Agree To Disagree

The path forward, Clark et al. proposed, involves adopting eight simple and non-so-simple steps to create teams of “adversarial collaborators.” Although designed specifically to apply to scientists embroiled in longstanding rivalries, their general principles are easily translated into pr...

As dim as the prospects may be for scientists to try to bridge their differences, the U. Penn researchers believe there may be a path forward. Not only would such a move resolve the tensions experienced by these “human” scientists, but it would help advance the scientific enterprise. Indeed, the ...

In a recently published paper, University of Pennsylvania’s Cory Clark and colleagues (2022) outline the numerous problems created by disputes among opposing behavioral scientists who refuse to recognize each other’s research contributions. Noting that “scientists are humans,” th...

4. Agree on the details of an initial study designed to subject the opposing claims to an informative empirical test.

The participants should seek to identify results that would change their mind, at least to some extent, and should explicitly anticipate their interpretati...

7. Take advantage of preregistration.

Preregistering an adversarial collaboration can help lock both scholars into a research plan, which will minimize scholars’ ability to renege if unfavorable results are found.

When one scientist disputes the claim of another, they tend to argue asynchronously, publishing studies and studies that disprove the original, which lead to further refutations of the criticism, and so on. Throughout this process, the opposing parties rarely communicate directly in real-...

1. Consider the temperaments of potential adversaries

Some scholars may be able to participate in adversarial collaborations more successfully than others (e.g., successful adversarial collaboration may be associated with higher intellectual humility, open- mindedness, and ...

6. Be flexible with collaborators.

There is rarely one way to answer a question, so if there is resistance to one approach, simply move on to a new one. If one study goes awry (i.e., one or more collaborators are not convinced by the findings), figure out why and fix the a...

3. An initial discussion should identify a clearly defined disagreement.

Both sides should be able to articulate their own perspective in concrete terms as well as the strongest version of their adversary’s perspective and the disagreement in terms all parties agree with. T...

2. Involve a trusted, neutral third-party colleague to be a moderator.

The moderator should be mutually agreed upon by all adversaries and will coordinate the effort, referee disagreements, and collect and analyze the data and write up the results. The data should remain u...

If we can’t move forward alongside our enemies, then we should at least be able to move on separately from them. As the The U. Penn researchers note:

“These guidelines anticipate ways in which adversarial collaborations can fail and aim to pre-empt them. Although some adversarial co...