Affiliation:
1. Dartmouth Center for Program Design and Evaluation
2. University of Massachusetts, Lowell
3. Baylor University
4. East Tennessee State University
5. University of Utah
6. University of Southern Indiana
7. FHI 360
Abstract
Discussions around transparency in open science focus primarily on sharing data, materials, and coding schemes, especially as these practices relate to reproducibility. This fairly quantitative perspective of transparency does not align with all scientific methodologies. Indeed, qualitative researchers also care deeply about how knowledge is produced, what factors influence the research process, and how to share this information. Explicating a researcher’s background and role allows researchers to consider their impact on the research process and interpretation of the data, thereby increasing both transparency and rigor. Researchers may engage in positionality and reflexivity in a variety of ways, and transparently sharing these steps allows readers to draw their own informed conclusions about the results and study as a whole. Imposing a limited, quantitatively-informed set of standards on all research can cause harm to researchers and the communities they work with if researchers are not careful in considering the impact of such standards. Our paper will argue the importance of avoiding strong defaults around transparency (e.g., always share data) and build upon previous work around qualitative open science. We explore how transparency in all aspects of our research can lend itself toward projecting and confirming the rigor of our work.
Subject
General Materials Science
Reference79 articles.
1. Access controls. (2020). https://qdr.syr.edu/guidance/human-participants/access-controls
2. Bennett, C., Fitzpatrick-Harnish, K., & Talbot, B. (2022). Collaborative untangling of positionality, ownership, and answerability as white researchers in indigenous spaces. International Journal of Music Education, 40(4), 628–641.
3. Bennett, E. A. (2021). Open science from a qualitative, feminist perspective: Epistemological dogmas and a call for critical examination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211036460
4. Billups, F. D. (2014). Trustworthiness and the quest for rigor in qualitative research. NERA Researcher, 52, 10–12. https://www.nera-education.org/docs/TNR_Fall_2014_Color_Final.pdf
5. Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献