|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
131529
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As an abstract idea, openness is difficult to oppose. Social scientists from every research tradition agree that scholars cannot just assert their conclusions, but must also share their evidentiary basis and explain how they were reached. Yet practice has not always followed this principle. Most forms of qualitative empirical inquiry have taken a minimalist approach to openness, providing only limited information about the research process, and little or no access to the data underpinning findings. What scholars do when conducting research, how they generate data, and how they make interpretations or draw inferences on the basis of those data, are rarely addressed at length in their published research. Even in book-length monographs which have an extended preface and footnotes, it can sometimes take considerable detective work to piece together a picture of how authors arrived at their conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
084176
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
186670
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The political science discipline has recently engaged in contentious debate about the value of “research transparency,” particularly for research with human participants. The discipline is also holding vital conversations about research ethics and is rekindling dialogue about different ways of knowing. We offer an integrated account of how the actions that scholars who conduct human participant research take to respect ethical principles (which vary by research substance and settings), and their epistemological commitments (which vary across researchers), influence openness, a broader concept than “transparency.” These principles and commitments shape scholars’ openness practices simultaneously—both independently and in concert—serving as a prism through which multiple features of a research project are refracted, and resulting in a scholar’s inclination and ability to pursue openness in different ways and to different degrees with the audiences of her work. We also show how ethical principles and epistemological commitments can not only constrain and prevent openness, but also animate and require it. We suggest that scholars pursuing openness ethically, and in ways that honor their epistemological commitments, represents good social science, and we offer strategies for doing so. To develop our argument, we focus primarily on two research methods, ethnography and interviews, and on openness toward two audiences, human participants and research communities. Our account illuminates how the heterogeneity of human participant research makes it inappropriate, indeed impossible, to develop blanket rules for pursuing openness. Throughout, we highlight the importance of reflexivity for the ethical conduct of, and for being ethically open about, political science research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
096192
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Political science has witnessed a renaissance in qualitative research methods (Bennett and Elman 2006). Over the last 15 years, the canon has been reworked to systematize and expand the repertoire of qualitative methods, ground them more firmly in contemporary philosophy of science, and illuminate their strengths relative to quantitative and formal methods (Bennett and Elman 2007). A rapidly expanding body of political science research now employs qualitative and multi-method analysis, and institutions dedicated to qualitative and multi-method research have flourished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
136453
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Discussion about greater openness in the policymaking and academic communities is emerging all around us. In February 2013, for example, the White House issued a broad statement calling on federal agencies to submit concrete proposals for “increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research.”1 The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act passed the US House of Representatives on 18 November 2013 (it has not yet been voted on in the Senate).2 In academia, multiple questions are arising about how to preserve and make accessible the “deluge of (digital) data” scientific research produces and how to make research more transparent.3 For instance, on 13–14 June 2013, a meeting to address “Data Citation and Research Transparency Standards for the Social Sciences” was convened by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) and attended by opinion leaders from across the social science disciplines.4 In November 2014, ICPSR hosted “Integrating Domain Repositories into the National Data Infrastructure,” a follow-up workshop that gathered together representatives from emerging national infrastructures for data and publications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|