Show me the data: research reproducibility for qualitative methods

This session on ‘Show me the data: research reproducibility for qualitative methods‘ ran at the 2018 ESRC Research Methods
Festival, where a panel of speakers debated the current reproducibility
crisis’ in science and how ‘reproducibility’ approaches and standards might
look for qualitative research.

In quantitative methods, reproducibility is held as the gold standard for demonstrating research integrity. But threats to
scientific integrity, such as fabrication of data and results have led to some
journals now requiring data, syntax and prior registration of hypotheses to be
made available as part of the peer-review. While qualitative research reproducibility has been questioned in the past, it has been protected from the
recent transparency agenda. But for how long? What if journals mandate the
sharing of data and analysis for qualitative research?

Louise Corti from the UK Data Archive at the University of Essex introduced the session looking at the international
transparency agenda and where some of the drivers were coming from. Is there
really a crisis for research Integrity in the UK and how are various ‘open’
mandates translating into policy and practice. How do open research, open science, open access and open data fit together? Much fieldwork is impossible to fully replicate.

She asked the audience whether we could respond positively to transparency calls and to consider critiques of ‘Quality of
Qualitative Research’ with better evidence about fieldwork and data? Some practical issues for speaker were:

• What is the ‘evidence’ and where should it sit?
• What are some of the issues and challenges?
• How do publishing outlets – journals and data archives work together to solve this?
• What advocacy and training do we need and when?

Three speakers discussed relevant issues and helpful solutions, around teaching approaches and exercises in the quantitative
tradition, what ‘reproducibility’ means and what kinds of materials from
qualitative research can be shared. Nicole Janz, University of Nottingham,
spoke on ‘Learning how to do research reproducibility in political science’,
Sarah Netttleton, University of York discussed the ‘Crisis what Crisis? Can
qualitative data archiving enhance transparency?’ and Maureen Haaker of
the UK Data Archive at the University of Essex outlined ‘Some practical protocols for transparency for qualitative research’.