A few years ago, I was completely dismissive of qualitative research. I didn’t think it could tell us much and didn’t value qualitative work or findings. However, I’ve experienced a full 180 degree spin on my stance. I now appreciate qualitative work and the insights it brings. Inspired by Hans IJzerman’s tweet thread, I’ve collected various open qualitative research resources and ideas. It might not be as clear how qualitative research can benefit from open science practices, but I think making this kind of research more open is a worthwhile endeavour. If you have any suggestions, please let me know and I will add them!
Huang (2016): R Qualitative Data Analysis (RQDA), a simple and intuitive R package which allows you to create codes and thematically analyse pieces of text.
Chandra & Liang (2016) is an example of thematic analysis using this package.
Peters & Zorgo (2019): Reproducible Open Coding Kit (ROCK), an R package for thematic analysis.
Branney, Woolhouse & Reid (2017): guidance as to how researchers can gain informed consent from participants so qualitative data can be shared ethically.
Branney, Reid, Frost, Coan, Mathieson & Woolhouse (2019): a framework for helping design open qualitative research.
Aguinis & Solarino (2019): 12 transparency criteria for evaluating the openness of qualitative data papers.
Reyes (2017): an analysis of models for making different parts of ethnographic data open.
Lester & Anders (2018): an example of transparently sharing qualitative data.
Haven & Grootel (2019): on the importance of how to preregister qualitative research and suggestions for changes to the Open Science Framework preregistration page to cater for such work.
Hartman, Kern & Mellor (2018): a template for preregistering qualitative research.
Kern & Gleditsch (2017): the pros and cons of preregistering qualitative work and a preregistration template.
Haven, Errington, van Grootel, Jacobs, Florian, Kern, Piñeiro, Rosenblatt, Mokkink (2020)1: A Delphi study to identify the most important features of a preregistration for qualitative research.
Checklists for quality standards
Tong, Sainsbury & Craig (2007): a checklist for highlighting important aspects of a study, many of which fall under the banner of open qualitative science.
Levitt, Bamberg, Creswell, Frost, Josselson & Suárez-Orozco (2018): standards for qualitative research which can both guide design and review such research for openness.
Aguinis, H., & Solarino, A. M. (2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1291–1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015
Branney, P., Reid, K., Frost, N., Coan, S., Mathieson, A., & Woolhouse, M. (2019). A context-consent meta-framework for designing open (qualitative) data studies. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(3), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1605477
Branney, P., Woolhouse, M., & Reid, K. (2017). The ‘innocent collection of details’ and journal requests to make qualitative datasets public post-consent: Open access data, potential author response and thoughts for future studies. QMiP Bulletin, 23, 19–23. https://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/publication-by-series/qualitative-methods-in-psychology-bulletin/qmip-bulletin-issue-23-spring-2017.html
Chandra, Y., & Liang, S. (2016). An RQDA-Based Constructivist Methodology for Qualitative Research (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2875944). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2875944
Hartman, A., Kern, F., & Mellor, D. (2018). Preregistration for Qualitative Research Template. https://osf.io/j7ghv/#!
Huang, R. (2016). RQDA (0.2-8) [Computer software]. http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/
Kern, F., & Gleditsch, K. (2017). Exploring Pre-registration and Pre-analysis Plans for Qualitative Inference. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14428.69769
Haven, T. L., & Grootel, D. L. V. (2019). Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147
Lester, J., & Anders, A. (2018). Engaging Ethics in Postcritical Ethnography: Troubling Transparency, Trustworthiness, and Advocacy. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 19, Art. 4. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (20180118). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
Reyes, V. (2017). Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: Naming places, naming people, and sharing data: Ethnography. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138117733754
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
1Thank you Crystal Steltenpohl for alerting me to this.
Leave a Reply