I see a lot of ongoing debate, and some snark, about people pivoting into #COVIDー19 related research, particularly in #psychology. As the PI of a lab working on one of these projects, here is a thread on my thoughts:
First off, I totally get the snark. Academics are like baby ducklings. Someone gets a Nobel Prize or a Nature paper on something, a year later there are 300 new projects on that topic. VSS last year was Deep Learn All the Things. No doubt that we love a good bandwagon.
When I first started seeing psychology papers rolling out, my first reaction was a) mild jealousy at being so incredibly productive at a time when my brain was in complete failure mode and b) mild ire at what seemed, at first, a bit opportunistic.
As @PsychScientists tweeted a week or two ago (what is time now anyway??) many of us had the similar instinct, feeling like we should shout at people posting anything non-Covid related. Read the room! This is serious! I felt this way too at first.
But, after the initial total panic subsided, I actually realized I found 99% of non-covid related tweets super helpful. Got a funny joke? Great! A new paper? Super! It signals that life goes on. And we all need that right now.
But what about the COVID-19 papers? Especially the psychology ones, i.e. not virology or medical in nature? I can't speak to others intentions, but here are ours:
We went through what can only be described as total paralysis in the first 10 or so days of being shut down. Our lab was mid-stream in preparing for a huge study, which has been the focus of our entire first year. What the heck do we do now?
We had a few zoom meetings about it. Everyone was a bit anxious. We had a lot of work already on this. But none of us could really focus on these tasks, when we have no idea if we will even be able to collect more lab data this year, yet alone this summer.
So for a while, we just kind of did our own things. No one could really work on anything. I supported that, and still do. Some of our trainees have small kids at home. Well-being is number 1, the lab knows that. But some of us also felt a lot of anxiety from NOT working.
That's who we are. We love science (not the admin). I initially played videogames until my eyes bled for about 4 days. But then I needed - we needed - something to sink our teeth into.
At that point we all started brainstorming. We could maybe distribute some tasks to people to run at home. We will still do that. But we needed something immediate, something that could take our minds off the insane shit-storm swirling around us. Something easy.
We started talking. What could our lab do? Well, we study mood, emotion, and bodily experience (interoception). Usually in a lab with physiological and cognitive measures. But these things, at least according to our collective introspection, all seemed in total chaos.
Finally, an idea crystallized. We could rapidly launch a self-report experience sampling study, very low-tech, measuring mood, anxiety, self-isolation, and interoceptive experiences. This is something we know how to do.
As soon as we had that collective goal, the change was clear. We were all energized, excited to work. I have been working quite intensively on it. I enjoy it. Every moment I am working on an interoception survey, is a moment I am not reading the news freaking out.
All of us have said the same thing: It feels really good to feel like we are doing something. We have no illusions. Our research will NOT save a life, at least not directly. It probably won't dramatically revise our understanding of anything.
What it IS doing, is giving my team something we can be positive about, something exciting about the future. It is giving us a feeling like we are back in control over our workflow, and our role in this pandemic.
And maybe, we hope, the data might help someone out there better understand how our psychology changes in the course of what can only be described as a completely unprecedented global event. Maybe it won't. No harm done, our students at least will have data for their projects.
So, that is why we are doing it. What about the criticisms?
One criticism I see is that this is pure opportunism. We are just following the trend, hoping to get a paper out of a hot topic. I can't speak for others, but none of us care about this at all. Yes, we will write up our findings. But we will also publish the data immediately.
We hope that it can inform others, and maybe shed some tiny light on what people are feeling. It might help us better understand the impact of self-isolation on mood and interoception. That seems worth doing to me.
Another one is: well this will all be shoddy, rushed work. I get that concern too. By nature, yes, we are working fast to try and capture this event while it occurs. For us, that is part of the fun of it. It makes it like a game, to move quickly and get something done.
And as others have said, you should absolutely think three times. If you are going to try this, go with what you know best. We are rapidly vetting our protocol with multiple experts. We intend to use stringent alpha criterion, p < 0.01- p < 0.005. We are preregistering.
And, crucially, we will share all data, code, and materials openly. Will we make some mistakes? Definitely. Will our design have some confounds - absolutely. I don't know of any country on earth where we can find a control group. That's why we're doing repeated measures.
Ultimately, I know everyone is entitled to their opinions. But from my perspective, this is good leadership. I'm listening to the needs of my team, and finding a fun project we can all work on to blow off steam and feel like we contribute. I encourage everyone to do the same.
Addendum: Ultimately life goes on. For us, being able to sink our teeth into something is cathartic. For others, it may not be best. I am in close contact with my team, and you should be too. This is a mental and physical health crisis. Help each other out. /fin
