Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation in Data Sharing Behaviour
Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report
Recommendation: posted 26 September 2023, validated 28 September 2023
Karhulahti, V. (2023) Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation in Data Sharing Behaviour . Peer Community in Registered Reports, . https://rr.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=462
In the present registered report, Henderson et al. (2023) empirically explore the factors that either hinder or facilitate data sharing in the UK. By means of semi-structured interviews, the team will chart researchers’ experiences of sharing and non-sharing. Thematic template analysis will be applied to organise the data into a hierarchical map of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations in a theoretical domains framework (COM-B-TDF). The research plan itself meets the highest open science standards and reflects on the authors own positions, from which the current qualitative interview data sharing efforts will be made.
The Stage 1 manuscript was reviewed over three rounds by three experts with familiary of the UK cultural context and specializations in open science practices, qualitative research, and data infrastructures. Based on careful revisions and detailed responses to the reviewers’ comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.
URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/2gm5s (under temporary private embargo)
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
- Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
- Collabra: Psychology
- Peer Community Journal
- Studia Psychologica
- Swiss Psychology Open
1. Henderson, E., Marcu, A., Atkins, L. & Farran, E.K. (2023). Investigating the barriers and enablers to data sharing behaviours: A qualitative Registered Report. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/2gm5s
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article.
Evaluation round #2
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/d5vuq/?view_only=c91a36012190462e8416cba250bdb8ed
Version of the report: 2
Author's Reply, 26 Sep 2023
Decision by Veli-Matti Karhulahti, posted 24 Sep 2023, validated 24 Sep 2023
Dear Emma Henderson and co-authors,
Thank you for all of the careful revisions. The two previous reviewers are largely satisified with the new version. We are also lucky to have a third expert join us for this round, with a few minor suggestions. Please consider the feedback and I am confident that we can proceed with IPA after that.
I have only one small suggestion: on page 7 you list "obtain ethics" as one of the behaviors and describe it as "Submitting an ethics application that includes plans to share data and details of how this will be done." I would encourage reframing this without focusing on the application. As you say, not all studies require formal ethics approval (but all studies require active ethics). Considering and reacting to ethical questions tends to be a continuous process in data sharing (writing this, as someone just contacted me about a years-old dataset).
Looking forward to the final version and, as usual, if you have any questions before that, feel free to contact me.
Reviewed by Moin Syed, 14 Sep 2023
Reviewed by Peter Branney, 18 Sep 2023
Reviewed by Libby Bishop, 24 Sep 2023
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the report: https://osf.io/d5vuq/?view_only=df7f0dbe550e449eb87fe1450f4fda7a
Version of the report: 1
Author's Reply, 29 Aug 2023
Decision by Veli-Matti Karhulahti, posted 21 Jul 2023, validated 21 Jul 2023
Dear Emma Henderson and co-authors,
Thank you for submitting a scheduled Stage 1 to PCI RR. We have now received two of the three commissioned reviews of your submission. Because the third reviewer was unable to deliver in promised time but the two other reviews are of very high quality, I have decided to make a decision based on these two reviews and my own assessment. Evidently, both reviews consider this Stage 1 proposal of high interest and quality overall. I will add a few comments of my own, partly overlapping with what is already said in the reviews.
1. Both reviews highlight that the method, while generally appropriate for the data and goals, is not fully optimal for the present design. I agree with these observations. Although it is true that some previous studies have carried out first inductive analysis and then classified the results into existing categories, this seems like unnecessary double workload. If the aim is to explore how the existing categories manifest in the present data, why not do deductive analysis and save a lot of scarce resources? If the goal would be to challenge the COM-B/TDF framework, then it would be logical to go inductive and see what themes don’t fit COM-B/TDF. Because these priors have already been considered in designing the interview frame and the goal is to seek them in general, everything points to a deductive approach. I’m not going to insist that you abandon the inductive approach but please consider it and see the next comment.
2. If I follow Braun & Clarke’s guidelines for editors (2021) and ask “Is there a good ‘fit’ between the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the research and the specific type of TA (i.e. is there conceptual coherence)?” (p. 345), it seems that the current study design is not necessarily the best fit with reflexive TA because you wish to map barriers and enablers comprehensively in existing models. In reflexive TA, one cannot cover more than 2-6 themes in any depth (according to Braun & Clarke’s own estimation -- but I understand you also plan to move sub-thematic codes to the theoretical model). One reviewer suggest an alternative thematic analysis method, thematic template analysis, which I agree would fit perfectly with the current RQs and theoretical frame. Again, I’m not going to say you must abandon reflexive TA, and based on the positionality statement I understand there have been notable preparations to explicitly use reflexive TA. I will support the use of any working approach, including reflexive TA, but also wish to highlight that the differences between reflexive TA other TA options are not always very big and it’s good to keep in mind that Braun and Clarke’s reflexive TA is by no means the only qualitative or even TA method where reflexivity is an important part of the analysis! (I.e., it wouldn’t be a huge leap to move to using thematic template analysis or similar.)
3. As pointed out in reviews, discussing the epistemological assumptions of the study would be very useful. I’m personally ok with having the COREQ supplement and find it as a useful checklist from an editorial/reviewer point of view. For the record, however, I should note that reflexive TA opposes the use of COREQ quite strongly. In addition to the critiques in the works you have already cited, see the points listed by Victoria Clarke (I know it’s a bit sad to cite Twitter but I cannot currently find other locations and I want you to have the Stage 1 decision today):
4. As pointed out in reviews, the two RQs seem to overlap significantly. One reviewer suggests removing RQ2, but I’m personally thinking whether dropping RQ1 would affect the study design at all, no? You’re free to choose whatever option feels best (I understand splitting the RQ is motivated by the initial 2-part analysis plan), but please reflect on the RQs carefully one more time with your epistemological and theoretical premises outlined.
5. I very much like how there are clear inclusion and exclusion criteria! Reviewers make important suggestions for further improving this section. Adding to that, I’m also a bit puzzled why only those with data sharing experiences are included, and one must also work in a team? Based on my own experience, the barriers manifest most visibly in the experiences of those colleagues who have never shared. Why are they not included? There is a note saying “to ensure that participants can talk about their
experiences of barriers and enablers” but I’m not sure why researchers without such experience wouldn’t be able to talk about, e.g. their lacking motivations to share? It feels that this is an important group of experiences related to the RQs. As for the criterion about working in a team, I’m also thinking of many good discussions about data sharing I’ve had with ethnographers, design researchers, and other scholars who mainly do solo-authored work. I believe they would also have valuable and relevant experiences to share.
6. The section “Previous Research on Qualitative Sample Sizes” seems unnecessary because it talks about saturation which is not used here.
7. This comment is not about the design but a suggestion that you may wish to consider in general. You’re planning to anonymize the data, which is ok for this study. But I’m also thinking, wouldn’t it be valuable to keep the option to return to the interviewees e.g., in 3 years and see if the ongoing policy changes and new academic incentives have changed their data sharing habits and perceptions? To keep this option, you’d need to pseudonymize the data and keep the identifier key. Of course, if that’s not something you’re interested in, just ignore this.
Please also carefully consider the rest of the reviewers’ detailed feedback. I hope the feedback overall is helpful in revising the study, and you can contact me any time during the process if questions occur.