2 results
The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications
- Alan M. Jacobs, Tim Büthe, Ana Arjona, Leonardo R. Arriola, Eva Bellin, Andrew Bennett, Lisa Björkman, Erik Bleich, Zachary Elkins, Tasha Fairfield, Nikhar Gaikwad, Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Mary Hawkesworth, Veronica Herrera, Yoshiko M. Herrera, Kimberley S. Johnson, Ekrem Karakoç, Kendra Koivu, Marcus Kreuzer, Milli Lake, Timothy W. Luke, Lauren M. MacLean, Samantha Majic, Rahsaan Maxwell, Zachariah Mampilly, Robert Mickey, Kimberly J. Morgan, Sarah E. Parkinson, Craig Parsons, Wendy Pearlman, Mark A. Pollack, Elliot Posner, Rachel Beatty Riedl, Edward Schatz, Carsten Q. Schneider, Jillian Schwedler, Anastasia Shesterinina, Erica S. Simmons, Diane Singerman, Hillel David Soifer, Nicholas Rush Smith, Scott Spitzer, Jonas Tallberg, Susan Thomson, Antonio Y. Vázquez-Arroyo, Barbara Vis, Lisa Wedeen, Juliet A. Williams, Elisabeth Jean Wood, Deborah J. Yashar
-
- Journal:
- Perspectives on Politics / Volume 19 / Issue 1 / March 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 January 2021, pp. 171-208
- Print publication:
- March 2021
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups’ final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency’s promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.1
Skin Colonization by Malassezia in Neonates and Infants
- H. Ruth Ashbee, Astrid K. Leck, John W. L. Puntis, Wendy J. Parsons, E. Glyn V. Evans
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 23 / Issue 4 / April 2002
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2015, pp. 212-216
- Print publication:
- April 2002
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
To identify the timing, pattern, and determinants of colonization of neonates by Malassezia.
Design:Prospective observational study.
Setting:A neonatal medical and surgical unit consisting of 10 special care, 10 high-dependency, 10 intensive care, and 10 surgical cots.
Participants:All neonates (≤ 28 days of age) or infants (> 28 days of age) admitted to the unit during the 20-week period from October 1995 to March 1996.
Methods:All infants or neonates were swabbed on the day of admission and every third day thereafter and risk factors were collected for every day on the unit.
Results:During the study period, 245 neonates and 42 infants were sampled for their entire duration of stay on the unit. Of these, 41 infants (97.6%) were colonized with Malassezia on admission to the unit and thereafter, as assessed by subsequent samples. Within the neonate population, 78 (31.8%) became colonized, but none were colonized immediately after birth. Univariate analysis showed that many factors appeared to be significantly associated with colonization in the neonates, including use of ventilation, presence of central venous catheters, use of parenteral nutrition, and use of antibacterial or antifungal drugs. However, when the data were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression to control for confounding variables, only gestational age and length of stay on the unit were found to be significantly associated with colonization.
Conclusion:Colonization of infants is not as unusual as previously thought and many infants have established a cutaneous Malassezia commensal flora by the age of 3 to 6 months. Factors that predispose to colonization in neonates may not be the same as those that predispose to infection.