‘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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of social psychology 2023-10, Vol.62 (4), p.1590-1604
Hauptverfasser: Huma, Bogdana, Joyce, Jack B.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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