Difference between revisions of "Joyce2023"
JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Jack B. Joyce; Tom Douglass; Bethan Benwell; Catrin S. Rhys; Ruth Parry; Richard Simmons; Adrian Kerrison |Title=Should we share qualita...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m (AndreiKorbut moved page Joyce2022b to Joyce2023 without leaving a redirect) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Jack B. Joyce; Tom Douglass; Bethan Benwell; Catrin S. Rhys; Ruth Parry; Richard Simmons; Adrian Kerrison | |Author(s)=Jack B. Joyce; Tom Douglass; Bethan Benwell; Catrin S. Rhys; Ruth Parry; Richard Simmons; Adrian Kerrison | ||
|Title=Should we share qualitative data? Epistemological and practical insights from conversation analysis | |Title=Should we share qualitative data? Epistemological and practical insights from conversation analysis | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Data sharing; Conversation analysis; Open science; Qualitative data | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Data sharing; Conversation analysis; Open science; Qualitative data |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Joyce2023 |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2023 |
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=International Journal of Social Research Methodology | |Journal=International Journal of Social Research Methodology | ||
| + | |Volume=26 | ||
| + | |Number=6 | ||
| + | |Pages=645-659 | ||
|URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13645579.2022.2087851 | |URL=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13645579.2022.2087851 | ||
|DOI=10.1080/13645579.2022.2087851 | |DOI=10.1080/13645579.2022.2087851 | ||
|Abstract=Over the last 30 years, there has been substantial debate about the practical, ethical and epistemological issues uniquely associated with qualitative data sharing. In this paper, we contribute to these debates by examining established data sharing practices in Conversation Analysis (CA). CA is an approach to the analysis of social interaction that relies on audio/video recordings of naturally occurring human interactions and moreover works at a level of detail that presents challenges for assumptions about participant anonymity. Nonetheless, data sharing occupies a central position in both the methodology and the wider academic culture of CA as a discipline and a community. Despite this, CA has largely been ignored in qualitative data sharing debates and discussions. We argue that the methodological traditions of CA present a strong case for the value of qualitative data sharing and offer open data sharing practices that might be usefully adopted in other qualitative approaches. | |Abstract=Over the last 30 years, there has been substantial debate about the practical, ethical and epistemological issues uniquely associated with qualitative data sharing. In this paper, we contribute to these debates by examining established data sharing practices in Conversation Analysis (CA). CA is an approach to the analysis of social interaction that relies on audio/video recordings of naturally occurring human interactions and moreover works at a level of detail that presents challenges for assumptions about participant anonymity. Nonetheless, data sharing occupies a central position in both the methodology and the wider academic culture of CA as a discipline and a community. Despite this, CA has largely been ignored in qualitative data sharing debates and discussions. We argue that the methodological traditions of CA present a strong case for the value of qualitative data sharing and offer open data sharing practices that might be usefully adopted in other qualitative approaches. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 05:52, 2 January 2024
| Joyce2023 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Joyce2023 |
| Author(s) | Jack B. Joyce, Tom Douglass, Bethan Benwell, Catrin S. Rhys, Ruth Parry, Richard Simmons, Adrian Kerrison |
| Title | Should we share qualitative data? Epistemological and practical insights from conversation analysis |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Data sharing, Conversation analysis, Open science, Qualitative data |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2023 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | International Journal of Social Research Methodology |
| Volume | 26 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 645-659 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/13645579.2022.2087851 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Over the last 30 years, there has been substantial debate about the practical, ethical and epistemological issues uniquely associated with qualitative data sharing. In this paper, we contribute to these debates by examining established data sharing practices in Conversation Analysis (CA). CA is an approach to the analysis of social interaction that relies on audio/video recordings of naturally occurring human interactions and moreover works at a level of detail that presents challenges for assumptions about participant anonymity. Nonetheless, data sharing occupies a central position in both the methodology and the wider academic culture of CA as a discipline and a community. Despite this, CA has largely been ignored in qualitative data sharing debates and discussions. We argue that the methodological traditions of CA present a strong case for the value of qualitative data sharing and offer open data sharing practices that might be usefully adopted in other qualitative approaches.
Notes
