DESCRIPTION

Disciplines include: ethnographic methods (various disciplines), law, politics, organisational science

Open methods refers to the practice of providing a detailed documentation of research methods, surpassing that which can be accommodated in the 'Methods' section of a published article, and publishing this documentation open access - for example, in a data repository, ideally alongside other open research materials such as participant information sheets, blank consent forms, focus group schedules, or surveys, together with research data where it can be shared. In practice, such documentation is often published as a methodological appendix to a journal article or book. Where a documentation of methods is published as an appendix, this can only be said to constitute 'open methods' where the appendix is available open access. Open documentation of methods is especially valuable in the context of research methods that are iterative, relational or responsive - grounded theory approaches, participatory methods and ethnographic research, for example - and for which it is unlikely to be possible to fully document methods in advance via pre-registration.

The need for open documentation of methods in all disciplines and research types is linked to restrictive publication word limits, which limit the depth and detail with which methods can be documented in publications themselves. For disciplines and approaches to which reproducibility is a key concern, this is especially problematic; as Batista Leite et al., writing with reference to the life sciences, note, 'reproducibility starts with methods; researchers cannot reproduce research findings or determine whether they are trustworthy without knowing how the data were generated' (2024, 1). The focus on reproducibility in such disciplines has led to approaches to open methods that enable the sharing of sharing step-by-step protocols via dynamic platforms such as protocols.io, which enables version control and forking, in addition to dedicated journals focused on the detailed reporting of methods (Teytelman et al., 2016). Less commonly, protocol-sharing platforms have also been used by researchers in AHSS, such as the EMERGE collaboration in ethnography.

The relevance of reproducibility to qualitative research has been disputed (see, for example, Pownall, 2022), yet a thorough documentation of methods in social sciences research is nevertheless valuable regardless of research type, promoting transparency (Elman et al., 2018), enabling readers and reviewers to assess the research's rigour and credibility, and supporting both novice and established researchers to fully grasp and build upon the techniques used. While limitations have been highlighted - Down, for example, reminds readers that methodological appendices offer 'processed insights' (2015, 28); while Reyes refers to them as a 'selected accounting' (2018, 212), this is not an argument for the withholding or incomplete documentation of methods, merely a note of caution and an invitation to readers and reviewers to exercise the same degree of critical scrutiny as one would for any other means of research reporting.

There are various mechanisms which enable fully-documented social science methods to be openly shared. Especially in political science and ethnography, researchers have highlighted the value of methodological appendices, defined by Kapiszewski and Karcher as 'supplementary material that discusses how an author collected, generated, and analyzed data' (2019, 287). No specific template for such documentation exists, with norms determined by the reporting conventions and key considerations of the field or method. For example, for ethnography, Reyes describes methodological appendices as providing 'context for the dynamics in the field and an opportunity for reflexivity' (2018, 212); while for those using interviews, Bleich and Pekkanen (2013) have suggested the creation of an 'Interview Methods Appendix' including details of sample frame, response rate and type, format and length of interviews, consistency of opinions or quotations, and more. Researchers may draw on field- and method-appropriate reporting tools and standards such as COREQ (Tong et al., 2007) or Braun and Clarke's more flexible and methodologically-inclusive Big Q Qualitative Reporting Guidelines (BQQRG) (2025).

Documentations of methods that are shared on a publisher's website as appendices to a publication are vulnerable to a lack of permanence (Kapiszewski & Karcher, 2019, 287) and discoverability. Instead, a stand-alone output with a DOI enabling direct and independent citation is optimum. This may take the form of a separate document placed in a field-specific or generic data repository - Figshare, Zenodo or the Open Science Framework, for example - ideally in the context of a broader deposit of open materials and research data. Alternatively, open access journals including the International Journal of Qualitative Methods publish article types such as 'Method and protocol', which can be used for standalone articles focused solely on documenting and foregrounding methods.

Further reading / resources

Bleich, E., and Pekkanen, R. (2013). ‘How to Report Interview Data', in L. Mosley (ed), Interview Research in Political Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 84–106.

Elman, C. et al. (2018). ‘Transparent Social Inquiry: Implications for Political Science’, Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-091515-025429

Kapiszewski, D., and Karcher, S. (2019). 'Transparency in Practice in Qualitative Research', PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000955

References

Batista Leite, S. et al. (2024). 'Promoting Reusable and Open Methods and Protocols (PRO-MaP) Can Improve Methodological Reporting in the Life Sciences', PLoS Biology, 22(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002835

Bleich, E. and Pekkanen, R. (2013). 'How to Report Interview Data.' In Interview Research in Political Science, ed. Mosley, L.. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 84–106

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2025). 'Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Research: A Values-Based Approach', Qualitative Research in Psychology, 22(2), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244

Closa, C. (2021). 'Planning, Implementing and Reporting: Increasing Transparency, Replicability and Credibility in Qualitative Political Science Research', European Political Science, 20(2), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-020-00299-2

Down, S. (2015). 'Narratives of Enterprise Revisited: Methodological Appendices in Ethnographic Books', Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-12-2014-0036

Elman, C. et al. (2018). 'Transparent Social Inquiry: Implications for Political Science', Annual Review of Political Science, 21(1), 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-091515-025429

Kapiszewski, D. and Karcher, S. (2021). 'Transparency in Practice in Qualitative Research', PS: Political Science & Politics, 54(2), 85–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096520000955

Pownall, M. (2022). 'Is Replication Possible for Qualitative Research?' [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dwxeg

Reyes, V. (2018). 'Three Models of Transparency in Ethnographic Research: Naming Places, Naming People, and Sharing Data', Ethnography, 19(2), 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138117733754

Teytelman, L. et al. (2016). 'Protocols.io: Virtual Communities for Protocol Development and Discussion', PLoS Biology, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002538

Tong, A., et al. (2007). 'Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32-Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups', International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042