Read on Twitter
I'm so glad this is now out in the world. It is the product of a lot of painstaking labor from @alan_jacobs1 + Tim Buthe,+ the hope is that it will help advise journal reviewers, editors + readers re standards for transparency, replicability, + data access in qualitative research https://twitter.com/PoPpublicsphere/status/1346818282238726144
The @PoPpublicsphere article is a summary of a 3-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency
Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues ( http://www.qualtd.net/ ).
Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues ( http://www.qualtd.net/ ).
Full versions of the Working Group reports offer practical guidance to scholars designing / implementing qual research, + to those seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed.
Backstory: In 2015, the Data Access + Research
Transparency (DART) initiative + JETS statement was adopted by many polisci journals. While uncontroversial for quantitative scholars, the standards caused concern for those working with sensitive qual data.
Transparency (DART) initiative + JETS statement was adopted by many polisci journals. While uncontroversial for quantitative scholars, the standards caused concern for those working with sensitive qual data.
An excellent 2015 Qual & Multi-Method Research symposium reflected on the benefits of research explicitness, while highlighting the ethical risks and intellectual limits of transparency requirements + esp data-sharing rules for some forms of social inquiry https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2652097
The symposium also reflected on potential chilling effects of such requirements for certain kinds of qual research. 1,100 political scientists called for a delay to the implementation of JETS to allow for consultation over potential implications for protection of human subjects.
We asked when /why is it beneficial for scholars to provide detailed accounts of the methods by which they gathered + analyzed their evidence, what are effective ways of
providing this information? Under what conditions/
how should scholars consider sharing "raw” qual
data?...
providing this information? Under what conditions/
how should scholars consider sharing "raw” qual
data?...
What practical constraints may limit scholars’ ability to share research materials? What implications for research participants? How well or poorly does the concept of “transparency” fit with the epistemological and ontological premises on which diff forms of qual research rest?
There are a wealth of resources in the #QTD archives ( http://www.qualtd.net ) + in the IQMMR symposium: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2652097
We also include many of these resources in the http://www.advancingconflictresearch.org bibliography, which is explicitly for researchers working in conflict contexts and / or on violence: https://advancingconflictresearch.com/resources-1
The @PoPpublicsphere article includes contributions from:
@anamarjona, @Ras_Karya, @elisabethjwood, @STProf,
@jonastallberg, @CarstenQSchneid, @BeattyRiedl, @rahsaanmax, @SheenaGreitens, @se_parkinson,
@Wendy_Pearlman, @DrJSchwedler, @AShesterinina,
@elliotaposner + others
@anamarjona, @Ras_Karya, @elisabethjwood, @STProf,
@jonastallberg, @CarstenQSchneid, @BeattyRiedl, @rahsaanmax, @SheenaGreitens, @se_parkinson,
@Wendy_Pearlman, @DrJSchwedler, @AShesterinina,
@elliotaposner + others
This really amazing thread from @Wendy_Pearlman summarizes more of the process' key take aways: https://twitter.com/Wendy_Pearlman/status/1349732791148134401
