Citation

Lamb D, Russell A, Morant N, Stevenson F. J. Health Psychol. 2024; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/13591053241237620

PMID

38485917

Abstract

'Open Science' advocates for open access to scientific research, as well as sharing data, analysis plans and code in order to enable replication of results. However, these requirements typically fail to account for methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research, and serious ethical problems are raised by the suggestion that full qualitative datasets can or should be published alongside qualitative research papers. Aside from important ethical concerns, the idea of sharing qualitative data in order to enable replication is conceptually at odds with the underpinnings on most qualitative methodologies, which highlight the importance of the unique interpretative function of the researcher. The question of whether secondary analysis of qualitative data is acceptable is key, and in this commentary we argue that there are good conceptual, ethical and economic reasons to consider how funders, researchers and publishers can make better use of existing data.

Language: en

Keywords

epistemology; methodology; open science; qualitative methods; quantitative methods