There has been much debate in recent years about how open research practices, which have been promoted in efforts to improve research robustness, may (not) be appropriate for qualitative methodologies, particularly in educational research. Among these is a concern for replication efforts. Makel et al. (2022) make the case that ‘replication is relevant for qualitative research’. The authors argue that concerns surrounding transferability, intentionality, and transparency of qualitative research may be eased, or responded to, by replication studies. Here, I argue that there are three fundamental questions that need unpacking before declarative claims can be made about the relevance of replication for qualitative research. This includes critical questioning what we mean by: replication, qualitative research, and rigour. I address each of these issues and encourage a more nuanced appraisal of how replication may, or may not, be epistemologically, ontologically, or methodologically compatible with the goals of qualitative research.
Professor at George Washington University
I am a Professor with Human-Technology Collaboration and Educational Technology programs at George Washington University in Washington DC. I have written 12 books and more than 100 articles, and I co-host of the Parsing Science podcast where scientists tell the stories behind their research. I am also the developer of the WeShareScience.com online platform for sharing research videos, and SciencePods.com where researchers can create free podcasts about their science. My research interests include human interactions with intelligent machines, needs, needs assessments, and instructional design.
Latest posts by Ryan Watkins (see all)
- Value Capture - April 18, 2024
- Causal Claims — Tell Me Your (Cognitive) Budget and I’ll Tell You What You Value - March 30, 2024
- Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time - March 22, 2024