Pre-Analysis Plans for Qualitative Research

Piñeiro, Rafael; Rosenblatt, Fernando

doi:10.4067/s0718-090x2016000300009

Cited by 38 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our strategy to create the list of proposed items was fourfold. First, we integrated suggestions from existing works on preregistration of qualitative research (Haven & van Grootel, 2019;Jacobs, 2020;Kern & Gleditsch, 2017) and pre-analysis plans of qualitative research (Piñeiro & Rosenblatt, 2016). Some authors' suggestions are influenced by the logic of preregistration for quantitative work (Jacobs, 2020;Kern & Gleditsch, 2017), others are influenced by existing strategies to foster the credibility of qualitative research such as a decision trail or audit trail (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998;Koch, 2006).…”

Section: Creation Of the Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the idea of preregistration has been extended to qualitative research, different authors have put forth suggestions for what to include in a qualitative preregistration form (Haven & van Grootel, 2019;Jacobs, 2020;Kern & Gleditsch, 2017;Piñeiro & Rosenblatt, 2016). These suggestions built on existing strategies to foster the credibility of qualitative research, such as the audit trail (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006;Lincoln & Guba, 1985;Miles & Huberman, 1994;Miller, 1997;Schwandt & Halpern, 2011), the decision trial (Koch, 2006), and reporting guidelines (Malterud, 2001;O'Brien et al, 2014;Tong et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unlike an ex post checklist, preregistration makes more transparent to readers how a study unfolded and beliefs shifted over time. In this sense, preregistration can be thought of as a systematic start of a research log (Piñeiro & Rosenblatt, 2016). As such, preregistration acts as a complement to reporting guidelines, although it is unclear what aspects of existing reporting guidelines can be amended for a preregistration form.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preregistering Qualitative Research: A Delphi Study

Haven

Errington

Gleditsch

et al. 2020

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preregistrations—records made a priori about study designs and analysis plans and placed in open repositories—are thought to strengthen the credibility and transparency of research. Different authors have put forth arguments in favor of introducing this practice in qualitative research and made suggestions for what to include in a qualitative preregistration form. The goal of this study was to gauge and understand what parts of preregistration templates qualitative researchers would find helpful and informative. We used an online Delphi study design consisting of two rounds with feedback reports in between. In total, 48 researchers participated (response rate: 16%). In round 1, panelists considered 14 proposed items relevant to include in the preregistration form, but two items had relevance scores just below our predefined criterion (68%) with mixed argument and were put forth again. We combined items where possible, leading to 11 revised items. In round 2, panelists agreed on including the two remaining items. Panelists also converged on suggested terminology and elaborations, except for two terms for which they provided clear arguments. The result is an agreement-based form for the preregistration of qualitative studies that consists of 13 items. The form will be made available as a registration option on Open Science Framework (osf.io). We believe it is important to assure that the strength of qualitative research, which is its flexibility to adapt, adjust and respond, is not lost in preregistration. The preregistration should provide a systematic starting point.

show abstract

Section: Creation Of the Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preregistering Qualitative Research: A Delphi Study

Haven

Errington

Gleditsch

et al. 2020

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The arrows of preregistrations target potential research misbehavior and strengthen reproducibility in the quantitative field. For qualitative research, the applicability of preregistration is still relatively undiscovered terrain (Kern and Gleditsch 2017;Piñeiro and Rosenblatt 2016;Miguel et al 2014). Some researchers have argued that preregistration is unhelpful, unnecessary, or undesirable for qualitative research (Coffman and Niederle 2015;Humphreys, Sanchez de la Sierra, and Van der Windt 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this article, we attempt to look beyond the fact that preregistration might initially be created for quantitative research to see whether the preregistration format could also lend itself to boost the credibility of qualitative research. We aim to contribute to the debate opened by Piñeiro and Rosenblatt (2016) and Kern and Gleditsch (2017) by extending the discussion to the preregistration of qualitative research. We systematically list the advantages and disadvantages and provide a template for the preregistration of qualitative research in the Open Science Framework.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preregistering qualitative research

Haven

Grootel

2019

Accountability in Research

215

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The threat to reproducibility and awareness of current rates of research misbehavior sparked initiatives to better academic science. One initiative is preregistration of quantitative research. We investigate whether the preregistration format could also be used to boost the credibility of qualitative research. A crucial distinction underlying preregistration is that between prediction and postdiction. In qualitative research, data are used to decide which way interpretation should move forward, using data to generate hypotheses and new research questions. Qualitative research is thus a real-life example of postdiction research. Some may object to the idea of preregistering qualitative studies because qualitative research generally does not test hypotheses, and because qualitative research design is typically flexible and subjective. We rebut these objections, arguing that making hypotheses explicit is just one feature of preregistration, that flexibility can be tracked using preregistration, and that preregistration would provide a check on subjectivity. We then contextualize preregistrations alongside another initiative to enhance credibility in qualitative research: the confirmability audit. Besides, preregistering qualitative studies is practically useful to combating dissemination bias and could incentivize qualitative researchers to report constantly on their study's development. We conclude with suggested modifications to the Open Science Framework preregistration form to tailor it for qualitative studies.

show abstract

Open Science: Recommendations for Research on School Bullying

Noret

Hunter

Pimenta

et al. 2022

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The open science movement has developed out of growing concerns over the scientific standard of published academic research and a perception that science is in crisis (the “replication crisis”). Bullying research sits within this scientific family and without taking a full part in discussions risks falling behind. Open science practices can inform and support a range of research goals while increasing the transparency and trustworthiness of the research process. In this paper, we aim to explain the relevance of open science for bullying research and discuss some of the questionable research practices which challenge the replicability and integrity of research. We also consider how open science practices can be of benefit to research on school bullying. In doing so, we discuss how open science practices, such as pre-registration, can benefit a range of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative research and studies employing a participatory research methods approach. To support researchers in adopting more open practices, we also highlight a range of relevant resources and set out a series of recommendations to the bullying research community.

show abstract

Pre-Analysis Plans for Qualitative Research

Cited by 38 publications

References 16 publications

Preregistering Qualitative Research: A Delphi Study

Preregistering Qualitative Research: A Delphi Study

Preregistering qualitative research

Open Science: Recommendations for Research on School Bullying

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About