Post
Ryuichi Maruyama
‪@rmaruy.bsky.social‬
These are important observations. It is completely natural and understandable that a big umbrella like "metascience" comes in different "strands." I prefer to consciously include them. That is *not* to say they all have to be represented in a single conference.
Here are some swiftly assembled thoughts on #Metascience2025. Congratulations to the organisers. It was an excellent, full and balanced conference, bringing together many disparate strands. They threaded a complex needle really well.
July 4, 2025 at 7:45 AM
·
Translate
1 repost
2 likes
Inspired (partly) by ‪@jontreadway.bsky.social 's tweet thread, I have come up with a highly subjective and tentative map of different strands in metascience. It is intended as a starter to begin talking about what people (want to) include in metascience.
And this is the "center of gravity" shift as I perceived it between and . Again, this is highly subjective, and of course, completely value-neutral. I just wanted to understand the difference I felt between the two conferences. Both were great.
100% agree with Dr. Nosek that metascience should not become a discipline; back in 2023 it was call a "movement" and this year and others called it a "discourse coalition". All the discourse that wants to gather under this label should do so imo. bsky.app/profile/bria...
One instinct that I keep is a hope that metascience does not become a discipline of its own. Disciplines get too monocultural and self-referential. The most exciting part of metascience is that it feels a bit disorienting because of the diversity in discipline, sectors, assumptions coming together.
Read Wilsdon et al, (2025) "The past, present and future of UK metascience," an annex to the UKRI report ‘A Year in Metascience’. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/685bcd... This is such an up-to-date and rich description of the landscape. Must-read for all attendees.