理解性侵犯幸存者对定性数据存档的观点:对开放科学的女权主义方法的启示

IF 2.5 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
R. Campbell, Rachael Goodman-Williams, McKenzie Javorka, Jasmine Engleton, Katie Gregory
{"title":"理解性侵犯幸存者对定性数据存档的观点:对开放科学的女权主义方法的启示","authors":"R. Campbell, Rachael Goodman-Williams, McKenzie Javorka, Jasmine Engleton, Katie Gregory","doi":"10.1177/03616843221131546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The open science movement has framed data sharing as necessary and achievable best practices for high-quality science. Feminist psychologists have complicated that narrative by questioning the purpose of data sharing across different paradigms, methodologies, and research populations. In these debates, the academic community has centered the needs and voices of researchers, and participants’ perspectives are largely missing from this literature. In this study, we sought to understand how research participants feel about sharing qualitative data on a sensitive subject—sexual victimization. As part of a participatory action research project, we conducted qualitative interviews with sexual assault survivors about their post-assault help-seeking experiences. The federal funding agency that supported this project requires researchers to archive de-identified data in a national data repository (the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data [NACJD]). All participants consented to archiving data, and the vast majority expressed positive views about data sharing because they wanted to help other survivors. Participants emphasized that our participatory action research approach and our stated goal of helping survivors were important considerations in their decisions regarding data sharing. Researchers should obtain informed consent from their participants for data sharing/archiving, and discuss their dissemination plans during the informed consent process.","PeriodicalId":48275,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","volume":"47 1","pages":"51 - 64"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Perspectives on Archiving Qualitative Data: Implications for Feminist Approaches to Open Science\",\"authors\":\"R. Campbell, Rachael Goodman-Williams, McKenzie Javorka, Jasmine Engleton, Katie Gregory\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03616843221131546\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The open science movement has framed data sharing as necessary and achievable best practices for high-quality science. Feminist psychologists have complicated that narrative by questioning the purpose of data sharing across different paradigms, methodologies, and research populations. In these debates, the academic community has centered the needs and voices of researchers, and participants’ perspectives are largely missing from this literature. In this study, we sought to understand how research participants feel about sharing qualitative data on a sensitive subject—sexual victimization. As part of a participatory action research project, we conducted qualitative interviews with sexual assault survivors about their post-assault help-seeking experiences. The federal funding agency that supported this project requires researchers to archive de-identified data in a national data repository (the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data [NACJD]). All participants consented to archiving data, and the vast majority expressed positive views about data sharing because they wanted to help other survivors. Participants emphasized that our participatory action research approach and our stated goal of helping survivors were important considerations in their decisions regarding data sharing. Researchers should obtain informed consent from their participants for data sharing/archiving, and discuss their dissemination plans during the informed consent process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology of Women Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"51 - 64\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology of Women Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221131546\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221131546","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

开放科学运动将数据共享定义为高质量科学的必要和可实现的最佳实践。女权主义心理学家通过质疑不同范式、方法和研究人群之间数据共享的目的,使这种叙述变得复杂。在这些辩论中,学术界以研究人员的需求和声音为中心,而参与者的观点在很大程度上没有出现在这些文献中。在这项研究中,我们试图了解研究参与者对分享一个敏感主题——性受害——的定性数据的感受。作为参与性行动研究项目的一部分,我们对性侵犯幸存者进行了定性访谈,了解他们在性侵犯后寻求帮助的经历。支持该项目的联邦资助机构要求研究人员在国家数据存储库(国家刑事司法数据档案[NACJD])中存档去识别数据。所有参与者都同意将数据存档,绝大多数人对数据共享表示积极看法,因为他们希望帮助其他幸存者。与会者强调,我们的参与性行动研究方法和我们帮助幸存者的既定目标是他们就数据共享作出决定时的重要考虑因素。研究人员在数据共享/存档时应征得参与者的知情同意,并在知情同意过程中讨论其传播计划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Perspectives on Archiving Qualitative Data: Implications for Feminist Approaches to Open Science
The open science movement has framed data sharing as necessary and achievable best practices for high-quality science. Feminist psychologists have complicated that narrative by questioning the purpose of data sharing across different paradigms, methodologies, and research populations. In these debates, the academic community has centered the needs and voices of researchers, and participants’ perspectives are largely missing from this literature. In this study, we sought to understand how research participants feel about sharing qualitative data on a sensitive subject—sexual victimization. As part of a participatory action research project, we conducted qualitative interviews with sexual assault survivors about their post-assault help-seeking experiences. The federal funding agency that supported this project requires researchers to archive de-identified data in a national data repository (the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data [NACJD]). All participants consented to archiving data, and the vast majority expressed positive views about data sharing because they wanted to help other survivors. Participants emphasized that our participatory action research approach and our stated goal of helping survivors were important considerations in their decisions regarding data sharing. Researchers should obtain informed consent from their participants for data sharing/archiving, and discuss their dissemination plans during the informed consent process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) is a feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research, critical reviews and theoretical articles that advance a field of inquiry, teaching briefs, and invited book reviews related to the psychology of women and gender. Topics include (but are not limited to) feminist approaches, methodologies, and critiques; violence against women; body image and objectification; sexism, stereotyping, and discrimination; intersectionality of gender with other social locations (such as age, ability status, class, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation); international concerns; lifespan development and change; physical and mental well being; therapeutic interventions; sexuality; social activism; and career development. This journal will be of interest to clinicians, faculty, and researchers in all psychology disciplines, as well as those interested in the sociology of gender, women’s studies, interpersonal violence, ethnic and multicultural studies, social advocates, policy makers, and teacher education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信