The Methods Studio:I) Workshop on Data Access and Research Transparency from an Interpretive-Qualitative Perspective; and II) “Crit.”
Wednesday, September 2, 1:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
Hilton, Franciscan B
The Methods Studio: I) Workshop on Data Access and Research Transparency from an Interpretive-Qualitative Perspective; and II) “Crit”
The Methods Studio has two parts: a workshop (Part I) and a “crit” (Part II). This year’s workshop focuses on “Data Access and Research Transparency from an Interpretive-Qualitative Perspective” with a general (Ia) and then a more focused discussion (Ib). Part II, the “crit,” enables 3 participants, selected via application, to discuss questions about interpretive methods in their works in progress with more experienced researchers. Application deadline: July 15; please see below.
Hosts and discussion leaders:
Katherine Cramer, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Jeffrey Isaac, Indiana University [tentative]
Samantha Majic, John Jay College, City University of New York
Sarah E. Parkinson, University of Minnesota
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea, University of Utah
Dvora Yanow, Wageningen University
Part Ia [1.30-2.30] Workshop on DA-RT from an Interpretive-Qualitative Perspective
As part of a larger initiative on data transparency, several top political science journals have recently instituted new submission guidelines, relating to the recommendations of APSA’s DA-RT [Data Access and Research Transparency] committee [ e.g.,www.dartstatement.org/ ]. Scholars who research people face-to-face and/or who work in historical traditions, as well as others in the discipline more broadly, have serious questions regarding the potential impact of these new policies. Beyond ethical concerns related to confidentiality and other issues, the rules as written stand to dis-incentivize certain forms of interpretive-qualitative work, and they have the potential to devalue fieldwork.
Isaac, Jeffrey. Forthcoming, in Perspectives on Politics.
Lupia, Arthur and Colin Elman, eds. 2014. Symposium: Openness in political science: Data access and research transparency. PS: Political Science & Politics 47/1: 19-83.
Pachirat, Timothy. Forthcoming, in QMMR Newsletter.
Part Ib [2.30-3.30] Transparency in writing interpretive(-qualitative) research and working with reviewers
How can researchers writing up their ethnographic, critical or other interpretive research present it in submissions to top political science journals? How can scholars working in the diverse research traditions that fall under the interpretive-qualitative umbrella balance those varied traditions and ethical obligations with transparency guidelines and reviewer requests? Sarah Parkinson will share her “before” and “after” methods sections and talk about what she learned in the process of revising her ms. for publication. We will also talk about the review process and working with reviewers with varying familiarity with qualitative-interpretive research methods and its evaluative criteria.
Discussion will be based on:
Parkinson, Sarah Elizabeth. 2013. Organizing rebellion. American Political Science Review107/3: 418-32, esp. 422-22.
Part II [3.50-5.30] “Crit”: Exploring research projects [open topic]
Adapting what architectural teaching and practice calls a “crit,” this part of the Methods Studio enables three researchers to discuss questions about the research methods they are using in their research. More experienced researchers from a range of subfields and interpretive methods backgrounds will respond, and the comments/questions of others in attendance will be drawn in such that the discussion serves to educate all. The 3 researchers will be selected in advance through application; deadline: July 15. Please email email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org.