Ethics, Transparency, And Trust: A Call For More Open Science In Qualitative Research

What is Qualitative Research?

Qualitative research is a staple of the social sciences. This type of research aims to provide an understanding of individual attitudes, beliefs and motivation through the collection and analyses of descriptive data. These data may be generated through approaches including: in-depth interviews, focus groups, or field observations for example. Using data rich in detail and context means that it is easier for researchers to understand why people attach particular meanings to their experiences or why they behave in a certain way.

Open science is a movement centred on transparency, accessibility, and collaboration, but for qualitative researchers this can produce distinct challenges. Examples of these challenges were outlined on our recent webinar where we brought together three experts,  Professor Rebecca Campbell, Dr Sebastian Karcher and Professor Alex Stevens, to explore the various challenges involved in making qualitative research more open.  As experts within qualitative research or methodologies, each speaker offered practical approaches to consider whilst respecting ethical and methodological complexities. 

Transparent methodologies and tools

Open science isn’t just about replication, a concept often tied to quantitative research. Qualitative studies thrive on context, interpretation, and the nuances of human interaction. Instead of fixating on whether findings can be reproduced exactly, the focus should shift toward transparency and to clearly documenting how the research was conducted so that others can understand, critique, or build upon the work. For qualitative research, this might include sharing interview guides, coding frameworks, or reflexive notes that reveal the researcher’s role in shaping the data.

Often journals impose a specific structure or word limit on submissions which can make sharing the details of the approaches, methodology and data challenging. Those conducting similar work benefit from having this additional background material and other information underpinning the methods which can provide helpful additional context and clarity. The Open Science Framework (OSF) and The Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) are examples of platforms designed to enhance support and enhance the dissemination of this information. BR-UK utilises the OSF to share protocols for each of our projects for example.  The QDR is a dedicated archive for storing and sharing digital data (and accompanying documentation) generated or collected through qualitative and multi-method research in the social sciences and related disciplines specifically.

Navigating Ethical Data Sharing 

While not all data can, or should be shared, thoughtful planning can expand the possibilities of sharing. 

A major hurdle in open qualitative research is how to handle sensitive data. Studies involving personal narratives - whether from trauma survivors, marginalised communities, or interviewees from small groups (e.g., policymakers, police, looked after children) require careful thought about privacy considerations. When we work with small groups, often the data collected is rare and so the more data we can share, the better.  Of course, obtaining consent to share is key.  Providing an option for tiered consent, where participants agree to take part in a study while separately deciding whether their anonymised data can be shared on open science platforms, is a good approach as it can provide participants with a degree of confidence and control over the way their information is shared. 

For particularly sensitive details, researchers might summarise information rather than quote directly, which can preserve meaning whilst reducing the risk of identification. In some cases, partial sharing - for example, releasing only portions of a dataset - can strike a balance between openness and ethical responsibility. 

Working closely with community stakeholders to assess re-identification risks, thus ensuring that shared data doesn’t inadvertently expose participants, can help identify areas of concern proactively and provide reassurance to participants that their sensitive data is safe. 

Trusting Participants as Partners

Many people join studies because they want their stories to be heard by others. By involving people in decisions about data sharing, researchers can honour that agency while safeguarding confidentiality.  This is especially critical when working with populations that are deemed to be vulnerable and/or where ethics boards might assume participants can’t understand and/or won’t provide informed consent to open practices. The reality is that, with clear communication, people are often more willing for their data to be shared than institutions realise. This willingness can be demonstrated by including people with lived experience in the proposed study from the very beginning, inviting them to help shape and draft the ethics forms for example and to work alongside the research team as partners, not just research subjects.

Practical Steps Toward Openness 

Transparency doesn’t have to mean extra work for those involved. Pre-registering qualitative studies, for example, can clarify research intentions upfront whilst the process can remain flexible and be updated throughout. Keeping detailed records of methodological choices - like why certain themes emerged during analysis - helps others follow the logic behind the conclusions drawn from the research. 

Technology also plays a role. While proprietary software dominates qualitative analysis, open-source alternatives are emerging, offering ways to collaborate without cost barriers. For researchers working with public documents or policy data, sharing source materials alongside findings can enhance reproducibility without compromising ethics. 

Systemic Barriers and How to Address Them

Beyond individual practices, broader institutional and publishing norms can hinder open qualitative research. Many academic journals lack clear guidelines for sharing qualitative data, leaving researchers unsure how - or whether - to comply with open science expectations. Meanwhile, many publishers keep knowledge behind paywalls thereby limiting who can access or use research findings. 

Some universities have rights retention policies which enable researchers to legally share their work regardless of publisher restrictions. There is also a growing momentum around community-driven publishing models where researchers prioritise open-access venues over prestige metrics. Senior academics are encouraged to lead by example, demonstrating that rigorous, impactful work can thrive outside closed systems. 

Where Do We Go from Here? 

Open science in qualitative research isn’t about ticking boxes; it’s about adapting principles to practical complexities. This may mean rethinking consent processes, advocating for better institutional support, or simply documenting methods more thoroughly. The goal isn’t perfect transparency but meaningful transparency that allows others to engage critically with the work while respecting its ethical boundaries. 

The advice shared in the BR-UK webinar was straightforward: start small, prioritise ethics, and remember that openness should be viewed as a spectrum, not an all-or-nothing demand.  Over time, such incremental shifts can transform how qualitative research is conducted, shared, and valued - making it not just more open, but more robust and inclusive too. 

Learn More