From Carsten Schneider:

As you may know, APSA’s Qualitative and Multi-Method Research section is currently running a deliberative process about research transparency for qualitative empirical scholarship. The QTD is a broadly inclusive process through which a wide range of qualitative communities are thinking through the meaning, costs, benefits, and practicalities of transparency for the types of inquiry in which they engage. At the end of the process, the QTD Working Groups will produce a set of statements that articulate understandings and practices of research transparency that are relevant for different forms and contexts of qualitative research. These statements will be an invaluable resource for a wide range of constituencies grappling with issues of research transparency, from journal editors to researchers and graduate students.

From now until Dec. 1, the QTD Working Groups — each of which is focused on a particular method or context of qualitative research — are consulting with scholars who use and are knowledgeable about that form of inquiry. I am a member of the Working Group on “Algorithmic Analytic Approaches”, which covers both QCA and automated content analysis. It would be enormously valuable to get your thoughts on some of the issues our Group is considering. We have posted some specific questions on the Group’s discussion forum, which is here: https://www.qualtd.net/viewforum.php?f=23.

To post “on the record,” if you’re not already registered on the qualtd.net site, please first fill out the very short registration form, here: “https://www.qualtd.net/ucp.php?mode=register

We are very keen to hear your thoughts. I’m also happy to have a one-on-one email exchange or Skype call about these issues if that would be more convenient for you. The main thing is to get your input as we think through the meaning and practice of transparency for set-theoretic comparative methods.