Thanks for this comment and query, Hillel. We are extremely keen to generate the kind of diversity of perspectives that you're asking for. This is critical to making this a successful consultative, agenda-setting process.
We are doing all we can think of to raise the visibility of this process across a wide variety of research communities -- e.g., via organized section and other email lists, the APSA newsletter, PSNow, personal outreach -- but we are eager for help and other ideas. One way people can help is by pointing to the site and encouraging participation on Facebook and other social media. If you have ideas about how we can do more, please drop us a note. (You can send a message through the Contact
It's also worth noting that we are not particularly looking for a debate between pro- and anti-DA-RT views as such (which I know is not what Hillel was calling for either). While we have to talk some about DA-RT as an important rule-making regime in this domain, the QTD is not primarily envisioned as a debate over DA-RT per se
, and its outcome is not intended to be an up-or-down verdict on DA-RT. The QTD is, rather, intended to be a substantive discussion of the meaning, benefits, costs, and practicalities of transparency in different forms of qualitative research. What does transparency within for different logics of qualitative inquiry? What are useful methods of realizing transparency for different qualitative research approaches? What are the costs of different transparency practices? When are those costs higher or lower, and how might those costs be managed? When are the benefits of particular kinds of transparency greater or lesser? And so on....