CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 69Data Analysis and ArchivingQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Integrating Qualitative Methods and Open Science: Five Principles for More Trustworthy Research*

Open access
Humphreys, Lee, Lewis, Neil A, Sender, Katherine, Won, Andrea Stevenson·2021·Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1093/joc/jqab026
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent initiatives toward open science in communication have prompted vigorous debate. In this article, we draw on qualitative and interpretive research methods to expand the key priorities that the open science framework addresses, namely producing trustworthy and quality research. This article contributes to communication research by integrating qualitative methodological literature with open communication science research to identify five broader commitments for all communication research: validity, transparency, ethics, reflexivity, and collaboration. We identify key opportunities where qualitative and quantitative communication scholars can leverage the momentum of open science to critically reflect on and improve our knowledge production processes. We also examine competing values that incentivize dubious practices in communication research, and discuss several metascience initiatives to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field and value multiple ways of knowing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/joc/jqab026

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transparency and thorough documentation typical of reliable qualitative research play a role in advancing cumulative knowledge by allowing for the replication, expansion, or incorporation of findings into theoretical frameworks.

    “Moreover, the transparency and thorough documentation that are typical of reliable qualitative research play a role in advancing cumulative knowledge by allowing for the replication, expansion, or incorporation of findings into theoretical frameworks [25].”

    From The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research (2024) · cites this paper as [25]

    In “Discussions of validity and credibility depend on transparency” (page unavailable), the paper says documentation helps other researchers check work, replicate research, and find new insights. But it does not describe transparency and thorough documentation as typical of reliable qualitative research; it says qualitative research may neglect transparency with scholarly communities. The cited passages also do not specifically connect documentation to incorporating findings into theoretical frameworks. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. American Psychological Association [APA]. (2021). Responsible conduct of research: Publication practices and responsible authorship. New York: Routledge. https://www.apa. org/research/responsible/publication
  2. Gough, B. (2008). Deconstructing reflexivity. In L. Finlay & B. Gough (Eds.), Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences (pp. 21-35). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  3. Humphreys, L, Ng, E, David, P, Erni, J, Kenski, K, Piotrowski, J, . . . Rothenbuhler, E. (2019). ICA Code of Ethics. International Communication Association, Washington DC. https://www. icahdq.org/resource/resmgr/governance_documents/ica.code.of.ethics.may2019.pdf International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [ICMJE]. (2021) Defining the role of authors and contributors: 2.0 Who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
  4. John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2014). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 473-503). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Stengers, I. (2018). Another science is possible: A manifest for slow science (S. Muecke, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity.
  6. Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Humphreys, L., Lewis, N. A., Sender, K., & Won, A. S.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Humphreys, Lee
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2021-08-04
ISSN
  • 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2466
DOI
10.1093/joc/jqab026
OpenAlex
W3188475267
Cited by
69
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3
FWCI
15.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Communication (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
open science, qualitative research, research trustworthiness, validity, transparency, research ethics, reflexivity, collaboration, meta-research, diversity, equity, and inclusion, multiple ways of knowing, communication research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review