FAIR data and materials: Ethical and legal challenges

Sharing qualitative data comes with its own challenges. Depending on the nature of the data, it may not be ethical to share data so that anyone can access it. This section outlines some of the common issues in sharing qualitative data and how researchers might respond to these challenges.

• Antonio, M. G., Schick-Makaroff, K., Doiron, J. M., Sheilds, L., White, L., & Molzahn, A. (2019). Qualitative Data Management and Analysis within a Data Repository. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 42(8), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919881706
• Bishop, L. (2005). Protecting Respondents and Enabling Data Sharing: Reply to Parry and Mauthner. Sociology, 39(2), 333–336.
• Bishop, L. (2009). Ethical Sharing and Reuse of Qualitative Data. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 255–272. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00145.x
• Bishop, L. (2012). Using archived qualitative data for teaching: practical and ethical considerations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.688335
• Bishop, L. (2014). Re-using qualitative data: A little evidence, on-going issues and modest reflections. Studia Socjologiczne. 3. 167-176.
• Bochynska, A., et al. (2025). Supporting the adoption of open science practices by qualitative researchers [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/xdw3m
• Bochynska, A., et al. (2025). Supporting the adoption of open science practices by qualitative researchers [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/tv8g6
• Bosch, S., (2025). Supporting qualitative open science through institutional policy and infrastructure [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/ezutr
• Bosch, S., (2025). Supporting qualitative open science through institutional policy and infrastructure [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/ajdfb
• Branney, P. (2025). Open science and qualitative research: FAIR archiving, safeguarding, and stewarding of potentially identifiable qualitative data [Workshop]. Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/qv8f6
• Cole, N. L., Ulpts, S., Bochynska, A., Kormann, E., Good, M., Leitner, B., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2024). Reproducibility and replicability of qualitative research: an integrative review of concepts, barriers and enablers. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/n5zkw
• Cummings, J. A., Zagrodney, J. M., & Day, T. E. (2015). Impact of Open Data Policies on Consent to Participate in Human Subjects Research: Discrepancies between Participant Action and Reported Concerns. PLOS ONE, 10(5), e0125208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125208
• Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
• Gow, J., Moffatt, C., & Blackport, J. (2020). Participation in patient support forums may put rare disease patient data at risk of re-identification. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-020-01497-3
• Jacobs, A. M., Büthe, T., Arjona, A., Arriola, L. R., Bellin, E., Bennett, A., Björkman, L., Bleich, E., Elkins, Z., Fairfield, T., Gaikwad, N., Greitens, S. C., Hawkesworth, M., Herrera, V., Herrera, Y. M., Johnson, K. S., Karakoç, E., Koivu, K., Kreuzer, M., … Yashar, D. J. (2021). The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications. Perspectives on Politics, 19(1), 171–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164
• Jarman, B. (2020). Open Data and sensitive interviews: Reflecting on ethics, consent, and reproducibility. Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62157
• Joyce, J. B., & Douglass, T. (2025). Practicalities of qualitative data sharing [Workshop]. Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/nrv9w
• Kapiszewski, D., Karcher S., SSRC & Qualitative Data Repository. (n.d.). Managing qualitative social science data [Online course]. Social Science Research Council. https://managing-qualitative-data.org
• Khan, S., Hirsch, J. S., & Zeltzer-Zubida, O. (2024). A dataset without a code book: ethnography and open science. Frontiers in Sociology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1308029
• Korkiakangas, T. (2014). Challenges in archiving and sharing video data: Considering moral, pragmatic, and substantial arguments. Journal of Research Practice, 10(1), Article M3. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10019201/1/Challenges_in_Video_Data_PRE_PRINT.pdf
• Lamb, D., Russell, A., Morant, N., & Stevenson, F. (2024). The challenges of open data sharing for qualitative researchers. Journal of Health Psychology, 29(7), 659–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053241237620
• Mannheimer, S., Pienta, A., Kirilova, D., Elman, C., & Wutich, A. (2018). Qualitative Data Sharing: Data Repositories and Academic Libraries as Key Partners in Addressing Challenges. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(5), 643–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218784991
• McGrath, C., & Nilsonne, G. (2018). Data sharing in qualitative research: opportunities and concerns. MedEdPublish, 7, 255. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2018.0000255.1
• Mozersky, J., McIntosh, T., Walsh, H. A., Parsons, M. V., Goodman, M., & DuBois, J. M. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to qualitative data sharing in the United States: A survey of qualitative researchers. PLOS ONE, 16(12), e0261719. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261719
• Mozersky, J., Parsons, M., Walsh, H., Baldwin, K., McIntosh, T., & DuBois, J. M. (2020). Research Participant Views regarding Qualitative Data Sharing. Ethics & Human Research, 42(2), 13–27. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500044
• Mozersky, J., Parsons, M., Walsh, H., Baldwin, K., McIntosh, T., & DuBois, J. M. (2020). Research Participant Views regarding Qualitative Data Sharing. Ethics & Human Research, 42(2), 13–27. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500044
• Owoyele, B. A., Schilling, M., Sawahn, R., Kaemer, N., Zherebenkov, P., Verma, B., Pouw, W., & de Melo, G. (2025, March). Masking tactics and strategies for deidentifying audio-visual data in qualitative research [Workshop]. Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/apg9w
• Prosser, A. M., Bagnall, R., & Higson-Sweeney, N. (2024). Reflection over compliance: Critiquing mandatory data sharing policies for qualitative research. Journal of Health Psychology, 29(7), 653–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053231225903
• Prosser, A. M. B., Hamshaw, R. J. T., Meyer, J., Bagnall, R., Blackwood, L., Huysamen, M., Jordan, A., Vasileiou, K., & Walter, Z. (2022). When open data closes the door: A critical examination of the past, present and the potential future for open data guidelines in journals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(4), 1635–1653. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12576
• Scheliga, K., & Friesike, S. (2014). Putting open science into practice: A social dilemma? First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i9.5381
• Tamminen, K. A., Bohaker, H., Bundon, A., Gastaldo, D., Gladstone, B. M., Krmpotich, C., McDonough, M., & Smith, B. (2020). Building and supporting the use of digital research infrastructure among qualitative researchers. International Society of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise. https://alliancecan.ca/sites/default/files/2022-03/tamminen-et-al-ndrio-white-paper-qualitative-research.pdf
• Tsai, A. C., Kohrt, B. A., Matthews, L. T., Betancourt, T. S., Lee, J. K., Papachristos, A. V., Weiser, S. D., & Dworkin, S. L. (2016). Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Science & Medicine, 169, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.004
• van Ravenzwaaij, D., de Jong, M., Hoekstra, R., Scheibe, S., Span, M. M., Wessel, I., & Heininga, V. E. (2025). De-Identification When Making Data Sets Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR): Two Worked Examples From the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(2), 25152459251336130.
• Whylly, K. E., Karcher, S., & Renbarger, R. (2023, January 25). Data sharing for qualitative research: Webinar and panel. Center for Open Science. https://youtu.be/eWZvmSIfhQY
• Yardley SJ, Watts KM, Pearson J, Richardson JC. Ethical Issues in the Reuse of Qualitative Data: Perspectives From Literature, Practice, and Participants. Qualitative Health Research. 2013;24(1):102-113. doi:10.1177/1049732313518373

Philosophical underpinnings of qualitative research

Qualitative researchers tend to approach research from a non-positivist perspective, which affects the kinds of questions qualitative researchers ask, the methodology they use, and the types of conclusions they want to draw. Thus, qualitative researchers have their own way of interacting (or not) with open science practices. These resources will help readers understand how qualitative researchers approach research, and by extension, open science.

• Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2014). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage Publications.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.
• Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193–205. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html
• Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 1: Introducing the philosophy of qualitative research. Manual Therapy, 17(4), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.006
• Phillips, M. J. (2023). Towards a social constructionist, criticalist, Foucauldian-informed qualitative research approach: Opportunities and challenges. SN Social Sciences, 3(10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00774-9
• Pownall, M., Talbot, C. V., Henschel, A., Lautarescu, A., Lloyd, K. E., Hartmann, H., ... & Siegel, J. A. (2021). Navigating open science as early career feminist researchers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 526-539.
• Leavy, P. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199811755.001.0001
• Kapiszewski, D., & Wood, E. J. (2021). Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 948–964. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720004703
• Prosser, A., (2025). Unheard, or unspoken? How listening to qualitative researcher voices will shape the future of open research [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/pxcy5
• Prosser, A., (2025). Unheard, or unspoken? How listening to qualitative researcher voices will shape the future of open research [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/vnm7p
• Cole, N. L., (2025). Why the Open Science movement needs qualitative researchers. [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/sgbvj
• Cole, N. L., (2025). Why the Open Science movement needs qualitative researchers. [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/sgrhk
• Field, S. M., & Pownall, M. (2025). Subjectivity is a Feature, not a Flaw: A Call to Unsilence the Human Element in Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ga5fb_v1
• Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1

Preregistration and Registered reports

Preregistration and registered reports may be useful for qualitative researchers who are hoping to confirm hypotheses. Preregistration may also be a helpful tool for reflexivity for some qualitative researchers.

• Hartman, A., Kern, F. G., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). Preregistration for Qualitative Research Template. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/j7ghv/
• Haven, T., Rosenblatt, F., Pineiro, R., & Kern, F. G. (2020). Qualitative preregistration. [Blog] Center for Open Science. https://www.cos.io/blog/qualitative-preregistration
• L. Haven, T., & Van Grootel, Dr. L. (2019). Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research, 26(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147
• Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., Piñeiro, R., Rosenblatt, F., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering Qualitative Research: A Delphi Study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920976417
• Haven, T. L. (2020). OSCG workshop “Preregistration of Qualitative Research” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf9totTA_4
• Center for Open Science. (n.d.). Registered Reports: Peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports
• Karhulahti, V.-M. (2022). Registered reports for qualitative research. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01265-8
• Kern, Florian & Gleditsch, Kristian. (2017). Exploring Pre-registration and Pre-analysis Plans for Qualitative Inference. 10.13140/RG.2.2.14428.69769.
• Silverstein, P., Pennington, C., Branney, P., O’Connor, D., Lawlor, E., O’Brien, E., & Lynott, D. (2024). A registered report survey of open research practices in psychology departments in the UK and Ireland. British Journal of Psychology, 115: 497-534
• https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ bjop.12700
• Steltenpohl, C. N., Lustick, H., Meyer, M. S., Lee, L. E., Stegenga, S. M., Standiford Reyes, L., & Renbarger, R. L. (2023). Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 47–59. KB. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7

Qualitative approaches to open science

This section contains articles that outline what open science can look like from a qualitative approach. These articles also outline several places where there may be tensions between mainstream, quantitatively-focused open science perspectives and those often held by qualitative researchers.

• Bennett, E. A. (2021). Open Science From a Qualitative, Feminist Perspective: Epistemological Dogmas and a Call for Critical Examination. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211036460
• Bochynska, A., et al. (2025). Supporting the adoption of open science practices by qualitative researchers [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/xdw3m
• Bochynska, A., et al. (2025). Supporting the adoption of open science practices by qualitative researchers [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/tv8g6
• Bosch, S., (2025). Supporting qualitative open science through institutional policy and infrastructure [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/ajdfb
• Bosch, S., (2025) Supporting qualitative open science through institutional policy and infrastructure [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/ezutr
• Class, B., de Bruyne, M., Wuillemin, C., Donzé, D., & Claivaz, J.-B. (2021). Towards Open Science for the Qualitative Researcher: From a Positivist to an Open Interpretation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211034641
• Corti, L., & Fielding, N. (2016). Opportunities From the Digital Revolution. Sage Open, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016678912
• Dienlin, T., Johannes, N., Bowman, N. D., Masur, P. K., Engesser, S., Kümpel, A. S., Lukito, J., Bier, L. M., Zhang, R., Johnson, B. K., Huskey, R., Schneider, F. M., Breuer, J., Parry, D. A., Vermeulen, I., Fisher, J. T., Banks, J., Weber, R., Ellis, D. A., … de Vreese, C. (2020). An Agenda for Open Science in Communication. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz052
• Duckles, B. M., & Steeves, V. (2019). Qualitative Research Using Open Tools. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2673016
• Field, S. M., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Pittelkow, M.-M., Hoek, J. M., & Derksen, M. (2021). Qualitative Open Science – Pain Points and Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/e3cq4
• Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
• García-Álvarez, E., & López Sintas, J. (2012). Open science, e-science and the new technologies: Challenges and old problems in qualitative research in the social sciences. Intangible Capital, 8(3), 497-519. http://hdl.handle.net/2099/12934
• Hocker, J., Schindler, C., & Rittberger, M. (2020). Participatory design for ontologies: a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(4), 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2019-0320
• Huang, R. (2016). RQDA: R-based qualitative data analysis (Version 0.2-8) [Computer software]. R Project. http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/
• Humphreys, L., Lewis Jr, N. A., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021). Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 855-874.
• Leonelli, S. (2022). Open Science and Epistemic Diversity: Friends or Foes? Philosophy of Science, 89(5), 991–1001. https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2022.45
• Leonelli, S. (2023). Philosophy of Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009416368
• Lorenz, T. K., & Holland, K. J. (2020). Response to Sakaluk (2020): Let’s Get Serious About Including Qualitative Researchers in the Open Science Conversation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(8), 2761–2763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01851-3
• Pownall, M. (2025). Bridging qualitative methods and open research. Nature Reviews Psychology, 4(9), 556–557. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00477-3
• Pownall, M. (2025). Incorporating open science into qualitative methods teaching [Workshop]. Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/rfyju
• Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2019). Editorial Essay: The Tumult over Transparency: Decoupling Transparency from Replication in Establishing Trustworthy Qualitative Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663
• Reischer, H. N., & Cowan, H. R. (2020). Quantity Over Quality? Reproducible Psychological Science from a Mixed Methods Perspective. Collabra: Psychology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.284
• Schindler, C., Veja, C., Hocker, J., Kminek, H., & Meier, M. (2020). Collaborative open analysis in a qualitative research environment. Education for Information, 36(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-190261
• Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2017). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
• Steinhardt, I. (2020). Learning Open Science by doing Open Science. A reflection of a qualitative research project-based seminar. Education for Information, 36(3), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-190308
• Steltenpohl, C. N., Lustick, H., Meyer, M. S., Lee, L. E., Stegenga, S. M., Standiford Reyes, L., & Renbarger, R. L. (2023). Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 47–59. KB. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7
• Steltenpohl, C. N., Standiford Reyes, L., Pei, M. A., & Lee, L. E. (2024). Open Science in Qualitative Evaluation: Considerations and Opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation, 2024(184), 35–40. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20627
• Tamminen, A. Bundon, B. Smith, M. H. McDonough, Z. A. Poucher & M. Atkinson (2021) Considerations for making informed choices about engaging in open qualitative research, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13:5, 864-886, DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2021.1901138
• Tamminen, K. A., & Poucher, Z. A. (2018). Open science in sport and exercise psychology: Review of current approaches and considerations for qualitative inquiry. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36, 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.12.010
• van Burgsteden, L. (2025). Building qualitative open science communities: Challenges and opportunities [Workshop]. Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data https://osf.io/s7p9m

Reflexivity and positionality

Reflexivity is an important practice within qualitative methods, and the critical examination of one’s position within a research study can lend itself to increased contextualization of and transparency in reporting.

• Field, S. M., & Derksen, M. (2020). Experimenter as automaton; experimenter as human: exploring the position of the researcher in scientific research. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00324-7
• Field, S. M., & Pownall, M. (2025). Subjectivity is a Feature, not a Flaw: A Call to Unsilence the Human Element in Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ga5fb_v1
• Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
• Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2007). Challenges of Critical Reflection: ‘Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained.’ Social Work Education, 26(5), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470601118662
• Goldblatt, H., & Band-Winterstein, T. (2016). From understanding to insight: using reflexivity to promote students’ learning of qualitative research. Reflective Practice, 17(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1134471
• Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360
• Hope, E. C., Brugh, C. S., & Nance, A. (2019). In search of a critical stance: Applying qualitative research practices for critical quantitative research in psychology (Version 1.0) [Data set]. University of Salento. https://doi.org/10.1285/i24212113v5i2p63
• Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735
• Lazard, L., & McAvoy, J. (2017). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144
• Mao, L., Mian Akram, A., Chovanec, D., & Underwood, M. L. (2016). Embracing the Spiral. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916681005
• Pham, J., Perry-Wilson, T., Holmes, K., Schroeder, G., Reyes, A., & Pollok, M. (2025). The power of decolonizing research practices. The Professional Counselor, 15(1). https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/the-power-of-decolonizing-research-practices
• Phurisamban, R., Luna, E., Eyster, H. N., Chignell, S., & Koppes, M. (2025). Shedding the cloak of neutrality: A guide for reflexive practices to make the sciences more inclusive and just. Ecosphere, 16(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70168
• Reid, A.-M., Brown, J. M., Smith, J. M., Cope, A. C., & Jamieson, S. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0412-2
• Field, S. M., & Derksen, M. (2020). Experimenter as automaton; experimenter as human: exploring the position of the researcher in scientific research. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00324-7
• Field, S. M., & Pownall, M. (2025). Subjectivity is a Feature, not a Flaw: A Call to Unsilence the Human Element in Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ga5fb_v1
• Field, S. M. (2025). Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
• Fook, J., & Askeland, G. A. (2007). Challenges of Critical Reflection: ‘Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained.’ Social Work Education, 26(5), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470601118662
• Goldblatt, H., & Band-Winterstein, T. (2016). From understanding to insight: using reflexivity to promote students’ learning of qualitative research. Reflective Practice, 17(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2015.1134471
• Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360
• Hope, E. C., Brugh, C. S., & Nance, A. (2019). In search of a critical stance: Applying qualitative research practices for critical quantitative research in psychology (Version 1.0) [Data set]. University of Salento. https://doi.org/10.1285/i24212113v5i2p63
• Jacobson, D., & Mustafa, N. (2019). Social Identity Map: A Reflexivity Tool for Practicing Explicit Positionality in Critical Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919870075
• Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12735
• Kapiszewski, D., & Wood, E. J. (2021). Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 948–964. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720004703
• Lazard, L., & McAvoy, J. (2017). Doing reflexivity in psychological research: What’s the point? What’s the practice? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2017.1400144
• Mao, L., Mian Akram, A., Chovanec, D., & Underwood, M. L. (2016). Embracing the Spiral. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916681005
• Martin, J. P., Desing, R., & Borrego, M. (2022). POSITIONALITY STATEMENTS ARE JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG: MOVING TOWARDS A REFLEXIVE PROCESS. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 28(4), v–vii. https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.2022044277
• Pham, J., Perry-Wilson, T., Holmes, K., Schroeder, G., Reyes, A., & Pollok, M. (2025). The power of decolonizing research practices. The Professional Counselor, 15(1). https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/the-power-of-decolonizing-research-practices
• Prosser, A., (2025). Unheard, or unspoken? How listening to qualitative researcher voices will shape the future of open research [Plenary slides]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/vnm7p
• Prosser, A., (2025). Unheard, or unspoken? How listening to qualitative researcher voices will shape the future of open research [Video]. In Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Plenary session). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/pxcy5
• Reid, A.-M., Brown, J. M., Smith, J. M., Cope, A. C., & Jamieson, S. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0412-2
• Steltenpohl, C. N., Lustick, H., Meyer, M. S., Lee, L. E., Stegenga, S. M., Standiford Reyes, L., & Renbarger, R. L. (2023). Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 47–59. KB. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7

Replication research

Replication is a somewhat controversial topic within qualitative circles. Some researchers (e.g., Makel et al., 2022) argue that replication is useful for supporting transparency and intentionality, examining transferability of findings, and evaluating connections between reflexivity and research findings. Other researchers (e.g., Pownall, 2022) argue that before someone engages in replication of qualitative studies, they should critically examine how, why, and when it would make sense to do so, given differences in epistemologies and ontologies among qualitative researchers.

• Bartscherer, S. F., & Reinhart, M. (2025). The (Non)Academic Community Forming around Replications: Mapping the International Open Science space via its Replication Initiatives. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/rbyt6_v1
• Cole, N. L., Ulpts, S., Bochynska, A., Kormann, E., Good, M., Leitner, B., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2024). Reproducibility and replicability of qualitative research: an integrative review of concepts, barriers and enablers. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/n5zkw
• Makel, M. C., Meyer, M. S., Simonsen, M. A., Roberts, A. M., & Plucker, J. A. (2022). Replication is relevant to qualitative research. Educational Research and Evaluation, 27(1–2), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.2022310
• Pownall, M. (2022). Is replication possible for qualitative research? https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dwxeg
• Pownall, M. (2024). Is replication possible in qualitative research? A response to Makel et al. (2022). Educational Research and Evaluation, 29(1–2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2024.2314526
• Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2019). Editorial Essay: The Tumult over Transparency: Decoupling Transparency from Replication in Establishing Trustworthy Qualitative Research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663
• Steltenpohl, C. N., Lustick, H., Meyer, M. S., Lee, L. E., Stegenga, S. M., Standiford Reyes, L., & Renbarger, R. L. (2023). Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 47–59. KB. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7

Secondary data analysis

Secondary data analysis of quantitative methods is now prevalent and encouraged across disciplines in order to reduce costs of data collection, whereas the practice for qualitative data has been fraught with controversy that leads to concerns regarding methodological and ethical dilemmas (e.g. identity of the individual). However, depending on the positionality of the individual, it leads to more nuanced meanings that can ensure researchers can learn from one another. This section outlines some of the issues in secondary data analysis and recommendations to address these challenges.

• Bishop, L. (2012). Using archived qualitative data for teaching: practical and ethical considerations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.688335
• Bishop, L. (2014). Re-using qualitative data: A little evidence, on-going issues and modest reflections. Studia Socjologiczne. 3. 167-176.
• FIELDING, N. (2004). Getting the most from archived qualitative data: epistemological, practical and professional obstacles. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(1), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570310001640699
• Long-Sutehall, T., Sque, M., & Addington-Hall, J. (2010). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: a valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population? Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110381553
• Ruggiano, N., & Perry, T. E. (2017). Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how? Qualitative Social Work, 18(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017700701

Standards and guidelines for rigorous qualitative research

• Learn about different standards for reporting qualitative research processes and results. It may be helpful to first read Clarke’s (2022) piece on whether generic reporting standards are helpful in the first place.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2020). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
• Clarke, V. (2021). Navigating the messy swamp of qualitative research: Are generic reporting standards the answer?A review essay of the book Reporting Qualitative Research in Psychology: How to Meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards, Revised Edition, by Heidi M. Levitt, Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 2020, 173pp., $29.99 (paperback), ISBN: 978-1-4338-3343-4. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(4), 1004–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1995555
• Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
• Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative Research and the Question of Rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230201200211
• Duckles, B. M., & Steeves, V. (2019). Qualitative Research Using Open Tools. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2673016
• Frohwirth, L., Karcher, S., & Lever, T. A. (2023). A Transparency Checklist for Qualitative Research. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/wc35g
• Huang, R. (2016). RQDA: R-based qualitative data analysis (Version 0.2-8) [Computer software]. R Project. http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/
• Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A Review of the Quality Indicators of Rigor in Qualitative Research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7120. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7120
• Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
• Levitt, H. M. (2020). Reporting qualitative research in psychology: How to meet APA style journal article reporting standards. American Psychological Association.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
• Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358(9280), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
• Mill, J. E., & Ogilvie, L. D. (2003). Establishing methodological rigour in international qualitative nursing research: a case study from Ghana. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(1), 80–87. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02509.x
• Schindler, C., Veja, C., Hocker, J., Kminek, H., & Meier, M. (2020). Collaborative open analysis in a qualitative research environment. Education for Information, 36(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-190261
• Shaw, R. L., Bishop, F. L., Horwood, J., Chilcot, J., & Arden, M. A. (2019). Enhancing the quality and transparency of qualitative research methods in health psychology. British Journal of Health Psychology, 24(4), 739–745. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12393
• Tamminen, K. A., Bundon, A., Smith, B., McDonough, M. H., Poucher, Z. A., & Atkinson, M. (2021). Considerations for making informed choices about engaging in open qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(5), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2021.1901138
• Kapiszewski, D., Karcher S., SSRC & Qualitative Data Repository. (n.d.). Managing qualitative social science data [Online course]. Social Science Research Council. https://managing-qualitative-data.org
• Groot-Sluijsmans, B., & van Acht, F. (2025). Qualitative participatory research and citizen science: A workshop on quality and ethics of community-based collaborations in research practice [Workshop]. Qualitative Open Science: Challenges, Opportunities, Tensions, and Synergies (Symposium). Community of Practice for Naturally Occurring Data. https://osf.io/xbqm3
• Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., Amodio, D. M., Gable, P. A., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2025). Valid replications require valid methods: Recommendations for best methodological practices with lab experiments. Motivation Science, 11(3), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000398

Transparency in qualitative research

Transparency in qualitative research tends to focus not only on transparency towards other researchers and/or funders, but also the communities with which they work. Rather than focusing on transparency insofar as it leads to reproducibility, qualitative researchers tend to focus on transparency insofar as it allows readers to understand the context under which research was done and allow them to come to their own conclusions about the extent to which research findings are logical, reliable, and generalizable.

• Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Sender, K., & Won, A. S. (2021). Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research*. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab026
• Jacobs, A. M., Büthe, T., Arjona, A., Arriola, L. R., Bellin, E., Bennett, A., Björkman, L., Bleich, E., Elkins, Z., Fairfield, T., Gaikwad, N., Greitens, S. C., Hawkesworth, M., Herrera, V., Herrera, Y. M., Johnson, K. S., Karakoç, E., Koivu, K., Kreuzer, M., … Yashar, D. J. (2021). The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications. Perspectives on Politics, 19(1), 171–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164
• Kapiszewski, D., & Karcher, S. (2020). Transparency in Practice in Qualitative Research. PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000955
• Kapiszewski, D., & Wood, E. J. (2021). Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 948–964. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720004703
• Denzin, Norman. (2020). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036
• Prosser, A. M., Brown, O., Augustine, G., & Ellis, D. (2024). It’s time to join the conversation: Visions of the future for qualitative transparency and openness in management and organisation studies. SocArXiv. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ntf73
• Schindler, C., Veja, C., Hocker, J., Kminek, H., & Meier, M. (2020). Collaborative open analysis in a qualitative research environment. Education for Information, 36(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-190261
• Shaw, R. L., Bishop, F. L., Horwood, J., Chilcot, J., & Arden, M. A. (2019). Enhancing the quality and transparency of qualitative research methods in health psychology. British Journal of Health Psychology, 24(4), 739–745. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12393
• Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26–28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1320570.pdf
• Steltenpohl, C. N., Lustick, H., Meyer, M. S., Lee, L. E., Stegenga, S. M., Standiford Reyes, L., & Renbarger, R. L. (2023). Rethinking Transparency and Rigor from a Qualitative Open Science Perspective. Journal of Trial and Error, 4(1), 47–59. KB. https://doi.org/10.36850/mr7