Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T03:58:27.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2021

Alan M. Jacobs Open the ORCID record for Alan M. Jacobs [Opens in a new window] ,
Tim Büthe Open the ORCID record for Tim Büthe [Opens in a new window] ,
Ana Arjona ,
Leonardo R. Arriola ,
Eva Bellin ,
Andrew Bennett ,
Lisa Björkman ,
Erik Bleich ,
Zachary Elkins  and
Tasha Fairfield
...Show all authors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups’ final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency’s promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.1

Type
Reflection
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 171 - 208
Copyright
© American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A list of permanent links to the Supplementary Materials provided by the authors precedes the References section.

Ana Arjona, Associate Professor, Northwestern University; Leonardo R. Arriola, Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley; Eva Bellin, Professor, Brandeis University; Andrew Bennett, Professor, Georgetown University; Lisa Björkman, Assistant Professor,University of Louisville; Erik Bleich, Professor, Middlebury College; Zachary Elkins, Associate Professor, University of Texas at Austin; Tasha Fairfield, Associate Professor, London School of Economics; Nikhar Gaikwad, Assistant Professor, Columbia University; Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Associate Professor, The University of Texas at Austin; Mary Hawkesworth, Professor Emerita, Rutgers University; Veronica Herrera, Assistant Professor, University of California, Los Angeles; Yoshiko M. Herrera, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Kimberley S. Johnson, Professor, New York University; Ekrem Karakoç, Associate Professor, Binghamton University (SUNY); Kendra Koivu, Associate Professor, University of New Mexico; Marcus Kreuzer, Professor, Villanova University; Milli Lake, Associate Professor, London School of Economics; Timothy W. Luke, Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Lauren M. MacLean, Professor, Indiana University; Samantha Majic, Associate Professor, John Jay College/City University of New York; Zachariah Mampilly, Professor, City University of New York; Rahsaan Maxwell, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Robert Mickey, Associate Professor, University of Michigan; Kimberly J. Morgan, Professor, George Washington University; Sarah E. Parkinson, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University; Craig Parsons, Professor, University of Oregon; Wendy Pearlman, Professor, Northwestern University; Mark A. Pollack, Professor, Temple University; Elliot Posner, Professor, Case Western Reserve University; Rachel Beatty Riedl, Professor, Cornell University; Edward Schatz, Associate Professor, University of Toronto; Carsten Q. Schneider, Professor, Central European University; Jillian Schwedler, Professor, City University of New York; Anastasia Shesterinina, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), University of Sheffield; Erica S. Simmons, Asssociate Professor, University of Wisconsin–Madison; Diane Singerman, Associate Professor, American University; Nicholas Rush Smith, Assistant Professor, City University of New York – City College; Hillel David Soifer, Associate Professor, Temple University; Scott J. Spitzer, Associate Professor, California State University, Fullerton; Jonas Tallberg, Professor, Stockholm University; Susan Thomson, Associate Professor, Colgate University; Antonio Y. Vázquez-Arroyo, Associate Professor, Rutgers University-Newark; Barbara Vis, Professor, Utrecht University; Lisa Wedeen, Professor, University of Chicago; Juliet A. Williams, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles; Elisabeth Jean Wood, Professor, Yale University; Deborah J. Yashar, Professor, Princeton University. For full biographical information and contact information for all authors, see Appendix 1 in the Supplementary Materials.

For financial support, we are grateful to the U.S. National Science Foundation under Political Science Program Grant # 1644757 for the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations Interim and Working Group Meetings. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors or participants in the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Elizabeth Good and Byron Haworth provided outstanding research assistance in the organization of QTD materials and the preparation of this essay; Kathryn Alexander and Elizabeth Good helped with preparing and conducting the APSA 2016 meeting of the QTD working groups; Rob Cooper, Courtney Orning, Stephen Sample, and Josh Smith at Duke University’s Social Science Research Institute and Florian Schmidt at the Hochschule für Politik/School of Governance at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) provided critical IT support for the QTD website and online fora; Alberto Alcaraz provided excellent editorial support for the entire project. The project was made possible by contributions to the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations by hundreds of scholars, ranging in rank from PhD students to emeritus professors.

References

APSA Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms. 2012. A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Bleich, Erik, and Pekkanen, Robert. 2013. “How to Report Interview Data.” In Interview Research in Political Science, ed. Mosley, Layna, 84–105. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bleich, Erik, and Pekkanen, Robert 2015. “Data Access, Research Transparency, and Interviews: The Interview Methods Appendix.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 8–13.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David, eds. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. 2d ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Jacobs, Alan M.. 2015a. “Transparency in Qualitative and Multi-Method Research: Introduction to the Symposium.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 2–8.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Jacobs, Alan M. 2015b. “Research Transparency for a Diverse Discipline: Conclusion to the Symposium.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 52–64.Google Scholar
Christian, Thu-Mai Lewis, Lafferty-Hess, Sophia, Jacoby, William G., and Carsey, Thomas M.. 2018. “Operationalizing the Replication Standard: A Case Study of the Data Curation and Verification Workflow for Scholarly Journals.” (https://osf.io/j9yn7/download/).10.31235/osf.io/cfdbaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clemens, Michael A. 2017. “The Meaning of Failed Replications: A Review and Proposal.” Journal of Economic Surveys 31(1): 326–42.10.1111/joes.12139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramer, Katherine. 2015. “Transparent Explanations, Yes. Public Transcripts and Fieldnotes, No: Ethnographic Research on Public Opinion.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 17–20.Google Scholar
Davison, Andrew. 2015. “Hermeneutics and the Question of Transparency.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 43–47.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Kapiszewski, Diana. 2014. “Data Access and Research Transparency in the Qualitative Tradition.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47(1): 43–47.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Kapiszewski, Diana 2018. “The Qualitative Data Repository’s Annotation for Transparent Inquiry (ATI) Initiative.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51(1): 3–6.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha. 2015. “Reflections on Analytic Transparency in Process Tracing Research.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 47–51.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha, and Charman, Andrew. 2019. “A Dialogue with the Data: The Bayesian Foundations of Iterative Research in Qualitative Social Science.” Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 154–67.10.1017/S1537592718002177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2012. “Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45(4): 717–23.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Alice. 2015. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. Reprint ed. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Greitens, Sheena Chestnut, and Rory, Truex. 2020. “Repressive Experiences among China Scholars: New Evidence from Survey Data.” The China Quarterly 242: 349–375.10.1017/S0305741019000365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2013. “Tracing the Progress of Process Tracing.” European Political Science 12(1): 20–30.10.1057/eps.2012.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter A 2016. “Transparency, Research Integrity, and Multiple Methods.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26(1): 28–31.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. and Büthe, Tim. 2020. “Deliberative Archive for: The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SWVFV8, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, MacLean, Lauren M., and Read, Benjamin L.. 2015. Field Research in Political Science: Practices and Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary. 1995. “Replication, Replication.”PS: Political Science & Politics 28(3): 444–52.Google Scholar
Knott, Eleanor. 2019. “Beyond the Field: Ethics after Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts.” Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 140–53.10.1017/S1537592718002116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2015. “For a More Public Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 13(2): 269–83.10.1017/S1537592715000031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Elman, Colin. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency: Introduction.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47(1): 19–42.Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2018. “The Rush to Transparency: DA-RT and the Potential Dangers for Qualitative Research.” Perspectives on Politics 16(1): 141–48.10.1017/S153759271700336XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosley, Layna, ed. 2013. Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9780801467974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachirat, Timothy. 2015. “The Tyranny of Light.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 27–31.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Sarah Elizabeth and Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2015. “Transparency in Intensive Research on Violence: Ethical Dilemmas and Unforeseen Consequences.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 22–27.Google Scholar
Parsons, Craig. 2015. “Before Eclecticism: Competing Alternatives in Constructivist Research.” International Theory 7(3): 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romney, David, Stewart, Brandon M., and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “Plain Text? Transparency in Computer-Assisted Text Analysis.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 32–38.Google Scholar
Saunders, Elizabeth N. 2014. “Transparency without Tears: A Pragmatic Approach to Transparent Security Studies Research.” Security Studies 23(4): 689–98.10.1080/09636412.2014.970405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, Edward, ed. 2013. Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Yanow, Dvora. 2016. “Legitimizing Political Science or Splitting the Discipline? Reflections on DA-RT and the Policy-making Role of a Professional Association.” Politics & Gender 12(3): E11, 1–19.10.1017/S1743923X16000428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Victor. 2015. “Research in Authoritarian Regimes: Transparency Tradeoffs and Solutions.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 20–22.Google Scholar
Snyder, Jack. 2014. “Active Citation: In Search of Smoking Guns or Meaningful Context?” Security Studies 23(4): 708–14.10.1080/09636412.2014.970409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 2006. The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc 2015. “Transparency in Practice: Using Written Sources.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 13–17.Google Scholar
Tripp, Aili Mari. 2018. “Transparency and Integrity in Conducting Field Research on Politics in Challenging Contexts.” Perspectives on Politics 16(3): 728–38.10.1017/S1537592718001056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wagemann, Claudius, and Schneider, Carsten Q.. 2015. “Transparency Standards in Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13(1): 38–42.Google Scholar
Wedeen, Lisa. 2010. “Reflections on Ethnographic Work in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 13: 255–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yashar, Deborah. 2016. “Editorial Trust, Gatekeeping, and Unintended Consequences.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26(1): 57–64.Google Scholar
Yom, Sean. 2015. “From Methodology to Practice: Inductive Iteration in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 48(5): 616–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Jacobs et al. supplementary material

Appendix 1. Full Biographical Information for All Authors
Download Jacobs et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 218.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Jacobs et al. supplementary material

Appendix 2. QTD Working Groups’ Full Reports
Download Jacobs et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 2.3 MB
Supplementary material: Link

Jacobs et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SWVFV8
Link