Open science as a happiness factor: more satisfaction through cooperation and self-determination

Was there a key moment or a formative experience that led you to decide to share your research results and data openly?

MS: Moving to Leuphana University Lüneburg was a key experience. The use of Open Science is already widespread in psychology, which had a strong influence on my attitude. In business administration, open science tools are still used very cautiously. When I moved to Leuphana, I realised that the Open Science movement offers various advantages. At Leuphana, I was shown how naturally open exchange can work. That brought me to the Open Science movement.

Another crucial question for me was why materials such as scales and data are not made openly accessible from the outset when scientific papers are published. It was surprising for me to read a paper in which the study design is described, but it is not fully comprehensible because information is not available in the paper. I often wondered why, for example, scales are not available as an appendix in every article or why stimulus materials are not made publicly available to ensure the replicability of the research.

Have you noticed that open data sharing has changed anything for you?

MS: Yes, definitely. More and more researchers are sharing their data, which makes it easier to exchange information. One concrete example is the “liking gap”. The Liking Gap describes a phenomenon in which others like you more than you think: my students and I wanted to replicate the phenomenon in a course and were able to do so easily thanks to the open data from the original study. We were able to go through the data and materials in the seminar and understand exactly how the study was designed and conducted. This is a great advantage that you often don’t have with pure paper descriptions.

Collaboration with co-authors has also become easier. Pre-registration in particular helps because the hypotheses and variables are dealt with intensively right from the start. This makes the research more planned and well thought-out, instead of only talking about the results afterwards. This makes the entire research process more structured and transparent.

In other words, it’s not just about a pre-structured way of working when you’re working on a topic all by yourself, but also about an improved research design through the exchange with co-authors? That would be a real leap in quality.

MS: Exactly. By exchanging ideas, there are simply more eyes on the project, which significantly increases the quality. You don’t work alone in a quiet little room, but discuss issues and designs in the team at an early stage. This gives you valuable feedback, such as: “Why don’t we do it differently?” or “Have you ever considered this method?” This makes the entire process before data collection much more intensive and well thought out.

You share your data with OSF. What is the advantage for your community and your co-authors? When you work together on a project, they have access to the shared data anyway.

MS: That’s true, but we often work on different projects in parallel. By sharing platforms such as OSF, everyone still has an insight into previous designs and methods. For example, I can say: “Your approach from another project is a good fit for our current topic – can we adopt it?” This makes it easier to exchange ideas and utilise synergies.

So the open way of working also promotes social bonding with the co-authors and the network?

MS: Exactly. You become aware of how useful it is to share data and methods and quickly realise that it is not a hurdle. When you see that others are doing it and have positive experiences with it, you become more willing to work more openly yourself.

Do you also carry out replication studies yourself to familiarise yourself with new methods or to delve deeper into specific issues?

MS: Firstly, I discussed and conducted a replication study with students in the seminar. We looked at a study from the 2000s that was not available in open access at the time. We tried to reproduce and replicate the experiment. Unfortunately, we were unable to replicate the results. However, this was exciting because we were able to discuss what the reasons were: Where did we deviate from the original study? Were we missing relevant information for the implementation? This was absolutely useful for teaching purposes. I have recently published another replication in an open access article in Frontiers. The original study investigated whether people have a higher intention to buy products that cover or “restore” the face, such as sunglasses or moisturisers, after remembering embarrassing situations. I was able to replicate this effect. Overall, replications are very useful to check the validity of the results or to deepen one’s understanding of the methodology.

Do you also publish these replications? There are now special journals for this.

MS: Yes, this is important because replications are increasingly recognised and valued. We need such opportunities to test the robustness of research results and ensure the quality of science.

I know stories where researchers have tried to replicate something and realised that it doesn’t work. This then led to a constructive dialogue with the first authors because both sides were interested in the same topic. It even happened that we met in person to discuss the study together. That’s exciting for both sides, isn’t it?

MS: Yes, absolutely. A good example of this is Daniel Kahnemann, who coined the concept of “adversarial collaboration”. He discovered that people’s sense of happiness hardly increases from an income of around 75,000 US dollars – diminishing marginal utility. However, another study showed a linear relationship between income and happiness. Kahnemann suggested checking the results together with a third person. In the end, it turned out that both studies were correct – but under certain conditions: People who are already happy become even happier with more money. For less happy people, on the other hand, a higher income has less of an impact. This shows how fruitful such collaborations can be when seemingly contradictory results are analysed together and put into context.

Super exciting! You have already won various teaching awards. What role do open educational resources play in this? Do you use materials from others and do you also provide your own content?

MS: Yes, my teaching materials are available to all colleagues. We regularly exchange ideas and think together about how we can optimise the content. For example, I have developed a workbook that guides students through the entire research process – from setting up research papers to developing hypotheses and analysing the results. Other lecturers can also use these materials. I also use resources from the Leuphana Labs, which I co-manage, and integrate them into my courses. In my research-related seminars, students work on experiments themselves. I go through the workbook with them and discuss the topic of open science, for example. We discuss what preregistration is, what advantages it offers and what concerns there might be. At the end, the students write a preregistration themselves, which helps them to better understand the entire process and approach their research in a structured way. In this way, they realise that the pre-registration can be a kind of “recipe book” for scientific work.

You share your workbooks at Leuphana or with others on request. What do you take away from it? Do you get feedback or is it just a simple “thank you”?

MS: Initially, I didn’t get much feedback when I created and shared the workbook about three years ago. But now I regularly get feedback. For example, a colleague adapted my workbook for a workshop and sent me back her modified version. This allowed me to see what she thought was particularly important and where she had placed additional emphasis. Other colleagues have pointed out new papers to me or given me suggestions on how I can explain certain topics better. The workbook has grown and developed over time. I now use it as part of a “flipped classroom” approach: students work on the workbook at home and we discuss the results and open questions in the seminar. This is much more interactive than a frontal presentation of the content. The idea for this came about during my participation in the teaching certificate programme at Leuphana.

Science communication also plays a role for you in addressing interested parties outside the academic world. Do you get any interesting feedback?

MS: Yes, for example, I give talks at schools, conferences or take part in panel discussions. For example, I gave a presentation on happiness research at a company – based on my “Psychology of Happiness” seminar. In this seminar, but also in the lecture, we discuss what happiness is, which factors influence happiness and how this can be utilised in everyday working life. After a company presentation, I was asked specifically: “What does this mean for us here? What can we implement?” This inspired me to take up the topic with the students. Feedback like this also helps me to make my research more practical.

I would of course be interested in your approach to happiness research in connection with open science. Many people see open science as a way to encourage more collaboration, exchange and opening up to new collaborations – be it with colleagues, co-authors or even companies like McKinsey. Looking at the topic of happiness: What could a department or organisation do to ensure that open science not only makes sense from an altruistic perspective, but also promotes personal happiness?

MS: Good question. Self-Determination Theory identifies three key factors that contribute to happiness: social connectedness, autonomy and competence. Open Science can positively influence all of these areas. Firstly, open science can satisfy the need for social connections because you can make new contacts or deepen existing relationships through open exchange. Secondly, the feeling of autonomy can be experienced. You have the opportunity to actively contribute to science without coercion and in a self-determined way and to create transparency. Thirdly, Open Science allows you to experience competence. Your own actions have a visible impact – you make materials available, enable replication and set standards. Through open exchange, you can receive direct feedback and continuously learn from others. All of this contributes not only to increasing scientific quality, but also to experiencing personal happiness because you know that your actions really make a difference.

So a kind of self-efficacy?

MS: Exactly. Another important point is that you practise Open Science out of your own conviction. If it is perceived as a compulsion, you quickly lose motivation and enjoyment. This is also a result of happiness research. Decisions should not be made under duress, but voluntarily. The decision to pursue open science should be voluntary because you recognise the added value and have the feeling that you are making a positive contribution – not because it is expected. To summarise, social relationships, autonomy, competence and the freedom of choice are key factors in achieving satisfaction through Open Science.

Yes, what immediately comes to mind in this context is that many funding organisations are actively promoting open science. It is particularly strongly promoted in EU-funded projects. National funding organisations such as the DFG or the BMBF expect researchers to share their results, including data, openly – not as strictly, but it is clear that there is a certain amount of pressure here. In my view, however, it should not go so far that the voluntary aspect is completely lost. If third-party funders or the university management exert too much influence, a feeling of coercion can easily arise. You can of course say: “We support this, it fits in with our culture of collaboration and sharing.” But ultimately, the decision of what to share openly and when should be left to each individual.

MS: Exactly, that would be the ideal situation. If there is a culture in which several people participate voluntarily, the impression arises over time: “I could do that too. Why not?” The idea then takes root organically. However, as soon as a compulsion arises and it is said, “Everyone is doing it now”, resistance often arises. In such cases, the impression is created that you are doing it because it is demanded and not out of conviction. This leads to those involved being less satisfied with the result and losing motivation.

Yes, exactly. There is now also the term “open washing”, analogous to “greenwashing”. But let’s move on to the last question: open science in the field of business administration – what advice would you give to other business administration academics? How can the topics of open science, replicability and transparency be more firmly anchored in business administration? In your opinion, what would be good strategies for advancing these topics, especially from the perspective of an expert in nudging?

MS: I think it is important to address these issues in a positive way and to emphasise the need for replicability of research results.

In business studies, I hardly see any disadvantages of open science. Of course, there is a risk that your own errors will be discovered more easily if you share your data. But that’s not a problem as long as the errors are not deliberate. Errors are a natural part of the scientific process, and peer review procedures should do exactly that: identify errors and improve research. I also see no problem in admitting mistakes in previously published work – be it a wrong source or something else. Working together with the same data sets can strengthen the corrective and lead to a culture in which errors are seen as a learning opportunity and not as a flaw.

I believe that the overall tolerance for mistakes needs to be strengthened here. It should be okay to make mistakes as long as you deal with them openly. Ultimately, open science offers the opportunity for collaboration and creates transparency. Young scientists in particular are very open here – many of my students don’t understand why this practice wasn’t established 20 years ago. With the younger generation, you’re basically knocking down open doors.

Thank you very much!

The interview was conducted on 20 September 2024 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.

About Dr Meikel Soliman:

Meikel Soliman is a Postdoctoral Researcher and Lab Manager of the “Leuphana Laboratories” at the Faculty of Management & Technology at Leuphana University. His research focuses on consumer behaviour, the emotion of embarrassment and consumer ethics. He also explores the question of what people associate with the term happiness and what behaviour really makes people happy (vs. what people think makes them happy).

Contact: https://www.leuphana.de/universitaet/personen/meikel-soliman.html

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/meikel-soliman

OSF: https://osf.io/4vg2x/

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Meikel-Soliman