See the comprehensive report addressing Open Science in qualitative research here.
Different traditions: Big Q and Small q qualitative research
- The concepts of “Big Q” and “Small q” qualitative research were initially articulated by Kidder & Fine (1987) to delineate between qualitative research carried out within interpretative and exploratory qualitative methodologies (referred to as “Big Q”) on one hand, and less interpretative qualitative methods, which are more akin to hypothetico-deductive research (referred to as "Small q"), on the other.
- In Big Q qualitative research, replication often holds little significance, e.g., because the changing context is seen as an intrinsic part of the studied phenomenon. Big Q qualitative research is based on a variety of epistemological positions; contextualism and social constructionism are examples (Willig, 2021; Braun & Clarke, 2022).
- In research traditions of small q qualitative research, aspirations of replication may be more pronounced. Examples of small q qualitative research are open-ended questions in surveys, where, e.g., content analysis is used to score and count qualitative data material. Small q qualitative research starts with a hypothesis and predefined categories to check the data material against (Willig, 2021). Research is then often expected to find the same results if the research procedure is repeated. This is, according to WiIlig (2021), not compatible with the spirit of Big Q qualitative methods.
It is important to note that we have listed three examples of practices below, and there can be other practices relevant to Open Science in qualitative research.
Check out the following open science practices by clicking on the '+';
Reflexivity and Positionality
- Reflexivity entails explicitly acknowledging the researcher’s position within a research project.
-
It is crucial to recognize that every researcher operates within social, societal, and historical contexts, which encompass specific power dynamics shaped by factors such as ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and other social identities.
-
Moreover, implicit or explicit theoretical, disciplinary, and epistemological orientations also shape researchers' positions within their respective fields (see e.g., Louis & Barton, 2002; Merriam et al., 2001).
Transparency
- Transparency means clarifying and exploring the situatedness of psychological phenomena, unveiling how they are intricately shaped by the social, historical, and cultural contexts in which they arise.
-
Another dimension of openness is to ensure transparency throughout the entire research endeavour. Transparency can be exemplified by:
-
Making all steps of the research process visible and comprehensible, allowing readers to assess the trustworthiness of the conclusions by examining the internal consistency between research premises, methodological strategies, and results (Pratt et al., 2020; Bennett, 2021; Steltenpohl et al.,2023).
-
Showcasing how the analysis and results are firmly grounded in the empirical data.
-
This can be accomplished through the use of illustrative examples that show the diversity and variation within the data, thereby clarifying the situatedness of interpretations.
-
-
- Transparency also encompasses articulating the theoretical and analytical frameworks that guide the researcher's interpretive lens, thereby enhancing the transparency of the analytic process.
User participation
- User participation entails the participation of non-researchers and stakeholders in the research process, serving as a means to democratize the creation of knowledge (NFR, 2020; UNESCO, 2021).
-
The intent is not only to enable assessment by the research community but also to demystify the research process for non-researchers and diverse societal stakeholders, thereby increasing the accessibility and comprehensibility of research findings.