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

Gervais, Sarah J.; Baildon, Amanda E.; Lorenz, Tierney K.

doi:10.1177/03616843211032632

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Survivors wanted their data used to help change policies regarding untested SAKs, train the police in trauma-informed investigation techniques, and build more supportive programs for survivors. This vision is consistent with the notion of “giving psychology away” for the public good, which has been a key theme among feminist proponents of open science practices (Gervais et al, 2021; Matsick et al, 2021). Some survivors specifically called on the research community to be more engaged in translating their findings into action (Theme 3).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Understanding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Perspectives on Archiving Qualitative Data: Implications for Feminist Approaches to Open Science

Campbell

Goodman‐Williams

Javorka

et al. 2022

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The open science movement has framed data sharing as necessary and achievable best practices for high-quality science. Feminist psychologists have complicated that narrative by questioning the purpose of data sharing across different paradigms, methodologies, and research populations. In these debates, the academic community has centered the needs and voices of researchers, and participants’ perspectives are largely missing from this literature. In this study, we sought to understand how research participants feel about sharing qualitative data on a sensitive subject—sexual victimization. As part of a participatory action research project, we conducted qualitative interviews with sexual assault survivors about their post-assault help-seeking experiences. The federal funding agency that supported this project requires researchers to archive de-identified data in a national data repository (the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data [NACJD]). All participants consented to archiving data, and the vast majority expressed positive views about data sharing because they wanted to help other survivors. Participants emphasized that our participatory action research approach and our stated goal of helping survivors were important considerations in their decisions regarding data sharing. Researchers should obtain informed consent from their participants for data sharing/archiving, and discuss their dissemination plans during the informed consent process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Understanding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Perspectives on Archiving Qualitative Data: Implications for Feminist Approaches to Open Science

Campbell

Goodman‐Williams

Javorka

et al. 2022

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We therefore invite empirically rigorous submissions that employ qualitative methods and critical epistemologies. Principles of transparency, rigor, reflexivity, collaboration, and ethics are central to many research paradigms (e.g., Gervais et al., 2021; Levitt et al., 2018), even as there may be tension among some elements (e.g., ethics; see Brabeck, 2021). We expect that authors and reviewers of qualitative studies will engage with the recommendations of the Task Force on Resources for the Publication of Qualitative Research of the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology's (American Psychological Association, Division 5) for designing and reviewing qualitative research, which focus on the role of fidelity to the subject matter and utility in achieving research goals (Levitt et al., 2017).…”

Section: Expanding the Range Of Epistemologies And Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial

Carriere,

Wiley

2024

Anal Soc Iss & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bullock, and, most recently, Chris Aberson. These editors have established the strong foundation on which we build.Moving forward, we will be mindful of ASAP's unique identity as the only Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) journal that publishes original empirical research outside of special issues. From its founding, SPSSI has set its mission to bring empirically sound, theoretically rich psychological perspectives to bear on pressing social issues and public policy. As editors, one of our goals is to bring this mission to the forefront. Several priorities will serve our goal of bringing psychological research to address social issues and benefit public policy. These priorities reinforce rather than replace the current pillars of the journal, allowing ASAP to expand to include additional methods, perspectives, and audiences. EXPANDING THE RANGE OF EPISTEMOLOGIES AND METHODSFirst, we must publish research that is theoretically grounded and empirically rigorous. These high standards build trust in scientific expertise. In this respect, our previous editor has left us in an enviable position. In his years at the top of the masthead, Chris Aberson has improved the empirical rigor of articles published in ASAP, in part by signing onto the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines (Nosek et al., 2015) and offering Badges to Open Practices (Aberson, 2018). He has worked to ensure authors use appropriate sample size determinations and report all measures, manipulations, and data inclusions. We plan to continue these policies. In addition, to ensure that quantitative research meets the highest standards of transparency, we expect that authors will adhere to the American Psychological Association's Journal Article Reporting Standards in Quantitative Psychology (Appelbaum et al., 2018). Further, we recognize that theoretical and methodological standards have improved in recent decades. Consistent with these improvements, we are particularly interested in publishing quantitative research that tests hypotheses in larger and more diverse samples and/or across multiple studies as well as research that addresses causal inference.We would add that our position is that psychology is strongest when it is open to eclectic theoretical, methodological, and epistemological perspectives. We therefore invite empirically rigorous submissions that employ qualitative methods and critical epistemologies. Principles of Both authors contributed equally to the editorial. We determined authorship alphabetically.

show abstract

“…Data sharing in qualitative research honors the time and expertise of participants by thoroughly analyzing and disseminating knowledge (Bishop, 2009; DuBois et al, 2018). Advocates of open science emphasize the importance of dissemination and data sharing to promote equity and justice (Gervais et al, 2021; Matsick et al, 2021). However, qualitative inquiry requires building trusting relationships with participants, which affects what information they choose to disclose, and they may not want all details shared with others (Broom et al, 2009; Campbell et al, 2019; Feldman & Shaw, 2019; Yardley et al, 2014).…”

Section: Debating the Practice Of Archiving And Sharing Qualitative Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science and data sharing in trauma research: Developing a trauma-informed protocol for archiving sensitive qualitative data.

Campbell¹,

Goodman‐Williams²,

Engleton³

et al. 2023

Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The open science movement seeks to make research more transparent, and to that end, researchers are increasingly expected or required to archive their data in national repositories. In qualitative trauma research, data sharing could compromise participants’ safety, privacy, and confidentiality because narrative data can be more difficult to de-identify fully. There is little guidance in the traumatology literature regarding how to discuss data-sharing requirements with participants during the informed consent process. Within a larger research project in which we interviewed assault survivors, we developed and evaluated a protocol for informed consent for qualitative data sharing and engaging participants in data de-identification. Method: We conducted qualitative interviews with N = 32 adult sexual assault survivors regarding (a) how to conduct informed consent for data sharing, (b) whether participants should have input on sharing their data, and (c) whether they wanted to redact information from their transcripts prior to archiving. Results: No potential participants declined participation after learning about the archiving mandate. Survivors indicated that they wanted input on archiving because the interview is their story of trauma and abuse and it would be disempowering not to have control over how this information was shared and disseminated. Survivors also wanted input on this process to help guard their privacy, confidentiality, and safety. None of the participants elected to redact substantive data prior to archiving. Conclusions: Engaging participants in the archiving process is a feasible practice that is important and empowering for trauma survivors.

show abstract

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

Cited by 6 publications

References 104 publications

Understanding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Perspectives on Archiving Qualitative Data: Implications for Feminist Approaches to Open Science

Understanding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Perspectives on Archiving Qualitative Data: Implications for Feminist Approaches to Open Science

Editorial

Open science and data sharing in trauma research: Developing a trauma-informed protocol for archiving sensitive qualitative data.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About