Research Transparency and Open Science: Can We Have Too Much of a Good Thing?

• In Event: Challenges in Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis

Abstract

As social scientists, we live in an era when the rigor of our research is under scrutiny. Our response has been a series of initiatives (DA-RT), proposals (active citation) and policies (JETS). This is appropriate and good, but it begs the question: at what cost?

In this paper, I argue that in going from the broad principle – open science – to its operational instantiation - DA-RT, JETS, the qualitative transparency deliberations - we have moved too fast. In part, the problem is epistemological, with key parts of the interpretive tool kit – positionality and situatedness – oddly not being included in calls for greater transparency.

However, the bigger issue are the trade-offs and opportunity costs as we pursue open science. More time devoted to research transparency means less time for other (important) things we do as social scientists. Scholars will likely be incentivized to craft less ambitious research designs and adopt a simplistic approach to theory. The latter problem is especially worrisome, as it will reinforce trends across the discipline to adopt a utilitarian and ‘pull-it-off-the-shelf” approach to theory development.

Put differently, we can indeed have too much of a good thing. At the level of policy, JETS should be rescinded. More important, we need to place moves toward greater transparency - which _are_ needed - in context, conducting a net assessment of their impact on the broader research enterprise.

Author

• Jeffrey T. Checkel, European University Institute