Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2023 Oct;62(4):1590-1604. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12568. Epub 2022 Aug 11.
The Open Science Movement aims to enhance the soundness, transparency, and accessibility of scientific research, and at the same time increase public trust in science. Currently, Open Science practices are mainly presented as solutions to the 'reproducibility crisis' in hypothetico-deductive quantitative research. Increasing interest has been shown towards exploring how these practices can be adopted by qualitative researchers. In reviewing this emerging body of work, we conclude that the issue of diversity within qualitative research has not been adequately addressed. Furthermore, we find that many of these endeavours start with existing solutions for which they are trying to find matching problems to be solved. We contrast this approach with a natural incorporation of Open Science practices within interaction analysis and its constituent research traditions: conversation analysis, discursive psychology, ethnomethodology, and membership categorisation analysis. Zooming in on the development of conversation analysis starting in the 1960s, we highlight how practices for opening up and sharing data and analytic thinking have been embedded into its methodology. On the basis of this presentation, we propose a series of lessons learned for adopting Open Science practices in qualitative research.
开放科学运动旨在提高科学研究的稳健性、透明度和可及性,同时增强公众对科学的信任。目前,开放科学实践主要被呈现为假设演绎定量研究中“可重复性危机”的解决方案。人们越来越关注探索这些实践如何被定性研究人员采用。在回顾这一新兴研究领域时,我们得出的结论是,定性研究中的多样性问题没有得到充分解决。此外,我们发现,其中许多努力都是从现有的解决方案开始的,他们试图找到要解决的匹配问题。我们将这种方法与在互动分析及其构成研究传统(会话分析、话语心理学、民族方法学和成员分类分析)中自然纳入开放科学实践进行对比。我们聚焦于 20 世纪 60 年代开始发展的会话分析,强调了如何将开放数据和分析思维的实践嵌入到其方法中。基于这一介绍,我们提出了一系列在定性研究中采用开放科学实践的经验教训。