Psychology of Science: Research and Policy Projects at Eindhoven University of Technology

Psychology of Science: Research and Policy Projects at Eindhoven University of Technology academic evaluation processes. While distinct in scope and method, all three lines of work are grounded in the (re-)emerging field of the psychology of science. Across them, we adopt a social sustainability lens - understanding academic environments not only as sites of knowledge production but also as social ecosystems in which long-term wellbeing, fairness, and inclusion are essential to lasting change. These projects aim to bridge the gap between academic research and institutional policymaking by translating psychological observations into actionable insights. INTRODUCTIONThis poster highlights the three interrelated lines of inquiry that together reflect a psychological approach to the study of science. First, we examine how PhD candidates experience their academic environments, particularly in relation to career decision-making and identity formation. Second, we explore academic research values as psychological concepts that shape researchers’ behaviors, attitudes, and goals. Third, we investigate how psychological insights can inform policy on researcher assessment, with a focus on the dynamics of THREE LINES OF STUDY DEFINITIONThe psychology of science, a sub-discipline of metascience, is the study of scientific thought and behavior. It examines how cognitive, emotional, and social factors influence researchers and their work. It plays a vital role in improving the scientific enterprise by addressing challenges such as bias in research and scientific misconduct as well as the mental health and wellbeing of researchers, recognizing their importance for sustainable scientific practice. By analyzing the interplay between researchers and their academic environments, psychologists can also contribute to broader discussions on social sustainability in academia. RESEARCH AND POLICY PROJECTS PSYCHOLOGY OF SCIENCE We investigated PhD candidates’ perceptions about their research environment at TU/e and assessed whether their perceptions are related to their career considerations. Using an online survey tool, we gathered self-report data and conducted descriptive and within-subject correlation analysis of the results. While most PhDs experience fair evaluation, openness, integrity, trust, and freedom, many report lack of time and support, insufficient supervision, and witness questionable research practices (QRPs). Spearman correlations indicate that those working in less healthy environments, more often consider leaving academia as well as their PhD. These findings highlight how individual career decisions are shaped by broader structural and cultural conditions in academia. Understanding and addressing these conditions is essential for creating socially sustainable research environments where integrity, inclusion, and wellbeing are actively supported - not just expected. This line of inquiry investigates academic research values as psychological constructs that influence researchers’ goals, decisions, and interactions. Building on social psychological theories as well as the outcomes of surveys, interviews, and expert evaluations, we explored values in academia: as guiding principles, sources of motivation, and points of tension. While values are implicitly invoked in discussions about academic quality, they are rarely discussed in meaningful ways. By using them as practical lens for policy, we support socially sustainable research environments - ones that are better equipped to deal with complexity, disagreement, and change. Value conflicts connect directly to researcher assessment and careers as underlying reasons to stay in or leave academia. Discussions about them contributes to community-building efforts, by providing language and structure for collective reflection on what academic work is - or could be - about. committees to support more consistent, transparent, and forward-looking evaluations. To ground this work institutionally, we are setting up a Responsible Research Community (RRC/e) at TU/e - an interdisciplinary forum where academic and professional staff, committee members, and other decision makers can openly discuss challenges and opportunities related to research culture and academic progression. Ultimately, this project addresses the deeper question of what kinds of contributions we want to recognize in science, and how values-based assessment practices can help retain diverse talent and strengthen the long-term sustainability of academic work. This project investigates how researcher assessment processes shape academic careers, with a focus on making recognition and rewards practices more aligned with academic best practices (including but not limited to OS, good supervision, exemplary leadership, and good academic citizenship in general). Drawing on observational and interview studies, alongside psychological theory, we examine how current assessment practices function in context - what is made visible, what is valued, and how this influences researchers' careers and sense of belonging in academia. We are developing a curated database of best academic practices and indicators, as well as piloting an intervention for promotion assessment LEAVING ACADEMIA PhD attrition and unhealthy research environments ACADEMIC RESEARCH VALUES The values that shape research environments RECOGNITION AND REWARDS Fostering sustainable academic career practices through policy Responsible Research Community RRC/e PhD attrition up to 60% ~10% in 4 years ~60 months average Leaving academia Academic career assessment and progress > > > > > > > > > > > > PhD completion PhD start Leaky pipeline: Bad conditions, Supervision challenges, Value mismatch > > > Leaky pipeline: Bad conditions, Lack of positions, Value mismatch, Unfair assessment Limited supervision / leadership training and assessment Mandatory PhD supervision PhD system unchanged Precarious work conditions Increased risk of exploitation Fragile, uncertain supervision system Lack of time and other resources Norm: Overworked, Un(der)paid, Un(der)valued + Unrecognized outputs Lack of “ideal” values: Trust, Integrity, Responsible research TU/e contributors: Andrea Kis | Daniel Lakens | Julma Braat Krist Vaesen | Kristina Korshunova | Lisa Idebolo | Wybo Houkes [email protected] | andreakis.com | LinkedIn: /kisandrea. Licence: CC BY-NC-ND RRC/e Responsible Research Community Eindhoven