Featuring commentary from Karen Alter, Giovanni Capoccia, Eric Grynaviski, Jeffrey Isaac, Andrew
Moravcsik, James A. Morrison, and Jelena Subotic, among others. You can find the complete newsletter here.
Starting immediately, AJPS will award “open data” and “open materials” badges to articles that make publicly available “the digitally-shareable data necessary to reproduce the reported results” and “the components of the research methodology needed to reproduce the reported procedure and analysis,” respectively. These are two of the “Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices” from the Center for Open Science (COS). See announcement here.
In a post on his blog, Tom Pepinsky raises questions about DA-RT and expresses concerns that the QTD process is reifying the dichotomy between “quantitative” and “qualitative” research. Andy Moravcsik writes a long response affirming that active citation right now amounts to the “only viable default approach for qualitative work.” Active citation, he claims, is a very conservative “back to the future” proposal” that would make journal articles in qualitative political science resemble articles of three decades ago, with “discursive footnotes, textual references, longer word-limits, and interpretive analysis.”
The conference on “Conducting Fieldwork under Complicated Circumstance,” organized by two graduate students at the University of New Mexico (Anna Calasanti and Fiorella Vera-Adrianzén) will involve faculty, students, and other practitioners in two days of dialogue about strategies and techniques to manage ethical, logistical, and personal security issues during fieldwork. Check out the conference website here. Topics to be discussed include:
- Risk of revictimization/ retraumatization of research participants
- Instrumentalization of research participants
- Externalities (i.e. risks and benefits) of participation in fieldwork activities
- Disruption or transgression/violation of cultural norms
- Pros and cons of cultural embedding, building trust and personal relationships with participants
- Giving back to the community: why and how should we give back to the community? What are some of the constraints, benefits and risks when doing so? What are some appropriate ways to do it?
- Mediator role among parties that are in conflict in the field: Shuttle diplomacy
- Intervening to help research participants (directly or indirectly)
- Confidentiality and privacy of research participants’ responses: how to secure this at all times, especially when methods imply a bigger audience (i.e. focus groups)? Are there any cases in which these principles can be overlooked? What should be done under those circumstances?
- DA-RT (Data Access and Research Transparency): pros and cons
- Identity of the researcher
- Perceptions about researcher: What kind of impression do we give social actors about us, as researchers, as representatives of academic institutions or of disciplinary fields?
Logistical / Practical
- Developing efficient and realistic itineraries/ traveling plans
- Traveling across mountainous terrain, difficult geographical features, conflict zones
- Organization of collected data; in particular qualitative data
- Collection and processing/analysis of data while in the field: sequential or parallel tasks?
- Measures to safely store collected data
- Reporting to and communicating with advisors, mentors, peers
- Cost-effective and safe plans for lodging and meals
- Language and cultural barriers
- Physical safety/health: risk factors and protective/preventive measures
- Emotional/psychological safety/health: risk factors and protective/preventive measures
- Dealing with secondary trauma
- Safety of informants and research assistants
The newsletter of APSA’s organized section on comparative politics was published on April 7. It features a symposium on DA-RT. Find it here.
An open deliberation to develop community standards of research transparency (QTD process) begins today. Please register and participate here. You do not need to belong to APSA’s QMMR section in order to participate.