Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives

  • Sean Yom (a1)
Abstract

As a pillar of Data Access and Research Transparency (DA-RT), analytic transparency calls for radical honesty about how political scientists infer conclusions from their data. However, honesty about one’s research practices often means discarding the linguistic template of deductive proceduralism that structures most writing, which in turn diminishes the prospects for successful publication. This dissonance reflects a unique dilemma: transparency initiatives reflect a vision of research drawn from the biomedical and natural sciences, and struggle with the messier, iterative, and open-ended nature of political science scholarship. Analytic transparency requires not only better individual practices, such as active citations, but also institutional strategies that reward radical honesty. Journals can provide authors with protected space to reveal research practices, further blind the review process, and experiment with special issues. More broadly, analytic openness can be mandated through procedural monitoring, such as real-time recording of research activities and keystroke logging for statistical programs.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Analytic Transparency, Radical Honesty, and Strategic Incentives
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All
APSA Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights, and Freedoms. 2012. A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science, revised edition. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
Clarke, Kevin, and Primo, David. 2012. A Model Discipline: Political Science and the Logic of Representation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Deer, John. 2011. “How the Case Against the MMR Vaccine Was Fixed.” British Medical Journal 342: 77–82.
Dunning, Thad. 2016. “Transparency, Replication, and Cumulative Learning: What Experiments Alone Cannot Achieve.” Annual Review of Political Science 19: 541–63.
Findley, Michael, Jensen, Nathan, Malesky, Edmund, and Pepinsky, Thomas. 2016. Comparative Political Studies 49: 1667–703.
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, and Metelits, Claire. 2003. “The Replication Debate.” International Studies Perspectives 4: 72–9.
“Guidelines for Data Access and Research Transparency for Qualitative Research.” 2016. CP: Newsletter of the Comparative Politics Organized Section of the American Political Science Association 26: 1321.
“Guidelines for Data Access and Research Transparency for Quantitative Research.” 2016. CP: Newsletter of the Comparative Politics Organized Section of the American Political Science Association 26: 2124.
Hochschild, Jennifer, Lake, David, and Hero, Rodney. 2015. “Data Access and Research Transparency Initiative (DA-RT).” November 24. PSNow Blog. Available at www.politicalsciencenow.com/data-access-and-research-transparency-initiative-da-rt. Accessed June 3, 2016.
Ioannidis, John. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2: 696701.
Kennedy, Peter. 2002. “Sinning in the Basement: What Are the Rules? The Ten Commandments of Applied Econometrics.” Journal of Economic Surveys 16 (4): 569–89.
King, Gary. 1995. “Replication, Replication.” PS: Political Science & Politics 28 (3): 444–52.
Kreuzer, Marcus. 2017. “Data Files, Footnotes, and Editors: Bridging Quantitative, Qualitative, and Editorial Transparency Practices.” Unpublished manuscript, last modified February 1.
Laitin, David. 2013. “Fisheries Management.” Political Analysis 21 (1): 42–7.
Laitin, David, and Reich, Rob. 2017. “Trust, Transparency, and Replication in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50 (1): 172–5.
Louveau, Antione, Smirnov, Igor, Keyes, Timothy, Eccles, Jacob, Rouhani, Sherin, et al. 2015. “Structural and Functional Features of Central Nervous System Lymphatic Vessels.” Nature 523: 337–41.
Lupia, Arthur, and Elman, Colin. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (1): 1924.
Lustick, Ian. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90 (3): 605–18.
McNutt, Marcia. 2015. “Editorial Retraction.” Science. Published online May 28. doi:10.1126/science.aac6638.
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2014. “Transparency: The Revolution in Qualitative Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 47 (1): 4853.
Munck, Gerardo, and Snyder, Richard. 2007. Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
O’Boyle, Ernest Hugh Jr., Banks, George Christopher, and Gonzalez-Mulé, Erik. 2017. “The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize into Beautiful Articles.” Journal of Management 43 (2): 376–99.
Open Science Collaboration. 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349: 943.
Rosenthal, Robert. 1979. “The ‘File-Drawer Problem’ and Tolerance for Null Results.” Psychological Bulletin 86 (3): 638–41.
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Yanow, Dvora. 2016. “Legitimizing Political Science or Splitting the Discipline? Reflections on DA-RT and the Policy-Making Role of a Professional Association.” Politics & Gender 12 (3): 119.
Sterling, Theodore. 1959. “Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance—or Vice Versa.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 54 (285): 3034.
Waldner, David. 2007. “Transforming Inferences into Explanations: Lessons from the Study of Mass Extinctions.” In Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, ed. Ned Lebow, Richard and Lichbach, Mark Irving, 145–76. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yom, Sean. 2015. “From Methodology to Practice: Inductive Iteration in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 48 (5): 616–44.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

PS: Political Science & Politics
  • ISSN: 1049-0965
  • EISSN: 1537-5935
  • URL: /core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed