Page 1 of 1

Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:28 am
by Tasha Fairfield
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.

Re: Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2016 5:28 pm
by Guest
Good question. My highest hope is that the move towards analytic transparency will bring greater recognition to high-quality qualitative research.

Re: Highest hopes and worst fears re analytic transparency?

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:54 pm
by Tasha Fairfield
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.