To participate, you may either post a contribution to an existing discussion by selecting the thread for that topic (and then click on "Post Reply") or start a new thread by clicking on "New Topic" below.
The transition to Stage 2 of the deliberations is currently underway but will take some time to complete. In the meantime, we very much welcome additional contributions to the existing threads in this forum.
For instructions on how to follow a discussion thread by email, click here.
George Washington University
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:51 pm
So my questions are the following: (1) is active citation something that should be promoted, or refused? (2) If the latter, are there other ways scholars can strive to increase transparency, such as through an online appendix that spells out the choices made with regard to data selection, and how the author drew inferences from her/his sources? (3) Can better footnoting practices address some of the complaints of those who say qualitative researchers are not sufficiently transparent? Historians, for instance, use meaty footnotes to display the sources used or address conflicting points or debates over the meaning of evidence. Could one way forward be to develop a set of standards with regard to the citation and discussion of qualitative evidence in footnotes?
If new transparency standards are to be required of qualitative researchers in journal publishing, it strikes me that qualitative researchers deserve to get something in return -- longer word counts, the ability to have lengthy footnotes, etc., so that we could actually meet these standards. I'd be interested to hear what people think of that: what would we, as scholars, need to meet these standards?
Click below to read comments that colleagues have made so far about active citation and working with documents:
-Summary post on: what does data sharing concretely mean?
-Re: Against “requirements”
-Re: [From Steering Comm.] Inviting input on specific transparency practice
-DA-RT: effect on graduate training
-[From Steering Comm.] What might qualitative data access look like?
-Re: Are qualitative researchers held to a higher standard?
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:20 am
I’d also add to that whether we should address ethical and legal issues pertaining to archives. These are less common issues in non human subject research, but they do come up. For instance, I use letters from private citizens to advocacy groups in my research. This raises questions about whether and how to protect their identities when it comes to citation, which I’ve dealt with on a case-by-case basis, depending a bit on the access restrictions of the archive. It would be nice to have clearer, more accepted guidance on these issues, though. The same goes for legal issues involving copyright and fair use when it comes to active citation – I think a lot of us who use archival work aren’t aware of potential copyright issues, or if we are we muddle through on an individual basis.
I am also skeptical of the push to active citation, except where documents are already online. Otherwise, the time and resource burden poses a large barrier, especially to graduate students and junior faculty.
There is, however, one huge consequence of better footnoting that we need to address: word and space limits for journals. Including full archival citation in footnotes is both good research practice and essential for transparency. But unless journals are willing to provide additional space for qualitative researchers to include this citation information, we will (again) find this type of research at a disadvantage.
-- IR grad student
Now don't get me wrong. I am not against embedded links where possible but I don't really see them as adding much value other than "proving" that the author did not make up the evidentiary basis of their claim. But to me, that's a strawman concern! How many people who know anything about qualitative work seriously believe that scholars are making up their evidence on a regular basis?
But I also agree with the previous poster-- that the increasingly tight word-limits at many "top" journals militate against this meaty footnote strategy. It's not such an issue at comparative journals like World Politics and CPS, or more qualitative journals like Politics & Society, SAPD, etc. But journals like the JOP etc (which my department considers a "top disciplinary journal", whereas the others I have mentioned are mere "field journals") have insanely low page/wordcount limits. In my mind, the JOP's 35-page (inclusive of all figures, tables and references) limit actually borders on anti-intellectual because it militates against proper citation strategies. Why are we as a discipline not talking about issues such as these?
Assistant professor at R1.
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 1:44 pm
Univ of New Mexico
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:20 am
--Meaty (or thorough) footnotes for qualitative work are ALREADY the equivalent of the new transparency and data access standards for quant work. Meaty footnotes point the reader to the data from which the ideas and conclusions in the article or book came, and enable the inquisitive reader to go back to those sources, the "data," and draw their own conclusions. That's exactly what making publicly machine readable datasets and code does--it enables inquisitive readers to go to the data, redo the analysis, and draw their own conclusions. it is important to note that DA-RT standards do not currently require that quant scholars provide access to RAW DATA, in the form of surveys, annotated reports or other documents that were subsequently coded, datasheets, etc. the raw data that goes into a stata/R/excel data file or spreadsheet is the functional equivalent of the transcripts and field notes that folks are objecting to sharing. if posting transcripts and field notes is required, then access to other forms of raw data should also be required.
--active citation is being pitched by Andy M. as a conservative "back to the future" mechanism to conform to DA-RT. compared to uploading and sharing field notes and transcripts, it is benign. but i agree with folks who say that a page or two of a transcript, taken out of context, is potentially meaningless. sharing such a transcript would also incur costs with anonymization, potentially, as well as raise the eyebrows of IRB and possibly involve acquiring informed consent to do so. this would involve the same host of problems as sharing full transcripts.
--i disagree with the idea of giving qualitative work longer word limits. articles based on quant data also have to make tough choices about what to include. it wouldn't be fair. what does make sense is for qual work to use "supplementary online materials" more aggressively. Andy M. calls this a "transparency appendix," but it could simply be a document with all the sources and ideas that the author wanted to go into the article but couldn't find a way to fit in.
The University of Pennsylvania
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:59 pm
George Washington University
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:51 pm
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 9:48 am
But he also points out that the footnote only can serve this function effectively on if it is not constrained by word limits and if cited at the bottom of the pages rather than being banished to the back of an article or book.
So, if journals want to be serious about transparency give us back the chunky footnote and make quantitative scholars document their research judgments in a chunkier fashion as well. A good corrective to their epistemological anorexia would be to insist on having a page number !!
university of michigan--ann arbor
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 8:04 pm
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 6:53 am
First of all, I agree that word/page limits in journals such as AJPS and JOP are simply too low to permit meaty footnotes and other forms of extensive citations that provide full contextual background to source documents within published versions of articles. Requiring qualitative scholars to provide such detailed forms of references within manuscripts, without correspondingly increasing journal word limits, is unfair; it will effectively shut many forms of qualitative research out of the top disciplinary journals in Political Science. But asking for different word limits for qualitative and quantitative scholarship is tricky. Who will decide whether a manuscript is qualitative or quantitative, and what about the many forms of research today that employ mixed-methods approaches? As Mala Htun points out, different word limits might not be fair to quantitative scholars, who also have to make tough decisions about the level of detail to include when describing data preparation and analysis. And from a practical perspective, due to pricing and printing constraints in the publishing industry, journals are already squeezed when it comes to page limits. Is it realistic to expect that journals will agree to substantially increase word limits for qualitative scholars? I think that we will need clear answers to these questions before being able to fully evaluate the costs and benefits of meaty footnotes and other forms of detailed citations within published versions of articles.
One way out of this quagmire is to have qualitative research rely more on supplementary/online appendices. Since these appendices do not have word limits, scholars will have a fair amount of latitude to explain their sources and provide detailed contextual background to each citation. If we go this route, we might not even have to decide between meaty footnotes and active citation methods---why not have both? That is, the standard could be to have brief citations in the published version of an article. This will allow qualitative scholars to meet journal word limits in a reasonable manner. Then, the supplementary appendix could include a "detailed citation" version of the same published article. Here, authors can include meaty footnotes that provide the necessary context to each source. But each footnote can also be linked to the page(s) from the source documents where specific quotes or references are drawn from. This way, other researchers who wish to replicate the findings of the paper can quickly find the immediate backup for each citation using the active citation approach. But if the abridged backup is insufficient, they will have access to all of the information in the meaty footnotes that will allow them to return to the archives (or other repositories where source materials are located) and verify the manuscript's claims. These supplementary appendices can be made available to reviewers (in an anonymous fashion) during the review process, if we want to ensure that appropriate vetting takes place prior to publication.
My point is that we might not necessarily have to make a choice between active citations and meaty footnotes. I think we can have both if we rely on supplementary appendices. (Of course, whether active citations place undue cost burdens on qualitative scholars is another matter worthy of its own debate.)