CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 459Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsData Analysis and ArchivingQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Editorial Essay: The Tumult over Transparency: Decoupling Transparency from Replication in Establishing Trustworthy Qualitative Research

Pratt, Michael G., Kaplan, Sarah, Whittington, Richard·2020·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.1177/0001839219887663
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Management journals are currently responding to challenges raised by the “replication crisis” in experimental social psychology, leading to new standards for transparency. These approaches are spilling over to qualitative research in unhelpful and potentially even dangerous ways. Advocates for transparency in qualitative research mistakenly couple it with replication. Tying transparency tightly to replication is deeply troublesome for qualitative research, where replication misses the point of what the work seeks to accomplish. We suggest that transparency advocates conflate replication with trustworthiness. We challenge this conflation on both ontological and methodological grounds, and we offer alternatives for how to (and how not to) think about trustworthiness in qualitative research. Management journals need to tackle the core issues raised by this tumult over transparency by identifying solutions for enhanced trustworthiness that recognize the unique strengths and considerations of different methodological approaches in our field.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0001839219887663

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The study followed principles of reflexivity throughout data collection and analysis and was attentive to the trustworthiness of its interpretations.

    “We followed the principles of reflexivity throughout data collection and analysis and were attentive to the trustworthiness of our interpretations (Pratt et al., 2019).”

    From The AI of the Beholder: Intra‐Professional Sensemaking of an Epistemic Technology (2025) · cites this paper as Pratt et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R.
Affiliations
  • Boston College (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Pratt, Michael G.
ORCID
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-11-06
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
DOI
10.1177/0001839219887663
OpenAlex
W2984711778
Cited by
458
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 34 · 2018: 1
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
transparency, replication, trustworthiness, qualitative research, management research, replication crisis, research credibility, management journals, qualitative versus quantitative 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