AN OVERVIEW
ADVERSARIAL
COLLABORATION
What is Adversarial Collaboration?
Adversarial collaboration is a scientific approach in which researchers with opposing theories work together to design and conduct experiments in order to resolve differences and build new knowledge. Impartial collaborators can facilitate this process by coordinating the research, ensuring reliable data collection, and moderating disputes. The goal is to foster productive discussions based on robust evidence, thereby accelerating the generation of new knowledge.
This method emphasizes collaboration, transparency, and a commitment to addressing disagreements, even when the researchers reach different conclusions about the results.
Researchers from opposing perspectives collaborate to design experiments that address their points of contention. This ensures the research produced is relevant to the questions at the heart of their debate, with both parties having a vested interest in the outcome.
Jointly Designed Experiments
All parties recognise existing disagreements but commit to collaborating openly towards resolution. This requires regular discussions and an effort towards understanding other perspectives.
A Commitment to Collaborate
Sharing collected data allows other researchers to review the results and conduct their own analyses. Openness promotes transparency and accelerates research.
Open Data Sharing
All participating researchers are, ideally, listed as co-authors on resulting publications, recognizing their contributions and fostering a spirit of collaboration.
Joint Authorship
Key Features of Adversarial Collaboration
The Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF) developed the Structured Adversarial Collaboration (STAC) process to address challenges and advance consciousness research.
In 2017, TWCF observed that while numerous competing theories existed in consciousness research, resources were too limited to support them all. The field faced a funding dilemma: distributing funds equally risked diluting impact, while prioritizing only a few theories could skew outcomes. Limited funding from other sources worsened the issue, and traditional open grant proposals proved insufficient due to inherent biases and inefficiencies in the application process.
The STAC process aims to accelerate the testing of theories of consciousness by fostering collaboration between researchers. Improving on traditional adversarial collaboration, STAC incorporates a structured process and oversight from a funding agency, standardizing best practices and helping researchers secure resources more effectively.
Why Structured Adversarial Collaboration?
How Does Adversarial Collaboration Work?
Acceleratingresearch.org features five research projects, all making use of the STAC model. While their approaches and methodologies differ, they share the same commitment to collaboration and progress.
The process begins with a workshop where proponents of different theories come together, debate their ideas, and identify key points of disagreement. They then design experiments that will put the conflicting predictions of their theories to the test.
A central element of STAC is preregistration. During preregistration, hypotheses, methods, and analysis plans are specified in advance to ensure transparency and reduce bias. Experts with a broad range of methodologies are ideally involved to mitigate bias and increase the validity of the findings. To enhance objectivity, and if all team members agree, experiments can be conducted by a neutral third party.
All five projects are expected to yield large datasets extracted with sophisticated methodologies. These data will be analysed to test predictions made by each theory leader. While the tests are not designed to prove a theory, each of them carries the potential to challenge at least one of the theories on offer. Such critical evidence advances the field by ruling out explanations that do not hold up against the data. Still, failure to challenge a theory does not necessarily mean that this theory is correct — the experiment may simply not have been designed to expose its weaknesses.
A comprehensive overview of the process and its benefits is available in this preprint on PsyArXiv.
