Access to this article is restricted until 12 months after publication by request of the publisher.. Restriction lift date: 2020-05-22
A context-consent meta-framework for designing open (qualitative) data studies
| dc.check.date | 2020-05-22 | |
| dc.check.info | Access to this article is restricted until 12 months after publication by request of the publisher. | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Branney, Peter | |
| dc.contributor.author | Reid, Kate | |
| dc.contributor.author | Frost, Nollaig | |
| dc.contributor.author | Coan, Susan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mathieson, Amy | |
| dc.contributor.author | Woolhouse, Maxine | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-20T14:31:15Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-06-20T14:31:15Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-05-22 | |
| dc.description.abstract | To date, open science, particularly open data, in psychology has focused on quantitative research. This article aims to explore ethical and practical issues encountered by UK-based psychologists utilising open qualitative datasets. Semi-structured telephone interviews with eight qualitative psychologists were explored using a framework analysis. From the findings, we offer a context-consent meta-framework as a resource to help in the design of studies sharing their data and/or studies using open data. We recommend secondary studies conduct archaeologies of context and consent to examine if the data available are suitable for their research questions. This research is the first we know of in the study of “doing” (or not doing) open science, which could be repeated to develop a longitudinal picture or complemented with additional approaches, such as observational studies of how context and consent are negotiated in preregistered studies and open data. | en |
| dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | en |
| dc.description.version | Accepted Version | en |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | Branney, P., Reid, K., Frost, N., Coan, S., Mathieson, A. and Woolhouse, M. (2019) 'A context-consent meta-framework for designing open (qualitative) data studies', Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(3), pp. 483-502. doi: 10.1080/14780887.2019.1605477 | en |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/14780887.2019.1605477 | en |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1478-0895 | |
| dc.identifier.endpage | 502 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1478-0887 | |
| dc.identifier.issued | 3 | en |
| dc.identifier.journaltitle | Qualitative Research in Psychology | en |
| dc.identifier.startpage | 483 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10468/8079 | |
| dc.identifier.volume | 16 | en |
| dc.language.iso | en | en |
| dc.publisher | Taylor & Francis | en |
| dc.relation.uri | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14780887.2019.1605477 | |
| dc.rights | © 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Qualitative Research in Psychology on 22 May 2019, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/14780887.2019.1605477 | en |
| dc.subject | Open science | en |
| dc.subject | Open data | en |
| dc.subject | Qualitative methods | en |
| dc.subject | Replicability debate | en |
| dc.subject | Archeology | en |
| dc.title | A context-consent meta-framework for designing open (qualitative) data studies | en |
| dc.type | Article (peer-reviewed) | en |
