REGISTRATION NOW CLOSED

Registration deadline: 1 June 2016

Download PDFs:

• Poster: WRDTC Workshop - 1 - Poster (PDF , 698kb)
• Abstracts: WRDTC Workshop - 2 - Abstracts (PDF , 923kb)
• Schedule: WRDTC Workshop - 3 - Schedule (PDF , 478kb)

Student facilitators:

• Leeds: Sara Benduhaish, PhD student

• Sheffield: Jarek Jozefowski PhD student

• York: Stefano Coretta, MA student

           James Tompkinson, PhD student

‌Suggested reading:

Some recommended reading is below, should you wish to prepare, however this is not mandatory.

Talk 1 (Márton Sóskuthy):

Prioritise the top three:

• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
  link: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.full
• Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359–1366. 
  link: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/11/1359.full.pdf
• Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in psychology, 6.
  link: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621/full
• Liberman, M. (2012). The QWERTY effect. Retrieved from http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3829 on 5 May 2016.
  link: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3829
• Bennett, C. M., Miller, M. B., & Wolford, G. L. (2009). Neural correlates of interspecies perspective taking in the post-mortem Atlantic Salmon: An argument for multiple comparisons correction. Neuroimage, 47(Suppl 1), S125.
  link: http://prefrontal.org/files/posters/Bennett-Salmon-2009.pdf
• Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2013). The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Department of Statistics, Columbia University.
  link: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf
• Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2(8), e124.

  link: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Talk 2 (Cecile De Cat):

• Schütze, C. & Sprouse, J. (2013). Judgment data. In R. J. Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.

• Sprouse, J., Schütze, C. T. & Almeida, D. (2013). A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001-2010. Lingua, 134(0), 219-248.

 Talk 3 (Dagmar Divjak):

• www.academia.edu/20372387/Four_challenges_for_usage-based_linguistics
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12335/abstract