Open Science is described as an umbrella term for a diversity of aims and practices to increase public trust in scientific knowledge and increase the societal impact of research. In psychology, the Open Science movement has gained attention and impetus, especially as a remedy for “the replication crisis,” which revealed that numerous quantitative studies fail to replicate. However, many Open Science principles for improving replicability in quantitative studies conflict with the knowledge ambitions and epistemological stands in qualitative approaches. Today, Open Science is increasingly articulated as a demand for research funding, publication, and job announcements in academia. We recommend that Open Science is not confused with a standardised framework that ends up with a checklist approach across all research approaches.
Open Science is often understood as the particular practices of preregistration of hypotheses and analysis and open sharing of data. In most traditions of qualitative research, the research questions should be flexible and open, and the data are often too sensitive and context-dependent to be shared. Such practices may, therefore, limit the development of a broad range of qualitative research methodologies.
However, more broadly, Open Science concerns the need for trustworthy, transparent, and accessible research. Many practices already well-established in qualitative research, such as reflexivity, transparency, and user participation, may be seen as promoting these aims.
We encourage The Department of Psychology to approach the aims of Open Science through diverse tailor-made practices for different methodological approaches. We also encourage critical reflections, discussions of dilemmas and engagement in innovative strategies for opening up our research and strengthening its societal impact.
Read more about Open Science and Qualiative Methods (pdf, june 2024)