It Is Time to Share (Some) Qualitative Data: Reply to Guishard (2018), McCurdy and Ross (2018), and Roller and Lavrakas (2018)

IF 8.5 Q2 Psychology Qualitative Psychology Pub Date : 2018-11-01 DOI:10.1037/qup0000092
J. DuBois, Heidi A Walsh, Michelle Strait
{"title":"It Is Time to Share (Some) Qualitative Data: Reply to Guishard (2018), McCurdy and Ross (2018), and Roller and Lavrakas (2018)","authors":"J. DuBois, Heidi A Walsh, Michelle Strait","doi":"10.1037/qup0000092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we offer a reply to the three commentaries on our article, “Is It Time to Share Qualitative Research Data?” (DuBois, Strait, & Walsh, 2018). We agree with the commenters on many points, including the need to honor relationships with communities, the need to protect participants from harm, and the usefulness of having a framework for data sharing that is informed by quality standards. We also respond to several areas of apparent disagreement regarding the need to be accountable to those who fund and consume science, the possibility that many participants—much like authors—prefer that their contributions to science be broadly disseminated and presented in proper context, and the common legal fact of institutional ownership of research data in the United States. We conclude that it will not be possible to share all data in a responsible manner but that this does not prevent a change in our default assumption regarding qualitative data sharing. In general, data should be shared unless compelling concerns exist that cannot be addressed adequately.","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"27 1","pages":"412–415"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

In this article, we offer a reply to the three commentaries on our article, “Is It Time to Share Qualitative Research Data?” (DuBois, Strait, & Walsh, 2018). We agree with the commenters on many points, including the need to honor relationships with communities, the need to protect participants from harm, and the usefulness of having a framework for data sharing that is informed by quality standards. We also respond to several areas of apparent disagreement regarding the need to be accountable to those who fund and consume science, the possibility that many participants—much like authors—prefer that their contributions to science be broadly disseminated and presented in proper context, and the common legal fact of institutional ownership of research data in the United States. We conclude that it will not be possible to share all data in a responsible manner but that this does not prevent a change in our default assumption regarding qualitative data sharing. In general, data should be shared unless compelling concerns exist that cannot be addressed adequately.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
是时候分享(一些)定性数据了:回复Guishard (2018), McCurdy和Ross (2018), Roller和Lavrakas (2018)
在这篇文章中,我们对我们的文章“是时候分享定性研究数据了吗?”(DuBois, Strait, & Walsh, 2018)。我们同意评论者的许多观点,包括尊重社区关系的必要性,保护参与者免受伤害的必要性,以及建立一个基于质量标准的数据共享框架的实用性。我们还对几个明显存在分歧的领域做出回应,这些领域涉及对科学的资助者和消费者负责的必要性,许多参与者——就像作者一样——更希望他们对科学的贡献得到广泛传播和在适当的背景下呈现的可能性,以及美国研究数据机构所有权的共同法律事实。我们的结论是,以负责任的方式共享所有数据是不可能的,但这并不妨碍我们对定性数据共享的默认假设的改变。一般来说,除非存在无法充分解决的紧迫问题,否则应该共享数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Qualitative Psychology
Qualitative Psychology Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The mission of Qualitative Psychology journal is to foster innovative methods, theories, and empirical research in qualitative inquiry within psychology. The journal aims to highlight the unique contributions of qualitative research in advancing psychological knowledge. Published studies not only explore substantive topics but also address issues related to epistemology, the philosophy of science, and methodological criteria that impact the formulation, execution, and interpretation of qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology promotes a diverse range of methodological approaches, including narrative, discourse analysis, life history, phenomenology, ethnography, action research, and case study. Additionally, the journal puts emphasis on discussing the teaching and training of qualitative research methods to develop competent qualitative researchers.
期刊最新文献
Black girls don’t cry? Mental health, gender, and violence on the racialized periphery. The gendered racial and sexual socialization experiences of young Black women: A qualitative study. Teaching field social psychology: An action orientation to pedagogy of methods and methodologies. Reflecting back and imagining forward: Qualitative inquiry in psychology at the dawn of a new era. Actualizing transformative promises of qualitative inquiry: Early career retrospective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1