‘One size doesn't fit all’: Lessons from interaction analysis on tailoring Open Science practices to qualitative research
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 quantit...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of social psychology 2023-10, Vol.62 (4), p.1590-1604 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1604 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1590 |
container_title | British journal of social psychology |
container_volume | 62 |
creator | Huma, Bogdana Joyce, Jack B. |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/bjso.12568 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2702192543</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2873642597</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-de600ffafaf9627d0751f05cccc6c11b59c8fe0318b347d0099d4965d75937403</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1KAzEUhYMoWH82PkHAhSJUk8kkM3EnxT8odKGuhzRzR1OmSc1NBQXBx9DX65OYqivPXdwD9-PC4RBywNkpzzqbzjCc8kKqeoMMClaWw1owvUkGjGevlJLbZAdxxhgXglUD8r76-Jx4oOjegLYB0B8l2rlETd-vPr7O6RgQg0faxTCnzieIxiYXPDXe9K_okGafjOtDdP6RThbg6Z114C3QxQ9rAWkK9HlpepdMci9AIyCYaJ_2yFZneoT9v71LHq4u70c3w_Hk-nZ0MR5aUdRp2IJirOtMHq2KqmWV5B2TNktZzqdS27oDJng9FWU-M63bUivZVlKLqmRilxz__l3E8LwETM3coYW-Nx7CEpuiYgXXhSxFRg__obOwjDlrpupKqLKQusrUyS9lY0CM0DWL6OYmvjacNesmmnUTzU8T4hvbKn7r</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2873642597</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>‘One size doesn't fit all’: Lessons from interaction analysis on tailoring Open Science practices to qualitative research</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Huma, Bogdana ; Joyce, Jack B.</creator><creatorcontrib>Huma, Bogdana ; Joyce, Jack B.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0144-6665</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-8309</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12568</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Leicester: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Access ; Conversation analysis ; Discursive psychology ; Ethnomethodology ; Interaction analysis ; Open access ; Qualitative research ; Quantitative analysis ; Reproducibility ; Science ; Transparency</subject><ispartof>British journal of social psychology, 2023-10, Vol.62 (4), p.1590-1604</ispartof><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-de600ffafaf9627d0751f05cccc6c11b59c8fe0318b347d0099d4965d75937403</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-de600ffafaf9627d0751f05cccc6c11b59c8fe0318b347d0099d4965d75937403</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0482-9580 ; 0000-0001-9499-1471</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999,33774</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huma, Bogdana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joyce, Jack B.</creatorcontrib><title>‘One size doesn't fit all’: Lessons from interaction analysis on tailoring Open Science practices to qualitative research</title><title>British journal of social psychology</title><description>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.</description><subject>Access</subject><subject>Conversation analysis</subject><subject>Discursive psychology</subject><subject>Ethnomethodology</subject><subject>Interaction analysis</subject><subject>Open access</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Quantitative analysis</subject><subject>Reproducibility</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Transparency</subject><issn>0144-6665</issn><issn>2044-8309</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1KAzEUhYMoWH82PkHAhSJUk8kkM3EnxT8odKGuhzRzR1OmSc1NBQXBx9DX65OYqivPXdwD9-PC4RBywNkpzzqbzjCc8kKqeoMMClaWw1owvUkGjGevlJLbZAdxxhgXglUD8r76-Jx4oOjegLYB0B8l2rlETd-vPr7O6RgQg0faxTCnzieIxiYXPDXe9K_okGafjOtDdP6RThbg6Z114C3QxQ9rAWkK9HlpepdMci9AIyCYaJ_2yFZneoT9v71LHq4u70c3w_Hk-nZ0MR5aUdRp2IJirOtMHq2KqmWV5B2TNktZzqdS27oDJng9FWU-M63bUivZVlKLqmRilxz__l3E8LwETM3coYW-Nx7CEpuiYgXXhSxFRg__obOwjDlrpupKqLKQusrUyS9lY0CM0DWL6OYmvjacNesmmnUTzU8T4hvbKn7r</recordid><startdate>20231001</startdate><enddate>20231001</enddate><creator>Huma, Bogdana</creator><creator>Joyce, Jack B.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0482-9580</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231001</creationdate><title>‘One size doesn't fit all’: Lessons from interaction analysis on tailoring Open Science practices to qualitative research</title><author>Huma, Bogdana ; Joyce, Jack B.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c328t-de600ffafaf9627d0751f05cccc6c11b59c8fe0318b347d0099d4965d75937403</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Access</topic><topic>Conversation analysis</topic><topic>Discursive psychology</topic><topic>Ethnomethodology</topic><topic>Interaction analysis</topic><topic>Open access</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Quantitative analysis</topic><topic>Reproducibility</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Transparency</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huma, Bogdana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joyce, Jack B.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>British journal of social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huma, Bogdana</au><au>Joyce, Jack B.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>‘One size doesn't fit all’: Lessons from interaction analysis on tailoring Open Science practices to qualitative research</atitle><jtitle>British journal of social psychology</jtitle><date>2023-10-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1590</spage><epage>1604</epage><pages>1590-1604</pages><issn>0144-6665</issn><eissn>2044-8309</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Leicester</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/bjso.12568</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0482-9580</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0144-6665 |
ispartof | British journal of social psychology, 2023-10, Vol.62 (4), p.1590-1604 |
issn | 0144-6665 2044-8309 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2702192543 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | Access Conversation analysis Discursive psychology Ethnomethodology Interaction analysis Open access Qualitative research Quantitative analysis Reproducibility Science Transparency |
title | ‘One size doesn't fit all’: Lessons from interaction analysis on tailoring Open Science practices to qualitative research |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T13%3A39%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%E2%80%98One%20size%20doesn't%20fit%20all%E2%80%99:%20Lessons%20from%20interaction%20analysis%20on%20tailoring%20Open%20Science%20practices%20to%20qualitative%20research&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Huma,%20Bogdana&rft.date=2023-10-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1590&rft.epage=1604&rft.pages=1590-1604&rft.issn=0144-6665&rft.eissn=2044-8309&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bjso.12568&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2873642597%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2873642597&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |