Thread by @JonathanPlucker

An increasingly hot topic in #openscience is the degree to which OS strategies are applicable (or desirable) for qualitative methods. A hopefully provocative thread: 1/x

Much of my thinking here is influenced by my colleagues @MattMakel @thegrumblybuns @alongerbmarie @MchenryMelaniew who wrote this recent piece with me (should be free to download) 2/x

tandfonline.com/eprint/VJAJIAY…

I'm generally sympathetic to colleagues who think basic OS principles and strategies have considerable value regardless of whether you're primarily using quan or qual methods (or mixed-methods, for that matter). 3/x

THAT SAID ... I was in grad school in the early-mid 90s, when researchers fought pitched battles about quan vs. qual methods. There was real value to the debates: epistemological issues underlying empirical work were fine-tuned. 4/x

One thing I frequently heard from qual colleagues was that generalizability was viewed very differently from their perspective. In other words, generalizability and transferability aren't synonyms, there are real diffs in how people use & conceptualize those terms 5/x

But even if, for argument's sake, we take replication off the table, surely there are OS practices that are applicable across the mosaic of research methodologies, right? E.g., open access feels like a no-brainer. 6/x

I'm sincerely interested in hearing people's perspectives on these issues. I.e., what is the place of open science in qualitative research? Or maybe the question is, What is the place of qualitative research in OS? I can't even figure out the right question to ask! 7/x

I hesitate to ask for perspectives, as the "methodology wars" in the 90s were often unpleasant, to put it mildly. Faculty wouldn't talk to each other outside of meetings, they'd yell at each other during meetings, etc. I'm not trying to provoke hot takes here! 8/8