Read on Twitter
I am tired of conversations about increasing the reproducibility of reflexive qualitative research. Reproducibility & reflexivity are components of different epistemological approaches. Reflexivity requires a genuine appreciation of researcher positionality, subjectivity, & bias.
A fundamental component of many qual methods is an understanding that knowledge is co-created within a specific research context. The information I reveal and communicate creates a context whereby participants feel more or less comfortable honestly sharing their experiences.
My experiences and expectations as a researcher shape the way that the data is collected, analyzed, and presented. You could sit with me, video tape my approach, take meticulous notes, and recreate the environment entirely, and you would still get different results.
And this could be due to something we cannot quantify; it could be the "vibe" you give off. It could be the colour of your skin. It could be in the tone or speed with with you ask your questions. It could be due to what the participants ate for breakfast this morning.
The way we analyze data is similarly influenced by our experiences and expectations. Glaser&Strauss (1959) even encouraged researchers to know virtually nothing about the topics they study so that they are not influenced by theory or hypotheses. We all see importance differently!
If we are legitimately attending to the unique lived experiences of our participants, unless we literally picked the same sample, we will identify different themes and codes. "Objective reality" interacts with the interview setting, which interacts with analytic expectations.
I would be remiss if I did not also note that ALL published qual research is influenced by the politics of publishing. Outside of a preprint, you will never know precisely how the data were analysed or the real findings. Reviewer & editor demands shape the way data is presented.
Open science and replication are important, but insisting on preregistration and open data fundamentally creates an epistemological dogma necessitating and prioritizing positivist research, and further devaluing reflexive, inductive, or arts-based research.
