Open with Care! A Framework for Responsible Qualitative Openness

Calls for qualitative researchers to adopt open science practices are growing, yet most proposals import quantitative logics, such as data sharing, that clash with the epistemic and ethical foundations of qualitative inquiry. I argue that openness in qualitative research is not inherently good, and that it is responsible and desirable only when specific conditions are in place. I propose a framework grounded in three conditions: (1) protection against commodification, which guards against appropriation by commercial or AI systems; (2) preservation of context and interpretive labour, which keeps researcher contributions visible in reuse; and (3) dynamic consent, which recognises participants’ ongoing agency over their narratives. When these conditions are absent, we risk the erosion of participants’ trust, losing important interpretative meaning, and unwittingly commodifying narratives. I conclude by mapping responsibilities across stakeholders, showing how openness in qualitative research can be enacted as a shared duty of care across multiple stakeholders.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v2
Primary Topic
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Open with Care! A Framework for Responsible Qualitative Openness

Sarahanne Field
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
article

Open with Care! A Framework for Responsible Qualitative Openness

Sarahanne Field
article en

Abstract

Calls for qualitative researchers to adopt open science practices are growing, yet most proposals import quantitative logics, such as data sharing, that clash with the epistemic and ethical foundations of qualitative inquiry. I argue that openness in qualitative research is not inherently good, and that it is responsible and desirable only when specific conditions are in place. I propose a framework grounded in three conditions: (1) protection against commodification, which guards against appropriation by commercial or AI systems; (2) preservation of context and interpretive labour, which keeps researcher contributions visible in reuse; and (3) dynamic consent, which recognises participants’ ongoing agency over their narratives. When these conditions are absent, we risk the erosion of participants’ trust, losing important interpretative meaning, and unwittingly commodifying narratives. I conclude by mapping responsibilities across stakeholders, showing how openness in qualitative research can be enacted as a shared duty of care across multiple stakeholders.

Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.