Considerations for making informed choices about engaging in open qualitative research

Abstract

There is currently little guidance that exists for researchers in the sport and exercise sciences on open qualitative research practices. The purpose of paper is to provide researchers with guidance regarding the considerations necessary for making informed decisions about engaging in open research practices within qualitative inquiry. The guidance was developed through a series of four working group meetings with experts in qualitative research and meetings with key stakeholders (study participants, journal editors, and data management experts). The wider open qualitative research literature also informed the guidance. Nine core values were first identified as underpinning the considerations for engaging in open qualitative research practices: Choice (academic freedom and participant autonomy); Plurality not replication; Flexibility and emergent design; Transparency; Relational ethics; Quality; Education; Equity; and Responsibility. Considerations for researchers are then provided in the following areas as they pertain to open science practices in qualitative inquiry: Types of Data; Types of Studies; Participant Groups; Anonymity and Confidentiality; Participant Consent; Storage and Stewardship of Qualitative Data; Knowledge Dissemination and Open Access Publications; Cost, Time, and Resources; and Preregistration of Qualitative Studies. This paper provides an initial framework for identifying considerations for engaging in open qualitative research practices. These considerations will help qualitative researchers make informed decisions about and plan for implementation of open science practices, as well as assessing the risks and benefits of open science practices in qualitative inquiry.

On Methods and Marshmallows: A Roadmap for Science That Is Openly Feminist and Radically Open

“…For example, even though qualitative research can be feminist when used to legitimate women as sources of knowledge, our focus on qualitative research is somewhat limited given our methodological expertise. While we have made efforts to include qualitative perspectives—and call for qualitative researchers to be explicitly invited into conversations of open science (Lorenz & Holland, 2020)—we also encourage interested readers to engage with excellent commentaries on open science and qualitative research from experts in the area (e.g., Bennett, 2021, this issue, Chauvette et al, 2019; Irwin, 2013; Tamminen, et al, 2021; see Pownall et al, 2021, this issue for considerations specific to early career feminist researchers).…”

Exploring student-athletes’ perceptions of their psychological readiness to return to sport following a concussion.

“…Tamminen et al (2021) noted there are currently “… no clear-cut answer or ‘blanket’ policies that can be made for qualitative researchers when approaching the topic of open qualitative research practices” (p. 885). Most notably, unlike in quantitative studies, where open science practices have been promoted to increase replicability, qualitative researchers who use paradigms such as interpretivism (as was the case in this study) do not set out to achieve replicable results (Tamminen et al, 2021). Nevertheless, in line with our funders’ mandate as well as open science practices, a preprint version of this article is available on our university repository to ensure the results can be accessed widely.…”

Advancing open science and methodological rigor in Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology.

“…If the data cannot be made available, the article must state the legal or ethical reasons why they are not available. It is recognized that there will be instances, for example, in the use of qualitative studies (see Tamminen et al, 2021), where it would not be possible to provide data for open access use without violating assurances of anonymity and/or confidentiality. Since adopting the TOP Guidelines, the journal has received and published several high-quality qualitative studies that make this very point (e.g., Benson et al, 2022; Hong & Allen, 2022; Lassman et al, 2022; Salim & Winter, 2022).…”