Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:54:59.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legitimizing Political Science or Splitting the Discipline? Reflections on DA-RT and the Policy-making Role of a Professional Association

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2016

Peregrine Schwartz-Shea  and
Dvora Yanow
Peregrine Schwartz-Shea
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Dvora Yanow
Affiliation:
Wageningen University and Käte Hamburger Kolleg/Centre for Global Cooperation Research, University of Duisburg-Essen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We have been invited by Politics & Gender's editors to review the origins and current standing of the Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT) policy, an effort initiated by the eponymous American Political Science Association (APSA) Ad Hoc Committee and led primarily by Colin Elman, Diana Kapiszewski, and Arthur (“Skip”) Lupia. We have not been bystanders in this unfolding history, and in keeping with feminist and interpretive epistemologies that inform our work and that tie positionality to knowledge claims (e.g., Haraway 1988), we include mention of our own involvement (see Mala Htun's 2016 parallel account of her activities). Herein lies one of our main points in assessing DA-RT: from the perspective of interpretive, feminist, and some other qualitative methods, transparency as an epistemological mandate is not new. On the contrary, it is widely accepted, and expected, within certain epistemic communities (noted also in Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2014); it needs no set of new rules imposed from above, by journal editors and others, for its instantiation. Our assessment includes questions about the relationship between APSA and DA-RT, as the association's support has colored DA-RT's reception. Part of what we seek to account for is resistance on the part of political scientists of various sorts—and not only those in the interpretive community, which we know best—to the DA-RT initiative and even to the participatory Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD) process designed by Alan Jacobs and Tim Büthe (2015) at the invitation of the APSA organized section Qualitative and Multi-Method Research (QMMR; see, e.g., Isaac 2016). Even as we see changes in representations of DA-RT in response to critiques, we are concerned that those questioning the substance of DA-RT and the process of its adoption by APSA (in the Ethics Guidelines) and various journals are being represented by its architects as “either not paying attention to what we have been doing or [as] purposely misrepresenting the project,” including presenting “conspiracy theories, enemy narratives, and speculation about others' motives” (Elman and Lupia, 2106, 45, 50). These very words speak to DA-RT's potential to marginalize dissenters and even split the discipline. How has U.S. political science arrived at this pass?

Type
Online Critical Perspectives on DA-RT
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , E11
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Political Science Association (APSA). 2016. About APSA. www.apsanet.org/ABOUT/About-APSA (accessed May 22, 2016).Google Scholar
Ansell, Ben, and Samuels, David. 2016. “ CPS Editors’ Response to DA-RT Symposium.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 52–54.Google Scholar
APSA Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms. 2012. A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science, 2nd ed., revised. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Büthe, Tim, and Jacobs, Alan, eds. 2015. “Introduction to the Symposium, Transparency in Qualitative and Multi-Method Research.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 2–8. http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/moynihan/cqrm/Newsletter%2013_1.pdf (accessed June 6, 2016).Google Scholar
Cramer, Katherine. 2015. “Transparent Explanations, Yes. Public Transcripts and Fieldnotes, No: Ethnographic Research on Public Opinion.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 17–20.Google Scholar
“DA-RT Workshop Held in Washington, DC.” 2015. PS: Political Science & Politics 48 (3): 557.Google Scholar
Dialogue on DA-RT. N.d. https://dialogueondart.org/about/ (accessed May 22, 2016).Google Scholar
Economic and Social Research Council. 2016. “Example Research Ethics Initial Checklist.” www.esrc.ac.uk/files/funding/guidance-for-applicants/ethics/example-research-ethics-initial-checklist (accessed May 22, 2016).Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Kapiszewski, Diana. 2014. “Data Access and Research Transparency in the Qualitative Tradition.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (1): 43–47.Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, Kapiszewski, Diana, and Lupia, Arthur. 2015. “A Response to Discussions and Debates at the 2015 APSA Meeting.” www.dartstatement.org/#!response-to-2015-apsa-discussions/bcawm (accessed May 22, 2016).Google Scholar
Elman, Colin, and Lupia, Arthur. 2016. “DA-RT: Aspirations and Anxieties.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 44–52.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2016. “The Dark Side of DA-RT.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 25–27.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2016. “Transparency, Research Integrity and Multiple Methods.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 28–31.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–99.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2014. “Contending Conceptions of Science and Politics: Methodology and the Constitution of the Political.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, 2nd ed., ed. Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 27–49.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala. 2016. “DA-RT and the Social Conditions of Knowledge Production in Political Science.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 32–35.Google Scholar
Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. 2014. “Workshop on Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT) in Political Science: Implications for Journal Practices,” September 18–19. http://datacommunity.icpsr.umich.edu/da-rt-workshop (accessed May 22, 2016).Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2015a. “For a More Public Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (2): 269–83.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2015b. “Further Thoughts on DA-RT.” The Plot: Politics Decoded (blog), November 16. www.the-plot.org/2015/11/02/further-thoughts-on-da-rt/ (accessed May 9, 2016).Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2015c. “A Broader Conception of Political Science Publicity, Or Why I Refuse DA-RT and Yet Did Not Sign the ‘Delay DA-RT’ Petition.” The Plot: Politics Decoded (blog), December 3. www.the-plot.org/2015/12/03/a-broader-conception-of-political-science-publicity-or-why-i-refuse-da-rt-and-yet-did-not-sign-the-delay-da-rt-petition/ (accessed May 9, 2016).Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 2016. “Is More Deliberation about DA-RT Really So Good?” The Plot: Politics Decoded (blog), January 23. www.the-plot.org/2016/01/23/is-more-deliberation-about-da-rt-really-so-good/ (accessed May 9, 2016).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan, and Büthe, Tim. 2015. “Qualitative Transparency Deliberations.” Proposal to the APSA's QMMR Organized Section (approved by the QMMR Section Executive Committee, December 20, 2015). https://dialogueondartdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/qmmr-qualitative-transparency-deliberations-proposal.pdf (accessed, May 7, 2016).Google Scholar
Journal Editors’ Transparency Statement (JETS). 2015. www.dartstatement.org//#!blank/c22sl (accessed May 22, 2016).Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Cannella, Gaile S.. 2004. “Dangerous Discourses: Methodological Conservatism and Governmental Regimes of Truth.” Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1): 5–14.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Elman, Colin. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (1): 19–42.Google Scholar
Lynch, Marc. 2016. “Area Studies and the Cost of Prematurely Implementing DA-RT.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 36–39.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2010. “Data Collection and Collaboration: Editor's Introduction.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (1): 15–16.Google Scholar
Pachirat, Timothy. 2011. Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Pachirat, Timothy. 2015. “The Tyranny of Light.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 27–31.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Sarah E. 2013. “Organizing Rebellion: Rethinking High-Risk Mobilization and Social Networks in War.” American Political Science Review 107 (3): 418–32.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Sarah Elizabeth, and Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2015. “Transparency in Intensive Research on Violence: Ethical Dilemmas and Unforeseen Consequences.” Qualitative & Multi-Method Research 13 (1): 22–27.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Powell, Bing, and 19 other signatories. 2016. “Letter from Distinguished Political Scientists Urging Nuanced Journal Interpretation of JETS Policy Guidelines.” PSNow (January 13). www.politicalsciencenow.com/letter-from-distinguished-political-scientists-urging-nuanced-journal-interpretation-of-jets-policy-guidelines/ (accessed May 9, 2016).Google Scholar
Qualitative Transparency Deliberations, on behalf of the APSA Section for Qualitative and Multi-Methods Research. N.d. www.qualtd.net/page/about (accessed May 22, 2016).Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2014. “Judging Quality: Evaluative Criteria and Epistemic Communities.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, ed. Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 120–46.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Yanow, Dvora. 2012. Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shehata, Samer S. 2009. Shop Floor Culture and Politics in Egypt. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Shehata, Samer S. 2014. “Ethnography, Identity, and the Production of Knowledge.” In Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, 2nd ed., ed. Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 209–27.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Castro, Guzmán, with Calasanti, Anna. 2016. “Avant-Garde or Dogmatic? DA-RT in the Mirror of the Social Sciences.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 40–43.Google Scholar
Smith, John K., and Deemer, Deborah K.. 2003. “The Problem of Criteria in the Age of Relativism.” In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, 2nd ed., ed. Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 427–57.Google Scholar
“Tim.” 2015. Comment on “Put a DA-RT in it.” Duck of Minerva (blog), November 4. http://duckofminerva.com/2015/11/put-a-da-rt-in-it.html (accessed January 24, 2016).Google Scholar
Workshop on Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT) in Political Science. 2014. “Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT): A Joint Statement by Political Science Journal Editors.” October 6. http://media.wix.com/ugd/fa8393_da017d3fed824cf587932534c860ea25.pdf (accessed May 19, 2016).Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora. 2007. “Evidence-based Policy.” In Encyclopedia of Governance, ed. Bevir, Mark. London: Sage, 299–301.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora. 2015. “After Mastery: Insights from Practice Theorizing.” In The Emergence of Novelty in Organizations, ed. Garud, Raghu, Simpson, Barbara, Langley, Ann, and Tsoukas, Haridimos. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 272–317.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine. 2010. “Perestroika Ten Years After: Reflections on Methodological Diversity.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (4): 741–45.Google Scholar
Yanow, Dvora, and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, eds. 2014/2006. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn, 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Yashar, Deborah J. 2016. “Editorial Trust, Gatekeeping, and Unintended Consequences.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26 (1): 57–64.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schwartz-Shea supplementary material

Appendix

Download Schwartz-Shea supplementary material(File)
File 20.8 KB