4.5 Article

Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION
卷 71, 期 5, 页码 855-874

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/joc/jqab026

关键词

Qualitative Methods; Open Science; Validity; Transparency; Reflexivity; Ethics; Collaboration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article contributes to communication research by integrating qualitative methodological literature with open communication science research to identify five broader commitments for all communication research: validity, transparency, ethics, reflexivity, and collaboration. It also highlights the key opportunities for qualitative and quantitative communication scholars to leverage the momentum of open science to critically reflect on and improve knowledge production processes, while examining competing values that incentivize dubious practices in communication research and discussing metascience initiatives to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.
Recent initiatives toward open science in communication have prompted vigorous debate. In this article, we draw on qualitative and interpretive research methods to expand the key priorities that the open science framework addresses, namely producing trustworthy and quality research. This article contributes to communication research by integrating qualitative methodological literature with open communication science research to identify five broader commitments for all communication research: validity, transparency, ethics, reflexivity, and collaboration. We identify key opportunities where qualitative and quantitative communication scholars can leverage the momentum of open science to critically reflect on and improve our knowledge production processes. We also examine competing values that incentivize dubious practices in communication research, and discuss several metascience initiatives to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field and value multiple ways of knowing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据