Pownall Madeleine, Talbot Catherine V, Kilby Laura, Branney Peter
School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
School of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2023 Oct;62(4):1581-1589. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12628. Epub 2023 Jan 31.
In recent years, there has been a focus in social psychology on efforts to improve the robustness, rigour, transparency and openness of psychological research. This has led to a plethora of new tools, practices and initiatives that each aim to combat questionable research practices and improve the credibility of social psychological scholarship. However, the majority of these efforts derive from quantitative, deductive, hypothesis-testing methodologies, and there has been a notable lack of in-depth exploration about what the tools, practices and values may mean for research that uses qualitative methodologies. Here, we introduce a Special Section of BJSP: Open Science, Qualitative Methods and Social Psychology: Possibilities and Tensions. The authors critically discuss a range of issues, including authorship, data sharing and broader research practices. Taken together, these papers urge the discipline to carefully consider the ontological, epistemological and methodological underpinnings of efforts to improve psychological science, and advocate for a critical appreciation of how mainstream open science discourse may (or may not) be compatible with the goals of qualitative research.
近年来,社会心理学聚焦于努力提高心理学研究的稳健性、严谨性、透明度和开放性。这催生了大量新工具、新实践和新倡议,它们各自旨在对抗有问题的研究行为,并提高社会心理学学术研究的可信度。然而,这些努力大多源自定量、演绎、假设检验的方法论,对于这些工具、实践和价值观对采用定性方法论的研究可能意味着什么,明显缺乏深入探讨。在此,我们介绍《英国社会心理学杂志》的一个特刊:开放科学、定性方法与社会心理学:可能性与张力。作者们批判性地讨论了一系列问题,包括作者身份、数据共享及更广泛的研究实践。总体而言,这些论文敦促该学科认真思考改进心理科学努力的本体论、认识论和方法论基础,并主张审慎评估主流开放科学话语与定性研究目标可能(或不可能)兼容的程度。