Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Updated article of the week text.) |
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Updated article of the week text.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''"[[Journal:Rethinking data sharing and human participant protection in social science research: Applications from the qualitative realm|Rethinking data sharing and human participant protection in social science research: Applications from the qualitative realm]]"''' | |||
'''"[[Journal: | |||
While data sharing is becoming increasingly common in quantitative social inquiry, qualitative data are rarely shared. One factor inhibiting data sharing is a concern about human participant protections and privacy. Protecting the confidentiality and safety of research participants is a concern for both quantitative and qualitative researchers, but it raises specific concerns within the epistemic context of qualitative research. Thus, the applicability of emerging protection models from the quantitative realm must be carefully evaluated for application to the qualitative realm. At the same time, qualitative scholars already employ a variety of strategies for human-participant protection implicitly or informally during the research process. In this practice paper, we assess available strategies for protecting human participants and how they can be deployed. We describe a spectrum of possible data management options, such as de-identification and applying access controls, including some already employed by the Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) in tandem with its pilot depositors. ('''[[Journal:Rethinking data sharing and human participant protection in social science research: Applications from the qualitative realm|Full article...]]''')<br /> | |||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
''Recently featured'': | ''Recently featured'': | ||
: ▪ [[Journal:Handling metadata in a neurophysiology laboratory|Handling metadata in a neurophysiology laboratory]] | |||
: ▪ [[Journal:ISO 15189 accreditation: Navigation between quality management and patient safety|ISO 15189 accreditation: Navigation between quality management and patient safety]] | : ▪ [[Journal:ISO 15189 accreditation: Navigation between quality management and patient safety|ISO 15189 accreditation: Navigation between quality management and patient safety]] | ||
: ▪ [[Journal:Compliance culture or culture change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers|Compliance culture or culture change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers]] | : ▪ [[Journal:Compliance culture or culture change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers|Compliance culture or culture change? The role of funders in improving data management and sharing practice amongst researchers]] | ||
Revision as of 17:00, 19 February 2018
While data sharing is becoming increasingly common in quantitative social inquiry, qualitative data are rarely shared. One factor inhibiting data sharing is a concern about human participant protections and privacy. Protecting the confidentiality and safety of research participants is a concern for both quantitative and qualitative researchers, but it raises specific concerns within the epistemic context of qualitative research. Thus, the applicability of emerging protection models from the quantitative realm must be carefully evaluated for application to the qualitative realm. At the same time, qualitative scholars already employ a variety of strategies for human-participant protection implicitly or informally during the research process. In this practice paper, we assess available strategies for protecting human participants and how they can be deployed. We describe a spectrum of possible data management options, such as de-identification and applying access controls, including some already employed by the Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) in tandem with its pilot depositors. (Full article...)
Recently featured:
