Tsai Alexander C, Kohrt Brandon A, Matthews Lynn T, Betancourt Theresa S, Lee Jooyoung K, Papachristos Andrew V, Weiser Sheri D, Dworkin Shari L
Chester M. Pierce, MD Division of Global Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA; Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Cambridge, USA; Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda.
Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Nov;169:191-198. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.004. Epub 2016 Aug 9.
The movement for research transparency has gained irresistible momentum over the past decade. Although qualitative research is rarely published in the high-impact journals that have adopted, or are most likely to adopt, data sharing policies, qualitative researchers who publish work in these and similar venues will likely encounter questions about data sharing within the next few years. The fundamental ways in which qualitative and quantitative data differ should be considered when assessing the extent to which qualitative and mixed methods researchers should be expected to adhere to data sharing policies developed with quantitative studies in mind. We outline several of the most critical concerns below, while also suggesting possible modifications that may help to reduce the probability of unintended adverse consequences and to ensure that the sharing of qualitative data is consistent with ethical standards in research.
在过去十年中,研究透明度运动已获得不可阻挡的势头。尽管定性研究很少发表在已采用或最有可能采用数据共享政策的高影响力期刊上,但在这些及类似期刊上发表作品的定性研究人员在未来几年可能会遇到有关数据共享的问题。在评估定性和混合方法研究人员应在多大程度上遵守为定量研究制定的数据共享政策时,应考虑定性数据和定量数据的根本差异。我们在下面概述了几个最关键的问题,同时还提出了一些可能的修改建议,这些建议可能有助于降低意外不良后果的可能性,并确保定性数据的共享符合研究中的道德标准。