PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
\'Open Science\' advocates for open access to scientific research, as well as sharing data, analysis plans and code in order to enable replication of results. However, these requirements typically fail to account for methodological differences between quantitative and qualitative research, and serious ethical problems are raised by the suggestion that full qualitative datasets can or should be published alongside qualitative research papers. Aside from important ethical concerns, the idea of sharing qualitative data in order to enable replication is conceptually at odds with the underpinnings on most qualitative methodologies, which highlight the importance of the unique interpretative function of the researcher. The question of whether secondary analysis of qualitative data is acceptable is key, and in this commentary we argue that there are good conceptual, ethical and economic reasons to consider how funders, researchers and publishers can make better use of existing data.
摘要：
“开放科学”倡导开放科学研究，以及共享数据，分析计划和代码，以实现结果的复制。然而,这些要求通常无法解释定量和定性研究之间的方法差异，和严重的道德问题提出了建议，即完整的定性数据集可以或应该与定性研究论文一起发布。除了重要的伦理问题，共享定性数据以实现复制的想法在概念上与大多数定性方法的基础不一致，这凸显了研究者独特解释功能的重要性。定性数据的二次分析是否可以接受的问题是关键，在这篇评论中，我们认为有很好的概念，考虑资助者的道德和经济原因，研究人员和出版商可以更好地利用现有数据。
