{"title":"Stability and change in narrative identity: Introduction to the special issue on repeated narration.","authors":"J. Adler","doi":"10.1037/QUP0000155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/QUP0000155","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73394649","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Ghosts in the story: The role of audiences in stability and change in twice-told life stories.","authors":"M. Pasupathi, C. Wainryb","doi":"10.1037/QUP0000153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/QUP0000153","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79688138","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Repetition is the scent of the hunt: A clinician’s application of narrative identity to a longitudinal life study.","authors":"J. Singer","doi":"10.1037/QUP0000149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/QUP0000149","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90837842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper focuses on the argumentative role of derisive laughter in broadcast political debates. Using Discursive Psychology (DP) we analyse how politicians use derisive laughter as an argumentative resource in multi-party interactions, in the form of debates about the UK and the European Union. Specifically, we explore how both pro- and anti-EU politicians use derisive laughter to manage issues of who-knows-what and who-knows-better. We demonstrate the uses of derisive laughter by focusing on two discrete, yet pervasive, interactional phenomena in our data – extended laughter sequences and snorts. We argue that in the context of political debates derisive laughter does more than signal trouble and communicate contempt; it is, more than often, mobilized in the service of ideological argumentation and used as a form of challenge to factual claims.
{"title":"Rhetoric of derisive laughter in political debates on the EU.","authors":"Mirko A. Demasi, Cristian Tileagă","doi":"10.1037/QUP0000156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/QUP0000156","url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the argumentative role of derisive laughter in broadcast political debates. Using Discursive Psychology (DP) we analyse how politicians use derisive laughter as an argumentative resource in multi-party interactions, in the form of debates about the UK and the European Union. Specifically, we explore how both pro- and anti-EU politicians use derisive laughter to manage issues of who-knows-what and who-knows-better. We demonstrate the uses of derisive laughter by focusing on two discrete, yet pervasive, interactional phenomena in our data – extended laughter sequences and snorts. We argue that in the context of political debates derisive laughter does more than signal trouble and communicate contempt; it is, more than often, mobilized in the service of ideological argumentation and used as a form of challenge to factual claims.","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83331507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Special Section of Qualitative Psychology owes its origin to the comments of Fred Wertz in two forums. The first were his remarks at the opening session on “Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology Past, Present and Future” at the 1st Conference of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology held on November 14, 2013 at the Graduate Center, CUNY. There Fred briefly summarized the historical roots of qualitative inquiry in psychology. His remarks later appeared in more extended form (Wertz, 2014) as the very first article in the first issue of this journal. His effort to provide an overview of the past in qualitative research is both modest in scope and, of necessity, limited in depth since, he argues, “despite the importance and ubiquity of qualitative inquiry, a comprehensive account of its history in psychology has not been written” (Wertz, 2014, Abstract). Indeed, only a restricted number of previous and partial historiographic studies of qualitative research in psychology have been published, for example, Giorgi, 2009; Morawski, 2011; Wertz, 2011. Erickson’s (2018) survey of the history of qualitative research in the most recent edition of the authoritative Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research fails to focus upon its application in any psychological domain. And, the parallel Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (Willig & Stainton Rogers, 2017) offers no historical overview of how qualitative inquiry emerged in the discipline. So, in trying to understand the origins and foundations of qualitative practices in psychology, we are faced with limited resources. In both his 2013 talk and 2014 article, Wertz indicated that the publication of Gordon Allport’s, 1942 monograph, The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science (UPD), was a crucial landmark, one which served as a “prophetic” call for proper qualitative methodology that was justifiably scientific. “[Allport] asserted that the study of personal documents is indispensible to knowledge of subjective personal life and provides scientific psychology with a touchstone of reality by means of a genuine scientific method” (Wertz, 2014, p. 8). Since I had previously done unpublished archival work on the development of the UPD, I discussed with both Wertz and Ruthellen Josselson, this journal’s editor, the possibility of developing a special section which might deepen the historiography of personal documents in psychological research including Allport’s (1942) own effort. Further, as Wertz (2014) noted “even after (Allport’s, 1942) call, almost 30 years passed before concerted efforts were undertaken to formulate general qualitative methodologies for psychology” (p. 5). Would it be possible to offer some greater insight or detail about how personal documentary data were approached or weighted in the period from roughly the early 1940s until about 1970? Josselson suggested as well that the dearth
质性心理学的这个特别部分的起源要归功于Fred Wertz在两个论坛上的评论。第一次是2013年11月14日在纽约市立大学研究生中心举行的第一届心理学质性探究学会会议“心理学的过去、现在和未来的质性探究”开幕式上的发言。弗雷德简要地总结了心理学中定性探究的历史根源。他的评论后来以更广泛的形式出现(Wertz, 2014)，作为本刊第一期的第一篇文章。他对过去定性研究的概述在范围和深度上都是有限的，因为他认为，“尽管定性研究的重要性和普遍性，但对其在心理学中的历史的全面描述还没有被写出来”(Wertz, 2014，摘要)。事实上，只有数量有限的先前和部分心理学定性研究的史学研究已经发表，例如，Giorgi, 2009;Morawski, 2011;Wertz, 2011年。Erickson(2018)在权威的Sage定性研究手册的最新版本中对定性研究的历史进行了调查，但没有关注其在任何心理学领域的应用。而且，与之平行的《心理学定性研究圣人手册》(willg & Stainton Rogers, 2017)没有提供关于该学科如何出现定性调查的历史概述。因此，在试图理解心理学定性实践的起源和基础时，我们面临着资源有限的问题。在2013年的演讲和2014年的文章中，Wertz指出，Gordon Allport于1942年出版的专著《个人文件在心理科学中的使用》(the Use of Personal Documents In Psychological Science，简称UPD)是一个重要的里程碑，它“预言性”地呼吁采用合理的科学定性方法。“[Allport]断言，对个人文件的研究对于了解主观个人生活是不可或缺的，并通过真正的科学方法为科学心理学提供了现实的试金石”(Wertz, 2014, p. 8)。由于我之前做过关于UPD发展的未发表的档案工作，我与Wertz和该杂志的编辑Ruthellen Josselson讨论过，发展一个特殊部分的可能性，这可能会加深心理学研究中个人文件的历史编纂，包括奥尔波特(1942)自己的努力。此外，正如Wertz(2014)所指出的，“即使在(Allport’s, 1942)呼吁之后，近30年过去了，人们才开始共同努力，制定心理学的一般定性方法”(第5页)。是否有可能提供一些更深入的见解或细节，说明从大约20世纪40年代初到1970年左右，个人文献数据是如何处理或加权的?Josselson也提出了这个问题
{"title":"Introduction to Special Section: Using Personal Documentary Sources in Psychological Research 1940–1970","authors":"V. Hevern","doi":"10.1037/QUP0000122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/QUP0000122","url":null,"abstract":"This Special Section of Qualitative Psychology owes its origin to the comments of Fred Wertz in two forums. The first were his remarks at the opening session on “Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology Past, Present and Future” at the 1st Conference of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology held on November 14, 2013 at the Graduate Center, CUNY. There Fred briefly summarized the historical roots of qualitative inquiry in psychology. His remarks later appeared in more extended form (Wertz, 2014) as the very first article in the first issue of this journal. His effort to provide an overview of the past in qualitative research is both modest in scope and, of necessity, limited in depth since, he argues, “despite the importance and ubiquity of qualitative inquiry, a comprehensive account of its history in psychology has not been written” (Wertz, 2014, Abstract). Indeed, only a restricted number of previous and partial historiographic studies of qualitative research in psychology have been published, for example, Giorgi, 2009; Morawski, 2011; Wertz, 2011. Erickson’s (2018) survey of the history of qualitative research in the most recent edition of the authoritative Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research fails to focus upon its application in any psychological domain. And, the parallel Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (Willig & Stainton Rogers, 2017) offers no historical overview of how qualitative inquiry emerged in the discipline. So, in trying to understand the origins and foundations of qualitative practices in psychology, we are faced with limited resources. In both his 2013 talk and 2014 article, Wertz indicated that the publication of Gordon Allport’s, 1942 monograph, The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science (UPD), was a crucial landmark, one which served as a “prophetic” call for proper qualitative methodology that was justifiably scientific. “[Allport] asserted that the study of personal documents is indispensible to knowledge of subjective personal life and provides scientific psychology with a touchstone of reality by means of a genuine scientific method” (Wertz, 2014, p. 8). Since I had previously done unpublished archival work on the development of the UPD, I discussed with both Wertz and Ruthellen Josselson, this journal’s editor, the possibility of developing a special section which might deepen the historiography of personal documents in psychological research including Allport’s (1942) own effort. Further, as Wertz (2014) noted “even after (Allport’s, 1942) call, almost 30 years passed before concerted efforts were undertaken to formulate general qualitative methodologies for psychology” (p. 5). Would it be possible to offer some greater insight or detail about how personal documentary data were approached or weighted in the period from roughly the early 1940s until about 1970? Josselson suggested as well that the dearth","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":"78–81"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83855006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stanley’s Milgram’s (1963) research on “Obedience to Authority” is the most famous study in the history of American psychology. Milgram’s extraordinary historical and contemporary celebrity as “the” psychologist of Nazi atrocities stands in contrast to the relative obscurity of another American psychologist who studied the actions of real Nazis 15 years before the first results of the Obedience research were published—Gustave Gilbert (1911–1977). This article provides an overview of Gilbert’s compelling but neglected career as a psychologist of the Nazi mind and it contrasts his obscurity with Milgram’s renown. Particular attention is given to the methods used by these 2 figures. Gilbert relied primarily on qualitative methods drawn from actual Nazi leaders and his explanation was embedded in the historical particulars of prewar Germany. In contrast, Milgram appeared to transform the Holocaust into a simple laboratory tableau, one that perversely democratized the slaughter making it accessible to everyone while simultaneously implicating modern Americans in the most horrific crime in history—“had you been in Germany you would have been a Nazi too.” The appeal of these 2 approaches is considered in relation to the disciplinary and cultural ethos of Cold War America.
{"title":"A Tale of Two Methods: Gustave Gilbert, Stanley Milgram, and the “Mysterious Nazi Mind” (1945–1965)","authors":"Ian Nicholson","doi":"10.1037/qup0000098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000098","url":null,"abstract":"Stanley’s Milgram’s (1963) research on “Obedience to Authority” is the most famous study in the history of American psychology. Milgram’s extraordinary historical and contemporary celebrity as “the” psychologist of Nazi atrocities stands in contrast to the relative obscurity of another American psychologist who studied the actions of real Nazis 15 years before the first results of the Obedience research were published—Gustave Gilbert (1911–1977). This article provides an overview of Gilbert’s compelling but neglected career as a psychologist of the Nazi mind and it contrasts his obscurity with Milgram’s renown. Particular attention is given to the methods used by these 2 figures. Gilbert relied primarily on qualitative methods drawn from actual Nazi leaders and his explanation was embedded in the historical particulars of prewar Germany. In contrast, Milgram appeared to transform the Holocaust into a simple laboratory tableau, one that perversely democratized the slaughter making it accessible to everyone while simultaneously implicating modern Americans in the most horrific crime in history—“had you been in Germany you would have been a Nazi too.” The appeal of these 2 approaches is considered in relation to the disciplinary and cultural ethos of Cold War America.","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"92 1","pages":"99–115"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73416373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We examined pathways to activism, focusing on the narratives of women’s rights activists who grew up in different places and times, using interview transcripts from the Global Feminisms Project archive. The findings reveal that experiencing a socially or personally disruptive event (e.g., a war or loss of a daughter due to domestic violence, respectively) facilitated activism at different stages of life in unique ways; and there were specific catalysts for activism for each stage. Those who grew up under oppressive regimes thought activism was the most “natural” response to what was going on sociopolitically; for them, feelings of freedom and strength were the catalyst. Those who experienced a disruptive event in their adolescence viewed their activism as intertwined with their personal identity; for them, love, support and togetherness were the catalyst. Finally, those who experienced disruption in their adulthood viewed their activism not as identity, but simply as action. They made sense of these actions by tracing the continuity in their lives; and for them, small political acts and accomplishments were the catalyst. The relationship between politicized identity and personal identity, as well as the bidirectional relationship between activist involvement and politicized identity is discussed in light of these findings.
{"title":"Alternative Pathways to Activism: Intersections of Social and Personal Pasts in the Narratives of Women’s Rights Activists","authors":"Özge Savaş, A. Stewart","doi":"10.1037/qup0000117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000117","url":null,"abstract":"We examined pathways to activism, focusing on the narratives of women’s rights activists who grew up in different places and times, using interview transcripts from the Global Feminisms Project archive. The findings reveal that experiencing a socially or personally disruptive event (e.g., a war or loss of a daughter due to domestic violence, respectively) facilitated activism at different stages of life in unique ways; and there were specific catalysts for activism for each stage. Those who grew up under oppressive regimes thought activism was the most “natural” response to what was going on sociopolitically; for them, feelings of freedom and strength were the catalyst. Those who experienced a disruptive event in their adolescence viewed their activism as intertwined with their personal identity; for them, love, support and togetherness were the catalyst. Finally, those who experienced disruption in their adulthood viewed their activism not as identity, but simply as action. They made sense of these actions by tracing the continuity in their lives; and for them, small political acts and accomplishments were the catalyst. The relationship between politicized identity and personal identity, as well as the bidirectional relationship between activist involvement and politicized identity is discussed in light of these findings.","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"46 1","pages":"27–46"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75252286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abraham Maslow and Timothy Leary are 2 of the most well-known American psychologists from the mid-20th century. Less well-known, however, is their pioneering methodological work. In this article we explicate their transgressive research, their epistemological visions, and their struggles to enact a more existential, historical, relational, participatory, and experientially focused human science. Using their personal documents, as well as published and unpublished works, we weave their stories to create an assemblage of these unknown, unacknowledged, or forgotten histories. We try to show that, for both Maslow and Leary, the phenomena and questions they sought to understand drove them from the prevailing modernist ethos and toward new ways of thinking and working. In the process, they fashioned methods for, and visions of, science that have striking echoes in the contemporary qualitative traditions—experimenting with unquantified stories and texts as data, with iterative interpretive methods, with participatory research relationships, and with existential and postmodern philosophies of science. Of course, these bold forays into the unsanctioned forward edge of psychological inquiry were disciplined in different ways—expulsion for Leary and assimilation for Maslow, erasure for both—and this also is instructive for us. The experiences of these influential scholars reveal how the challenges and potentials of the use of personal documents in research were (and are) embedded in a broader struggle over the scientific and political value of human experience.
{"title":"The Radical Potentials of Human Experience: Maslow, Leary, and the Prehistory of Qualitative Inquiry","authors":"J. Head, Fernando Quigua, J. W. Clegg","doi":"10.1037/qup0000065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000065","url":null,"abstract":"Abraham Maslow and Timothy Leary are 2 of the most well-known American psychologists from the mid-20th century. Less well-known, however, is their pioneering methodological work. In this article we explicate their transgressive research, their epistemological visions, and their struggles to enact a more existential, historical, relational, participatory, and experientially focused human science. Using their personal documents, as well as published and unpublished works, we weave their stories to create an assemblage of these unknown, unacknowledged, or forgotten histories. We try to show that, for both Maslow and Leary, the phenomena and questions they sought to understand drove them from the prevailing modernist ethos and toward new ways of thinking and working. In the process, they fashioned methods for, and visions of, science that have striking echoes in the contemporary qualitative traditions—experimenting with unquantified stories and texts as data, with iterative interpretive methods, with participatory research relationships, and with existential and postmodern philosophies of science. Of course, these bold forays into the unsanctioned forward edge of psychological inquiry were disciplined in different ways—expulsion for Leary and assimilation for Maslow, erasure for both—and this also is instructive for us. The experiences of these influential scholars reveal how the challenges and potentials of the use of personal documents in research were (and are) embedded in a broader struggle over the scientific and political value of human experience.","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"75 1","pages":"116–132"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72833280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Published by the interdisciplinary Social Science Research Council (SSRC), Allport’s 1942 monograph on The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science (Allport, 1942) arose from the intersection of 2 sets of concerns: an extended effort by the SSRC during the 1920s and 1930s to chart the boundaries of valid research methodologies in the social sciences, and Allport’s insistence that psychology must account scientifically for individual persons in course of their actual lives. This historical review details a crisis that emerged in the late 1930s within SSRC-sponsored research concerning whether investigators could even use nonquantitative sources such as personal documents as scientific data. Allport’s own early scholarly agenda embraced German-influenced case study methods and the emerging field of personality psychology. This report outlines how, as Allport’s influence grew in the 1930s, he became a central, insistent, but relatively lonely voice rejecting psychological research methods that were exclusively experimental and quantitative. In this context, the Committee on Appraisal of Research of the SSRC accepted Allport’s self-nomination in early 1941 to assess how such data had been and could be used in psychology to achieve reliable and valid scientific results. This review traces how he went about the assignment and the uncertain evaluation he gave of his own work as it reached publication.
{"title":"The Genesis of Allport’s 1942 Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science","authors":"V. Hevern","doi":"10.1037/qup0000102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000102","url":null,"abstract":"Published by the interdisciplinary Social Science Research Council (SSRC), Allport’s 1942 monograph on The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science (Allport, 1942) arose from the intersection of 2 sets of concerns: an extended effort by the SSRC during the 1920s and 1930s to chart the boundaries of valid research methodologies in the social sciences, and Allport’s insistence that psychology must account scientifically for individual persons in course of their actual lives. This historical review details a crisis that emerged in the late 1930s within SSRC-sponsored research concerning whether investigators could even use nonquantitative sources such as personal documents as scientific data. Allport’s own early scholarly agenda embraced German-influenced case study methods and the emerging field of personality psychology. This report outlines how, as Allport’s influence grew in the 1930s, he became a central, insistent, but relatively lonely voice rejecting psychological research methods that were exclusively experimental and quantitative. In this context, the Committee on Appraisal of Research of the SSRC accepted Allport’s self-nomination in early 1941 to assess how such data had been and could be used in psychology to achieve reliable and valid scientific results. This review traces how he went about the assignment and the uncertain evaluation he gave of his own work as it reached publication.","PeriodicalId":37522,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Psychology","volume":"20 1","pages":"82–98"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82585849","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000092","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":8.5,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75443640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：