Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Forum rules

We encourage contributors to the Discussion Board to publicly identify by registering and logging in prior to posting. However, if you prefer, you may post anonymously (i.e. without having your post be attributed to you) by posting without logging in. Anonymous posts will display only after a delay to allow for administrator review. Contributors agree to the QTD Terms of Use.

Instructions
To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.

For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.

You are NOT logged in.

To have your post appear linked to your username, please log in first. If you have just registered, please wait to receive an activation email from qtdfora.

Post a reply


In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you confirm you’re human using Google’s reCAPTCHA service.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Re: Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Post by Tasha Fairfield » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:54 pm

Guest wrote:Good question. My highest hope is that the move towards analytic transparency will bring greater recognition to high-quality qualitative research.

That would indeed be excellent. Qualitative research is just as challenging if not more so that other methodological approaches, and it would be great for good qualitative work to be valued more highly.

Re: Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Post by Guest » Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:28 pm

Good question. My highest hope is that the move towards analytic transparency will bring greater recognition to high-quality qualitative research.

Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Post by Tasha Fairfield » Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:28 am

As a way to reflect across various of the discussion threads, what are your hopes and fears regarding any norms that might emerge on analytic transparency for comparative and process tracing research?

To get things going, I hope that this process will encourage us to think more carefully about our evidence and to what it extent it supports our claims. On the other hand, I am concerned that substantive research may come under pressure to essentially include methodological research as well, especially when established practice does not yet mesh with recommendations being formulated and debated by methodologists. Linking to some astute comments elsewhere on the blog, there could be a possibility of an escalating signaling game, where scholars try to make their work more attractive to journals by including ever more extensive methodological appendices to their substantive research.

Top