbles. And I mean, thinking about politics, for example, my friends are also not right wing-voters. So, of course, I talk to them and it's like this. We agree on everything. Like we don't agree on everything, but we agree on the basics. Yeah. And it's just like this. Of course, it also makes more fun to talk to them than to go outside. On the street and say, hey, you vote for AfD, let's talk about this. So I guess it's just like this thing that we, as human beings, look for people who are like-minded, I guess. And what I feel like, for example, I guess, which is not, you don't start on the PhD level, but you start even earlier. So for example, just like offer courses on open science for master students, for bachelor students, for, yeah, I guess, I guess master students would probably be more realistic. But you also have to take statistics classes sometimes and then just maybe even incorporate it into a statistics class that you say, OK, here you have the script and then you can put the script online. Or just offer classes on open science in general to master's student. Or I don't know if it has to be obligatory in the sense that a lot of people, I don't know how it is here, but I did my bachelor's in LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE. And I actually had the same classes than the people who were about to become teachers. So I felt like, OK, a lot of stuff that applies to me doesn't apply to them and vice versa. So I think on the master's level, it's probably better suited because there you really specify on linguistics, for example, in my case. And there, I guess, if there was a class open science and it was like in a sense obligatory to go there. Sure. Why not? You know, you have to do this just like you have to do something in the Romance linguistics and you have to do something in LANGUAGE linguistics, although you don't feel like you want to. I had to take literature courses and I was like, wow, annoying. But I still had to sit through them. And some of the things I mean, I'm, I actually met one of my favorite authors now there because it was Canadian literature. And I was like, okay, let's do this. And now I'm totally in love with PERSON. So it did something to me. And same with like, I guess, open science. If you, if just this one little thing resonates with you, why not, you know, take it with you and then just say, okay, just talk to your supervisor and say, okay, yeah, I'm doing this research here now for my master's, so why not put it on OSF? Just like as a Arbeitspapier, like a working paper or whatever, or why not? Just, you know, make it available for other people as well? So I think if you started with like on a master's, like master's students level, I guess you could reach more people because they have more time than then once they enter the PhD, I guess.

Interviewer: Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah. That was my last question, but is there anything else you felt like saying on open science practices in linguistics or more broadly in the humanities?

Interviewee 06: I didn't know that actually psychologists were like the first to actually go there.

Interviewer: Yeah, I think I mean, this is my understanding of the of the field or the community. Social psychology where the social psychologists were the first to realize that they had a major replication crisis. And so, yeah, they pushed a lot of these things forward.

Interviewee 06: I mean, I knew that the replication crisis started out in psychology, but I didn't know that they, because I mean, I had like this one class with, and there were a lot of psychology PhDs and then all of them did ANOVAs and stuff. And I was like, what? Even I know that this is like outdated.

Interviewer: So I felt like I'm probably biased in that all of the psychologists that I know are the ones that are like, you know, in the open science. But I attended the Meta-rep conference in October. It was like a meta science and replication conference. And it was full of psychologists.

Interviewee 06: Yes. And maybe I'm also biased.

Interviewer: Sort of 70% psychology and then there were people from business like economics that kind of stuff a little bit of education researchers. That was nice. Um I was the only linguist and I was like considered an exotic being. So people would be like, oh, look this is Elen, she's a linguist, like showing me like some strange animal. I’m like, yes hello.

Interviewee 06: Oh, wow. Okay.

Interviewer: That was very interesting.

Interviewee 06: Yeah.

Interviewer: I'll stop the recording here. Yeah. It's great. Thank you.
