Collaborate with PRI

We are open to a range of collaborations, provided they involve genuine inquiry, intellectual rigor, and a willingness to engage with PRM as a testable framework rather than a fixed doctrine.

Broadly, collaboration may include:

• Research collaboration: partnering on empirical studies, experimental designs, validation work, or secondary analyses that test PRM’s predictions or challenge its assumptions.
• Clinical or applied pilots: exploring how a regulation-based diagnostic lens performs in therapeutic, educational, organisational, or coaching contexts, without requiring changes to existing modalities.
• Theoretical critique and development: engaging critically with the model’s assumptions, structure, boundary conditions, or relationship to existing theories, including adversarial or sceptical collaboration.
• Institutional or systems-level exploration: examining how PRM may inform policy, program design, education, or large-scale intervention frameworks.
• Methodological collaboration: contributing expertise in measurement, modelling, psychometrics, statistics, or experimental design relevant to regulatory processes.

Collaboration does not require endorsement, prior agreement, or public alignment. PRM is being developed as an open, evolving framework, and informed disagreement is considered a valuable contribution rather than a barrier. The common requirement across all collaborations is a shared commitment to clarity, falsifiability, and intellectual honesty.

If you have a specific context or idea in mind, even at a very early stage, outlining that is sufficient to begin the conversation.

No. Agreement is not required, and scepticism is explicitly welcome.

PRM is being developed as a testable, evolving framework rather than a settled doctrine. Collaboration is framed around inquiry, evaluation, and stress-testing—not endorsement. Informed disagreement, critical analysis, and adversarial collaboration are considered legitimate and valuable contributions to the model’s development.

What is required is a willingness to engage with PRM on its own terms: to understand its claims clearly, to challenge them precisely, and to evaluate them using rigorous theoretical or empirical standards. Critique aimed at clarification, falsification, or refinement is encouraged; dismissal without engagement is not a productive basis for collaboration.

In short, collaborators do not need to believe PRM is correct. They need to be willing to help determine whether, where, and under what conditions it is.

PRM is an active research programme, not a finished or closed theory.

The core regulatory framework is sufficiently developed to generate clear hypotheses, guide empirical testing, and support applied exploration. At the same time, many aspects of the model—boundary conditions, measurement strategies, formalisation, and domain-specific applications—are deliberately treated as provisional and open to refinement.

This means PRM currently occupies a middle ground: it is structured enough to be testable, but flexible enough to evolve in response to evidence, critique, and real-world application. Collaboration is therefore oriented toward validation, falsification, extension, and clarification rather than post-hoc justification of a fixed position.

In practical terms, collaborators should expect to engage with a framework that has a coherent internal logic and explicit claims, while also contributing to decisions about what holds, what fails, and what needs revision as the programme develops.

Yes. Academic research collaboration is a core priority.

We are actively interested in working with researchers who want to test, critique, or extend PRM through rigorous empirical work. This includes hypothesis-driven studies, experimental designs, psychometric development, secondary data analysis, modelling work, and theory-focused papers that situate PRM within the broader psychological and behavioural sciences.

Collaboration is not limited to any single methodology or tradition. Quantitative, qualitative, computational, mixed-methods, and theoretically oriented approaches are all appropriate, provided they are used rigorously and transparently. Researchers do not need to adopt PRM as a preferred framework; critical testing, adversarial collaboration, and attempts to falsify specific claims are explicitly encouraged.

We are open to collaboration with established academics, early-career researchers, doctoral candidates, and research groups, including cross-institutional or interdisciplinary teams. Where appropriate, collaborations may involve co-authorship, shared study design, or independent testing of PRM-derived predictions.

The aim is not to defend PRM, but to determine where it holds, where it fails, and what it meaningfully adds to existing theory.

Yes. Carefully designed clinical and applied pilot studies are a key part of how PRM is being evaluated and refined.

We are interested in pilots that explore how a regulation-based diagnostic lens performs in real-world settings, including clinical practice, education, organisational contexts, coaching, or other applied environments. These pilots do not require replacing existing models or modalities. PRM is intended to function as a lens for understanding and selecting interventions, not as a prescriptive therapy in its own right.

Applied collaboration may involve using PRM to:

• inform case formulation or diagnostic reasoning,
• compare regulatory interpretations with standard symptom-based formulations,
• examine decision-making, engagement, or dropout patterns,
• test whether PRM-guided framing improves clarity, alliance, or outcome prediction.

Pilots can be exploratory, small-scale, or methodologically pragmatic, provided their limits are acknowledged and learning is fed back into theory development. We are particularly interested in settings where existing frameworks feel insufficient, fragmented, or poorly matched to client experience.

Clinical or applied collaboration does not require prior endorsement of PRM. The goal is to learn how the framework behaves under real constraints, where it adds value, and where it does not.

Yes. Sceptical and critical collaboration is explicitly welcomed.

PRM is being developed as a falsifiable, testable framework, and informed criticism is essential to that process. Collaboration is not framed around agreement or advocacy, but around clear articulation of claims, rigorous challenge, and honest evaluation of where the model succeeds or fails.

We are particularly interested in collaborators who can:

• identify weak points, ambiguities, or unsupported assumptions,
• test specific claims under adversarial or high-standard conditions,
• compare PRM’s explanatory power against existing models,
• help clarify boundary conditions and failure cases.

The only requirement is good-faith engagement. Critique is most valuable when it is precise, grounded, and aimed at understanding or testing the framework rather than dismissing it without examination.

In short, you do not need to support PRM to collaborate. You need to be willing to help determine whether it works, where it breaks, and what survives serious scrutiny.

Yes. Contributions are credited transparently and in line with standard academic and professional norms.

Authorship, acknowledgement, or attribution is determined by the nature and extent of contribution, following established guidelines (e.g., substantive involvement in study design, analysis, theory development, or writing). Where collaboration leads to publications, co-authorship is expected when criteria are met; where contributions are more limited or advisory, appropriate acknowledgement is provided.

For applied pilots or non-academic outputs, crediting is handled clearly and by prior agreement, with options ranging from public attribution to confidential or deferred association if needed. No contributor will be presented as endorsing PRM by default; credit reflects contribution, not alignment.

These expectations are discussed upfront so roles, credit, and boundaries are clear before work begins.

Yes. We actively welcome collaboration with institutions and organisations, not only individual collaborators.

This includes universities, research centres, clinics, schools, healthcare providers, non-profits, and other organisations interested in research partnerships, applied pilots, or structured evaluation of PRM in real-world contexts. Institutional collaboration can support work at a scale or level of rigour that is not always possible for individuals acting alone.

Organisational collaborations may involve:

• hosting or co-designing research or pilot studies,
• providing access to populations, settings, or datasets,
• supporting interdisciplinary or cross-departmental evaluation,
• exploring system-level implications of regulation-based frameworks.

As with individual collaboration, institutional involvement does not imply endorsement. Participation can be exploratory, time-limited, or evaluative, with scope, governance, attribution, and data handling agreed in advance.

The emphasis is on mutual clarity, ethical practice, and rigorous inquiry, regardless of the size or form of the collaborating body.

No. There is no geographic requirement for collaboration.

PRM collaboration is not location-bound. Many forms of collaboration—such as theoretical work, study design, data analysis, writing, critique, and remote research coordination—can be conducted entirely online. We actively welcome international collaborators and cross-jurisdictional partnerships.

For applied pilots or in-person research, geography may shape what is practically feasible (e.g. access to participants, regulatory approvals, ethics processes), but it is not a prerequisite for engagement. In such cases, collaborations are structured around local context, with roles and expectations adapted accordingly.

In short, collaboration is organised around fit, rigour, and shared inquiry, not physical location.

Yes. Testing and challenging specific PRM claims is a central aim of collaboration.

PRM is structured to generate explicit, inspectable claims about regulation, prediction, motivation, affect, and behaviour. Many of these claims are intentionally framed so they can be isolated, operationalised, and tested independently of the broader framework. Collaborators are encouraged to focus on specific mechanisms, assumptions, or predictions rather than treating PRM as an all-or-nothing proposition.

This may include:

• empirically testing discrete predictions derived from PRM,
• designing studies that pit PRM explanations against alternative models,
• identifying boundary conditions where PRM fails or loses explanatory power,
• stress-testing assumptions about regulation, demand–capacity balance, or temporal projection,
• examining whether PRM adds explanatory or practical value beyond existing frameworks.

Such work can be supportive, neutral, or adversarial in intent. Attempts to falsify claims are considered as valuable as attempts to confirm them, provided the engagement is rigorous and well-specified.

In short, collaboration is not limited to applying PRM as a whole. Focused challenge of individual claims is not only permitted but actively encouraged.

Collaboration directly informs the ongoing refinement, constraint, and evolution of PRM.

PRM is treated as an active research programme in which theoretical structure, empirical findings, and applied experience are expected to iteratively shape one another. Insights from collaboration—whether supportive, neutral, or critical—are used to clarify claims, revise assumptions, identify boundary conditions, and prioritise areas for further testing.

Specifically, collaboration may feed back into PRM by:

• sharpening or revising theoretical definitions and mechanisms,
• informing which claims are retained, modified, or abandoned,
• highlighting mismatches between theoretical predictions and real-world behaviour,
• identifying domains where PRM adds explanatory value versus where it does not,
• generating new, more precise hypotheses for empirical testing,
• revealing implementation constraints that matter for applied use but are invisible at a purely theoretical level.

Critical findings and failures are not treated as problems to be hidden, but as data that improve the model’s coherence and falsifiability. Where appropriate, substantive contributions are reflected in future papers, revisions, predictions, or documented limitations.

In this sense, collaboration is not peripheral to PRM’s development. It is one of the primary mechanisms by which the framework is stress-tested, disciplined, and made more robust over time.