Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Open Science Alternatives to Scopus and the Web of Science: A Case Study in Regional Resilience
Previous Article in Journal
The Positive Impact of the Open Access Scientific Publishing in Chile
Previous Article in Special Issue
FAIR as a Journey: Lessons Learned from Building the GoTriple Discovery Platform for Social Sciences and Humanities
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Publications
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/publications12040042
publications-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Is This the End of Anthropology as We Know It? Some Implication of FAIR Principles on Tales in Ethnological and Anthropological Qualitative Research

by
Olga Orlić
Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Publications 2024, 12(4), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040042
Submission received: 27 February 2024 / Revised: 15 October 2024 / Accepted: 1 November 2024 / Published: 12 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue 10th Anniversary Special Issue "PUBMET2023 Conference on Scholarly Communication in the Context of Open Science")
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Varying degrees of FAIRness, taken from Mons et al. [<a href="#B22-publications-12-00042" class="html-bibr">22</a>].</p> "> Figure A1
<p>How do you keep/store your data?</p> "> Figure A2
<p>Do you share data with other colleagues?</p> "> Figure A3
<p>Do you use other researchers data?</p> "> Figure A4
<p>Who should have access to the data?</p> "> Figure A5
<p>Do you think data should be shared?</p> "> Figure A6
<p>I would agree to share the raw data before publication.</p> "> Figure A7
<p>I would agree to share data if it is a requirement for funding.</p> "> Figure A8
<p>I would agree to share raw data to achieve open science’ goals.</p> "> Figure A9
<p>I support open science’s goals of the raw data sharing.</p> "> Figure A10
<p>I would agree to share raw data if it ensures publication in high-ranking scientific journals.</p> "> Figure A11
<p>I would agree to share raw data if it means I can collaborate with reputable scientists.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Open science, accessibility and knowledge sharing, especially of articles and monographs stemming from publicly funded research, seem to be moving in quite a positive direction toward scientific development and have received almost unanimous approval from the scientific community. However, when it comes to data sharing, the existing practice reveals a different picture, and not exclusively a discipline-dependent one. FAIR principles are developed and promoted as guiding tools for creating contextualized standards. The fact that data obtained by a qualitative methodology deserve special attention and treatment regarding the accessibility principle is recognized. Although FAIR principles provide ways to anonymize the data and interlocutors, individuals coming from smaller communities or even communities of practice can sometimes be easily recognized by members of the same community if data are openly accessed. Sometimes the interlocutors might agree with these terms, but sometimes they do not. According to the disciplinary code of ethics, a researcher is obliged to thoroughly describe the ways of the raw data management and usage, and in the case of mandatory raw data sharing (e.g., for receiving funding), it can inevitably impact the narratives collected. The prerogative to make all data open inevitably leads to autocensorship among interlocutors, i.e., resulting in a kind of FAIRy tale being collected. The article discusses the results obtained from the survey carried out among Croatian ethnologists and cultural anthropologists about the currently practiced data sharing, their attitudes about data sharing and their perceived behavior in hypothetical situations connected with data sharing. The results show mixed opinions about data sharing and a desire to follow the disciplinary code of ethics first, i.e., to follow the interlocutors’ wishes in the case of data management and usage.

1. Introduction

Open science is praised as a great step toward reducing some of the inequalities existing between scientific communities all over the world and paving the avenues for science in the future [1]. This is especially true, among other things, for the open access journal agenda that has been democratizing access to scientific results, diminishing existing hierarchies and power relations. Having the financial resources to access pay-walled journals and papers is a significant form of capital [2] that can make a difference in generating scientific achievements, receiving access to funding and enabling someone to pursue a successful academic career. The pros and cons of open access are still being evaluated and negotiated [3], and the distinction between true and fake open access should become clearer [4,5], but a major part of the scientific community agrees that open access represents a positive change.
However, the open science agenda has one more goal: to make data accessibility or data sharing praised as a vehicle that not only speeds up science and its achievements but also strengthens trust in the scientific process [1,6,7].
Data sharing is praised as a beneficial practice, but Tenopir et al. have noted differences between what scientists practice and preach [8]. In other words, there “is a willingness to share data, but it is difficult to achieve or is done only on request” [8].
Tenopir et al. point out studies revealing how the type of data impacts the willingness to data sharing (e.g., “Whereas 90% of scientists working in atmospheric science were willing to share their data, only 58% of the questioned social sciences scientists were ready to do this” [8]). This indicates the specific nature of data as well as the specific nature of the research process.
Pampel and Dallmeier-Tiessen emphasize some reasons for this “unwillingness”. Enhanced documentation of data is a time-consuming task competing with many other activities and/or priorities and many disciplines lack standards by which data can be described, and researchers do not have proper incentives to publish data, despite several already-developed ideas. The ideas about so-called data papers or enriched publications (research data published as an enrichment of an article) are good, but one has to keep in mind that in a competitive academic environment, scientists are still ranked and promoted upon the publishing of scientific papers, monographs and edited volumes [9].
Nevertheless, the scientific debate about open data has resulted in the creation of the FAIR principles (FAIR stands for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable). The FAIR principles were introduced by the open science agenda in 2016 [10], after a workshop held in Leiden, The Netherlands, in 2014. They were formulated with the aim of enabling digital resources in order to become more FAIR for machines as well as for humans [10]. Although they were most commonly considered unproblematic and had a positive impact on various levels (e.g., speeding up the research, enabling evaluation processes, and raising trust in science), some voices shared different experiences and pointed to the barriers [11,12].
The most prestigious and competitive research funding program in Europe, HORIZON, as well as other competitive funding agencies, adopted the open science agenda as an appropriate way of performing science. Soon, this made open data according to FAIR principles a desirable practice with different implementation choices, making it difficult to achieve convergence. Some researchers consider that FAIR certifications or requirements for funding could prove a strong driving force toward convergence in creating Data Management Plans (DMPs) [13]. However, the joint DMP is unachievable and undesirable. It should be “tailored to the context in which research is conducted” [14].
Open science and its goals are promoted in the Croatian context through various platforms and initiatives, websites, blogs and conferences [15], with the annual PUBMET conference in Zadar being a very important event. The National Initiative for Open Science in Europe (NIOS) has published a document in Croatian language, explaining the mentioned principles (https://training.ni4os.eu/pluginfile.php/3637/mod_resource/content/0/HR-NI4OS%20-%20FAIR.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2024)) [16].
The Croatian Science Foundation (CSF), the most important Croatian funding institution, strives to follow the trends set by the European Commission. As of 15 March 2022, the Research Data Management Plan (RDMP) became e a mandatory part of the application documents for all projects funded by the Croatian Science Foundation [17]. Although it puts more demands on researchers, the main goal is to improve a research methodology and science in general, as stated in the following sentence: “Sharing research data increases visibility, citation of publications and collaboration between scientists”. The online documentation contains examples, even specific ones, for social sciences and humanities, where the researcher can find the options available.
Given the fact that Social Science and Humanities (SSH) still has a quite marginal position within interdisciplinary funding (such as EU funding) [18] and that SSH include economics, business, management and law, it is not a surprise that arts and humanities receive only 5% of EU funding (humanities being within the SSH umbrella).
This means that the perspective of cultural anthropology and ethnology in some aspects of data sharing can be considered as a kind of “minority report”. This means that their perspective can be inaudible in comparison to disciplines that do not question the accessibility aspect of the FAIR principles and simultaneously receive significantly higher funding. Therefore, a rather “weak” position of SSH and especially of humanities in the global funding market cannot be a reason not to take into consideration their disciplinary “minority reports” on data sharing.
The accessibility and reusability of data are being questioned in qualitative research, due to the sensitivity of data, GDPR and licenses [19]. Likewise, the security aspect of the intelligence data has been identified as an important challenge to the FAIR principles in terms of accessibility requirements [20]. Speaking about FAIR principles, one has to bear in mind that:
“FAIR is not a new standard; is not a top-down requirement; is not an all-or-nothing binary state (FAIR or not FAIR). The FAIR principles were conceived and designed as a resource for optimal choices to be made during many aspects of data and tool generation as well as (re)use and long-term stewardship” [21].
Furthermore, Mons et al. explained what FAIR principles are intended to serve:
“FAIR refers to a set of principles, focused on ensuring that research objects are reusable, and actually will be reused, and so become as valuable as is possible. They deliberately do not specify technical requirements, but are a set of guiding principles that provide for a continuum of increasing reusability, via many different implementations. They describe characteristics and aspirations for systems and services to support the creation of valuable research outputs that could then be rigorously evaluated and extensively reused, with appropriate credit, to the benefit of both, creator and user” [21].
Some authors have also elaborated on levels of accessibility, ranging from non-existent to fully accessible, stressing that “The letter A’ in FAIR stands for ‘Accessible under well-defined conditions” [19] while others mentioned personal privacy, national security and competitiveness as reasons for data to be shielded as well” [20]. Mons et al. [22] have elaborated the varying degrees of FAIRness (Figure 1.) in order to explain, even in visual form, how data sharing can have different degree for different kinds of data and contexts.
Researchers dealing with people are always under particular ethical scrutiny, and rightly so. Since the implementation of the GDPR into the European legislation, data sharing can also be considered a kind of violation, especially if the individuals did not agree or sign the informed consent to allow data sharing. Some of the data collected by qualitative research can be quite sensitive and confidential and should be treated with caution, especially when it comes to further possible exploitation for the advancement of science. And exploitation is quite common with indigenous data. Therefore, only three years after the FAIR principles were introduced, the CARE principles for indigenous data management were also introduced after an important scientific and public debate [23]. There are even examples of indigenous community archives, such as the one promoted by the Mukurtu platform, that tends to “put cultural protocols around access to knowledge”, as Kim Christen described in an interview24. The idea that “indigenous community members curate the content through their own narratives” (ibid.), as well as co-writing processes, is quite exciting as an idea for adhering to building principles in relation to access” [24].
They refer to people and the purpose of data: “Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility and Ethics and their respective sub-principles” and specifically target the data of communities that were “Historically plagued by data inequities and data exploitation, Indigenous Peoples” [25]. They seek to ensure that data collected from indigenous peoples lead to “tangible benefits for Indigenous collectives through inclusive development and innovation, improved governance and citizen engagement, and result in equitable outcomes” [23].
The CARE principles refer to “data, information and knowledge in any format that impact Indigenous Peoples, nations and communities at collective and individual levels; data about their resources and their environment, data about them as Individuals and data about them as collectives” [23]. This article argues for extending these principles to all communities’ data, from which professional benefits are collected from.
The CARE principles should not be, therefore, associated exclusively with indigenous peoples. Some studies have made this clear. For example, the study of data repositories conducted by Dunning et al. [26] analyzed 37 data repositories. Certain data sets (described in social sciences as personal) did not comply with FAIR principles, despite the fact they could. This led the authors to the conclusion that “disciplinary norms have developed specific ways of making data accessible that do not always tally with the FAIR principles”. The authors concluded that “Compliance should not be seen as a stick, but rather a desirable goal, with the recognition that some of the guidelines are open to interpretation and to debate. Indeed, the term compliance, at least for some of the facets, is misguided. Rather facets provide targets that will help with getting a recognition and a reward for the publication of data. Given that the EU now includes FAIR guidance as a part of its H2020 program, it is important that funders and peer reviewers take heed of this, so the principles do not get misused as sanctions” [26].
Apart from the impossibility of achieving full compliance with the FAIR principles in the repository, some researchers pointed out the “selfish scientist paradox” [27] according to which the same group of researchers (usually individual scientists, as the survey was conducted in the life sciences research community) were happy to receive the shared data but reluctant to provide any [27]. Their research showed that early career researchers reluctantly shared their data prior to publication (but wanted to consider data sharing in case of publishing in high-ranking journals), and that experienced researchers saw the receipt of funding (or collaboration under certain conditions) as a strong incentive to data sharing [27].
Based on an online survey conducted among working members of the small but active Croatian community of ethnologists and cultural anthropologists, this article argues for (1) a discipline-specific RDMP that prevents the mandatory disclosure of the raw data and (2) an extension of the application of CARE principles to all population/individuals whose data are collected using qualitative methodological tools (and not to Indigenous Peoples exclusively).
The need to protect interlocutors and not harm them is the core part of disciplinary ethics. If interlocutors wish to share their stories with the rest of the world, this should be clearly stated in the informed consent form. If they express that they do not want to share their narratives, researchers are obliged to abide by this will. This should be recognized and applied by funding organizations. Not all raw data are the same, and therefore they have to be protected differently. Anthropologists and ethnologists have been applying this principle, together with the anonymization processes (if requested) for a long time. The collected data are shared (and especially un-anonymized) only if the interlocutor provides permission to do so. This means that he/she is a priori familiar with ways of data processing.
The informed consent form (together with the information about the project) is the crucial part of the documentation submitted to Ethical Boards before the research approvement and therefore this part has to be carried out very carefully. Apart from “project information”, it contains the “permissions” part that regulates the accessibility aspects of the collected data. This argues that the standard for application of FAIR principles in ethnology and anthropology must be based on interlocutors’ permissions clearly marked in the informed consent form. This means that the permissions are and can be different from case to case and that in cultural anthropology and ethnology, one cannot apply “one-size-fits-all”.
Qualitative research, especially ethnological and anthropological, in most cases implies an encounter between the interlocutor and the researcher. The encounter can sometimes be very deep and emotional, and in some cases, it can mark the beginning of a long-lasting friendship. The trope of the “field” is linked to people anthropologists meet “there” and to their relationships with “them”. Interlocutors are not just providers of data, as the shift in anthropological thinking shows [28]. This space of confidentiality, empathy and emotion created during such encounters is perceived by each participant as a unique one. The bumpy road and unpredictable ways in which you manage to find and engage an interlocutor and gather data are also an important part of becoming an anthropologist, which is perceived as a disciplinary initiation process. Therefore, it is also difficult to simply share data as if you have never been emotionally involved in the process.

2. Methodology

In January 2024, the questionnaire was created by using Google Forms and sent to 145 e-mail addresses of working ethnologists and cultural anthropologists. The Croatian Ethnological Society consists of less than 300 members and some of them are not professionals. There are between 150 and 180 membership fee-paying members, including several students and many non-paying retired colleagues. Students and retired ethnologists and cultural anthropologists were deliberately excluded from the survey in order to assess current practice only. This means that the number of e-mail addresses to which the questionnaire was sent approximately corresponds to professionals actively working in the field. Therefore, this small sample should be perceived as a result of purposive/purposeful [29,30] sampling, used as a research strategy, according to Patton “when one wants to learn something and come to understand something about certain select cases without needing to generalize to all such cases” [29]. The same principle is used in proper qualitative research. This study was quantitative, but the whole professional community in question is quite small, and therefore the study could not have aimed at larger numbers and in the end did not seek statistical significance [30].
The questionnaire consists of 18 + 1 questions (the last question is intended for those who want to add something), and the first three are foreseen for socio-demographic data deemed important for the research, i.e., gender, age and occupation).
Then follows a first set of questions about how respondents inform the public about their research results, how they store their raw data, and the existing practice of their own data sharing and using other researchers’ data.
Aside from current practices, respondents are also asked about their opinion on who should have access to the raw data and on the practice of data sharing in general. The last question is considered more complex, so this section is followed by a single open-ended question asking respondents to explain the previous answer.
The second part of the questionnaire consists of six statements (partly adopted from Damalas et al. [27]) in which the degree of agreement with certain statements in relation to hypothetical situations is checked according to the Likert scale.
Here are these statements:
  • I would agree to share the raw data before publication.
  • I would agree to share data if it is a requirement for funding.
  • I would agree to share raw data to achieve open science’ goals.
  • I support open science’s goals of the raw data sharing.
  • I would agree to share raw data if it ensures publication in high-ranking scientific journals.
  • I would agree to share raw data if it means I can collaborate with reputable scientists.
The final question was yes/no question targeting attitudes about raw data sharing under certain conditions. This section is followed by an open question where respondents are asked to explain their answer to the previous yes/no question.

3. Results

Within two weeks, 33 responses were received (i.e., 22.7%). The majority of respondents were women (87.9%, 12.1% men), reflecting the fact that is a fairly female profession (this unproportionable gender ratio (compared to the general population) was already noted by Lidija Sklevicky [31] for members of CES (a ratio 70.7: 29.3%)). Despite the low response rate (22.7%) of quite a small number of potential respondents, the conclusions could easily be a point of critique but there have been several reasons to consider them valid. The first and most important one was the above-mentioned fact that the professional community of Croatian ethnologists and cultural anthropologists is very small. Also, the retired colleagues and students were deliberately excluded from the survey.
The low response rate can be explained by the fact that respondents do not perceive the topic as relevant to their particular situation.
The age of respondents was from 29 to 62, reflecting the fact that only the working population of Croatian ethologists and anthropologists was included. The majority of respondents were from academia, research institutions, and museums (including several responses from museum pedagogists) and only one response was from a cultural heritage protection service.

3.1. Analysis of the First Set of Questions in the Questionnaire

3.1.1. Analysis of the Closed Questions in the First Set of Questions

In the first set of questions, respondents had to provide information about the ways of informing the public about their research results. In total, 90.9% of responses stated that it was in scientific papers, book chapters or similar and 45.5% referred to exhibitions and catalogs, 18.2% included blogs and social media posts, while 15.1% named documentaries and serials, 15.1% named public (and popular) lectures and performances for audience. One respondent (3%) mendtioned TV, one (3%) radio, and one (3%) open repositories such as PhD thesis repository.
The second question was “How do you keep/store your data?”. Responses to this question were: On my own computer, I do not print transcripts (27.3%); I keep the data in the computer and in the documentation of the institution I work at, I do not print transcripts (39.4%); I keep printed transcripts and audio recordings on my own computer (24.2%); I store on an institutional server (15.2%); I am storing it as secondary material of the institution (6.1%); If funding sources ask for it, I make them available (18.2%); Other (6.1%) (Appendix A, Figure A1).
The following question “Do you share data with other colleagues?” was aimed to check the current practice of data sharing within a professional environment. Responses were the following: With collaborators, completely (30.3%); With collaborators, partially (27.3%); No (21%); Other (15.2%); Yes (3%); Only transcripts, not audio files and photos (3%) (Appendix A, Figure A2).
Answers pointed to the conclusion that the majority of ethnologists and cultural anthropologists in Croatia were practicing data sharing, completely or partially, but this referred mainly to collaborators (i.e., peers). In total, 21.2% of respondents did not share data, while almost the same percentage (21%) contextualized their answers into particular situations, i.e., added their own sentences to the questionnaire: depending on the project propositions; depending on the research, the topic, the project’s propositions and the interlocutors’ informed consent; depending on the sensitivity of data; depending on topics discussed and on agreements with the interlocutors. One respondent (3%) claimed that usually there is no interest in sharing and that he/she usuallyshares data with colleagues.
The next question was “Do you use other researcher’s data?” The majority of the answers stated that the use of other researchers’ data happened during the collaboration process. Together with the rest who claimed that they shared data, it totaled 60.6%. A further 39.4% of respondents claimed that they did not share data (Appendix A, Figure A3).
The next question was “Who should have access to the data?”. More than 50% (54.5%) thought that all members of a research team and interlocutors should have data access, 33.3% thought that the data access should be granted only to the researcher and the interlocutor, and 9.1% thought that only the data collecting researcher should have the data access. A further 15.2% thought that, apart from the above-mentioned (researchers, interlocutors), the sources of financing (regardless of the funding type—private or public) should have data access as well. A further 21.2% of the respondents agreed with the following sentence: “If the research project was financed with public money, then all collected data should be publicly available”. Finally, 15.2% of the respondents marked Other (Appendix A, Figure A4).
Then respondents were asked “Do you think data should be shared?” and if so, several options were offered. The majority of respondents answered negatively—33.3%. Further, 24.2% of the respondents answered data should be shared, while 15.2% specified that this should be related only to transcripts, not audio tapes and photographs. However, 21% stressed the complexity of data sharing by adding explanations in the section where open-ended answers were allowed. The decision was to be made depending on a research and an agreement with the interlocutors, according to several explanations. Others stressed that data should be shared within members of the research/project. One respondent stated that data should be shared after the researcher himself uses everything he needs, and other, similarly, stressed that data should be shared only if there is no fear that someone will use data and thus prevent original work to be published. According to other respondent, the data should not be shared as a rule, but in some situations they could be shared. One respondent stressed the need to strictly observe the indicated method of protection. One answer provided summarized it all: “I do not thin that it is possible to answer these questions with an exclusive answer. I think that everything depends on the research, the topic and the participants.
This analysis showed that for 1/5 of the respondents the YES/NO questions were oversimplified, and they felt the need to elaborate the answers more deeply and explain their opinion (Appendix A, Figure A5).

3.1.2. Analysis of Open-Ended Question in the First Set of Questions

The following question was the open one, and was provided as the further elaboration of the previous question (Do you think data should be shared?). The majority of responses were grouped around the idea of data sharing with colleagues of the same team (project or research team). Some stressed the need for prior agreement within the research team:
“If there is an agreement between researchers at the beginning of the project, I share the data in the form of an anonymized transcript.”
Some stressed the fact that data should be anonymized, while others simply described the existing protocol of keeping/safeguarding the data in their institution:
“This practice I carry out according to rules of the institution I work at, and with which I agree as a rule: the research team has access to the raw data, with storage in documentation of the institution that is the holder of the research project, and with the participants in the research at their own request.”
Some of the respondents recognized the potential benefits of data sharing but also emphasized the need to define rules of sharing.
“I believe it can be useful to share because it will make it easier for us to speed up our work, but it must be under clearly defined rules.”
The other set of answers stressed the sensitivity and confidentiality of the data collected, together with the need to grant protection and anonymity to those who provided this kind of, mostly personal, data.
“Care should be taken and the interlocutor protected in case of dealing with sensitive topics”.
“During the conversation, the informant can tell us, for example, some personal things that are not necessarily related to the topic of the conversation. Such things are (at the request of the informant or at the discretion of the examiner) omitted from the transcript.”
“Within qualitative research, everyone is a subject to confidentiality, because interlocutors can be easily recognized, scientific research is not a gossip column!!!!”
“Anthropological research in practice has very broad topics and spectrums of possibilities. If we work with vulnerable groups on sensitive topics or with very small easily recognizable communities, then it is not easy to categorically ensure the principles of data sharing. As a rule, I believe it is necessary to share data, but only if it does not inconvenience our participants and when they themselves have clearly chosen to do so.”
Also, the attitude that a research interview is an authorial act, or an act of confidentiality between the researcher and interlocutors that cannot be simply reused because of the possible superficial or even incorrect interpretation, was indicated:
“Interviews are an authorial act between two or more participants. The other researcher cannot always understand the context of the interview and it is possible that data will not be interpreted correctly. The interviewer and the interviewee necessarily develop some interaction, deeper or more superficial, and it is unique to each individual interview. The teller decided to share his information and time with a certain researcher, without going into the motivation. It is much more acceptable to me not to hand over the raw data, but to publish and structure them”.
Several respondents mentioned a kind of moratorium as a possible solution for data access in case of sensitive topics, similar to archival praxis. But even then, one respondent expresses the inadequacy of using other researchers’ data.
“I believe that the biggest problem of using the raw data “from a second hand” is of an ethical nature, precisely because of possibly wrong or superficial interpretation.”
Two of the most elaborated answers tackled principles of data interoperability and reusability in ethnographic research. While accessibility of the numerical raw data makes it possible to evaluate the data collected or to use them in your own research, it is not possible to do the same with transcripts of interviews, because of the specific nature of the discipline and its methodology:
“The ethnographic research is rather complex and often intimate in nature, biographical and inseparable from the context of its origin. That being said, the transcript can appear in one of three versions—it can be arranged for consultation and sharing, and it can serve as an image of the audio track. Since it is a conversational relationship that does not register repeatable and totally comparable data that can be extrapolated and used out of context, my opinion is that sharing data is counterproductive and dangerous.”
The second quotation refers, additionally, to the fear of not being able to “find” interlocutors for future research, if one cannot grant them anonymity.
“If all raw data are available to everyone, there is a fear that it could be difficult to find interlocutors for the research of “tricky” topics. I also wonder how misuse of such data could be prevented. And finally, in the context of cultural anthropology and ethnology, the raw data obtained as a consequence of a field research represent a result of the ineraction of two people (a researcher and an interlocutor), i.e., the raw data are contextual by nature. Another researcher might get different answers to the same questions in a conversation with the same interlocutor. This is the reason, why the use of the raw data by other researchers, especially in other projects and analyses, is not necessarily justified. In this case, the use and analysis of the raw data makes sense only if the research is based on the anthropologist/ethnologist himself and his approach to the field.”
Other respondents stressed the fact that, regardless of the technique used, it was impossible to anonymize interlocutors from small communities. One of them even emphasized the need to primarily rely on the disciplinary code(s) of ethics (the Code of Ethics of Croatian Ethnological Society [32] and American Anthropological Association were mentioned) and to show responsibility toward the researched community and interlocutors.
Some respondents saw the need to define raw data first, and stressed the fact that personal notes in anthropology could be considered as data as well. In this answer, the care of exposing a researcher himself/herself i.e., of the researcher’s personal data was expressed.
Only one respondent admitted that Croatian ethnologists need to have a wider discussion about the issue, and only one stressed the fact that exclusive metadata sharing (a solution incorporated into one of the FAIR principles) was the acceptable one for the discipline.
This section showed that some negative attitudes toward data sharing could be caused due to unclear data definitions.
According to the answers to these questions, ethnologists and cultural anthropologists were open to transcripts sharing with colleagues. The answer about metadata, being the only acceptable solution for sharing (more broadly), seemed to pinpoint the appropriate way toward using the principles of data sharing that are acceptable to disciplinary ethics of ethnology and cultural anthropology.

3.2. Analysis of the Second Set of Questions in the Questionnaire

3.2.1. Analysis of the Closed Questions in the Second Set of Questions

In the next set of questions, the respondents were asked to express levels of agreement, ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement, with some claims.
According to the provided data, over 50% (66.6%) of respondents were against data sharing prior to publication, while 12.2% would not mind data sharing prior to publication. Further, 21.2% of them opted for “Undecided” (Appendix A, Figure A6).
If data sharing was a prerequisite for funding, then again, according to the collected responses, 54.6% of respondents did not take into consideration data sharing, while 15.2% considered data sharing. Further, 30.3% opted for “Undecided” (Appendix A, Figure A7).
The claim related to raw data sharing as a way of achieving open science goals had the most “Undecided” respondents—42.4%. This could reflect the fact that ideas and concepts of open science related to data were not very well known within the researched community. A further 30.3% of respondents did not agree to share data in order to achieve open science goals, while 27.3% agreed to share the data having this particular goal in mind (Appendix A, Figure A8).
A further 27.3% of the respondents agreed with the claim that they supported open science goals related to raw data sharing, 36.3% did not agree with this claim, and the option of individual largest percentage chose the “Undecided” option (36.4%) (Appendix A, Figure A9).
The next two questions, adapted from Damalas et al. [27], were offered to evaluate to what extent Croatian ethnologists and cultural anthropologists were ready to compromise their ideas in order to reach certain types of praised achievement within the scientific/academic community (such as publishing in high ranked journals and collaboration with praised scientists).
A high percentage—63.4% of them—do not agree to share data if this could guarantee them the publication in high-ranking journals. On the other side, 15.2% are willing (or at least willing to admit so) to do so. The “Undecided” option was chosen by 21.2% of respondents (Appendix A, Figure A10).
Almost the same percentage of respondents declared they would agree to share the raw data if it could allow them to cooperate with respected scientists (57.4%). Further, 18.2% of the respondents reported that they would not be willing to do so, while 24.2% of those remained “Undecided” (Appendix A, Figure A11).

3.2.2. Analysis of the Open-Ended Question in the Second Set of Questions

The following question addressed the data sharing under certain conditionsattitude. According to 84.8% of respondents, the answer in case of data sharing under certain conditions was “yes” and according to 15.2% of them the answer was “no”.
The open question followed this one, with the request made to the respondent to elaborate/explain their answer.
For the majority of interlocutors, data sharing related primarily to already existing practices of sharing data with the interlocutor(s) and colleagues with whom the collaboration on the particular project/topic was carried out. This was often described as data sharing with colleagues you trust (with whom you usually collaborate). Some stressed the need to clearly state this in the informed consent, as it had also been partially practiced.
“In addition to the previous explanation, I would like to note that I believe the partial sharing of the raw data with scientists and colleagues from a joint project is justified because it contributes to the overall research of a certain topic or area, analysis and interpretation of data with the aim of ensuring excellence. However, I consider important to clearly indicate it to the interlocutor in the process of creating the Informed Consent form. Interlocutor must be familiar not only with the re-search objectives, but also with the information to whom the data will be made available.”
The majority of answers were imbued with a care for the interlocutor primarily, and not so much for the open science goals. The emphasis was on the protection of the interlocutor, and on the “do no harm” principle, indicating that the disciplinary code of ethics has priority over the open science agenda.
“Protection should be ensured for both, the interlocutor and the researcher.”
“The raw data may contain information that whistleblowers, for example…(…)…do not want to be known to anyone”.
However, there are researchers that are clearly against data sharing and some of them acknowledge the fact that ethnography is a special cognitive strategy and therefore the data collected cannot be treated the same way as numbers and impersonal data.
“As in the previous answer, I consider data sharing in ethnography to be a missed way of understanding ethnography as a cognitive strategy.”
Of course, there are also anthropologists and ethnologists who do not see any problems in data sharing:
“The raw data should be shared in any case. Just as we have access to the data in the archives, so we should enable others to access our data. Of course, in addition to solving ethical issues, sensitive information and extracting the transcript of the conversation from the field notes.”
Also, some stress the need to thoroughly explain the interlocutor what the raw data mean, prior to the interview:
“The respondent or teller must be familiar with the term “the raw data” and its further distribution within open access. This is a prerequisite for agreeing to an interview. The raw data should not be shared afterwards, if the interlocutor was not previously informed. It is common to introduce the teller to the purpose of the research, which is almost always limited to a certain topic, and to collect “the raw data” for tellers can be too general and vague.”
Although none of the respondents mentioned that autocensoring interlocutors do and will apply during the interview, many of them have encountered such a praxis during field work. For example, sometimes the interlocutors tell one story while being recorded, and then at the end of the conversation, they add something controversial or oposite.
Sometimes interlocutors ask the researcher to stop the recording at a certain point. Some researchers working with vulnerable groups do not use dictaphones, in order for the interlocutors to feel safer and freer.
The main fear that raw data sharing could bring to qualitative research is the fact that researchers might receive the “polished” data, and might never receive information revealing topics, e.g., frictions within the community, certain secrets or uncommon or sensitive practices, or intimate information. This might in the long run make ethnologists and anthropologist FAIRy tale collectors.
However, respondents emphasized the other side of the medal, too. Some of them mentioned the need to take more care about the raw data by the researchers themselves, because they quite often store the data on personal computers and do not share it. The worst is if they do not analyze or publish it.
“From my own work experience, I know that many raw data from research in Croatia (not only ethnological and anthropological) are kept in researchers’ private computers, external hard drives, printed out on shelves at home, in offices and the like. It would be necessary to increase researchers’ awareness of taking more care and at the same time providing more open storage for this data, which can serve other researchers as well.”
“If the researcher plans to use data for his work, it is logical that he will not share it. If he does not intend to publish the data, it is better to make it publicly available.”
However, the attitude that the final decision should be left to the interlocutors was also mentioned here, as stressed by one respondent: “They determine what can and must be public”.

4. Discussion

The results obtained from the questionnaire reveal that Croatian ethnologists and cultural anthropologists do not consider the topic very relevant to their particular situation. This is indicated by a low response rate of 22%. Such attitude (if this is the reason) could mean that they have not yet encountered the requests to make raw data they have collected available or that they think this could relate to them. In this sense, more research is needed, especially after a certain period of time, to see if the situation has changed. However, the first set of questions aimed at the current practice of data management (including sharing) reveal that the majority of respondents share data to a certain extent and usually during collaboration with other colleagues. The last two questions from this section aimed to obtain not only the opinions about who should have access to raw data, but to see what they think about the practice itself. This required further explanations via open-ended questions. Open-ended questions revealed that data sharing is acceptable within the team, and that the protection of the interlocutors and, especially, sensitive information has priority. However, some respondents stressed the need to acknowledge different cognitive and emotional efforts involved in qualitative research. Especially important was the argument which stressed the fact that in qualitative research it is the researcher who does the interpretation, not the scale. Therefore, “second hand” interpretation is not considered to be a “validation” of results, but more of a threat to data, because the context of the research is lost.
This kind of research is considered, by some respondents, as an authorial act, deserving special status. Some respondents stressed that in this kind of research conversation [33] (with a purpose, despite the fact that it might look like a “regular” conversation to other people), the researcher sometimes reveals personal data about him/herself and that maybe he/she would not like to share it. However, this attitude shows certain hypocrisy within the discipline, since it is precisely diaries and personal notes of famous anthropologists (for example, Malinowski’s [34]) that revealed the difference between the researcher’s front/back stages [35] (front stage being the published manuscript positioning the researcher into the scientific community while diaries revealed the back stage i.e., the personal experiences of the researcher in the process of research). These diaries were extremely worthy for understanding disciplinary development and for betterunderstanding of diverse processes underlying the published materials.
In the second part of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to mark their level of agreement with certain statements in order to see how they believe they would act in hypothetical situations.
While in the first question, the willingness to share data prior to publication is low as expected, in the second question, the unwillingness to share data as a prerequisite for funding was also quite high, as opposed to results in Damalas et al. [27] This might be a reflection of the situation in which the respondents came from various areas, not only from academia, combined with the situation where they were not under high pressure to seek funding. Also, this might be a socially desirable answer. The following two questions related to data sharing with the aim of supporting open science goals had quite a high response rate for the “Undecided” option. This might reflect the insufficient information about the goals of open science.
In the end, publication in high-ranking journals or collaboration with reputable scientists does not seem to be a relevant incentive for data sharing, according to respondents. These attitudes might also reflect socially desirable answers.
The following question asked respondents to express their opinion about the need to share data under certain conditions. Since this was a complex topic with a yes/no answer, it was followed by an open-ended one where respondents were able to further elaborate their opinions.
The majority were for at least partial data sharing, especially in collaboration. However, here again, the emphasis was on the care for the protection of the interlocutors (and their data) and the confidentiality of the data. The code of ethics of the discipline was to be followed, and the respondents stressed the need to obtain the permissions in the informed consent allowing various degrees of data sharing.
Some of the respondents were aware of the fact that data shouldbe shared and used, instead of being neglected in the private documentation of the researcher (in the case of unpublished results). Some even stressed that it would be beneficial, and were critical of the fact that in some cases the raw data are not stewarded with care.
The results point to an important topic for qualitative researchers, especially in the long run. Researchers skilled primarily in qualitative methodology always struggle with the interpretation of the data collected, especially in the light of interlocutors describing “order imagined” vs. “order achieved” [36,37]. Having in mind these differences between narratives recollected and the realities lived, the ethical considerations of the raw data sharing options being presented to interlocutors were not the only ones.
The obligation or possibility to share the raw data will inevitably lead to changes in the nature of narratives told in all qualitative research. The personal narratives could become autocensored or less intimate (in some cases) and in the case of small communities, the “desirable” narrative could become the one shared with the researcher. Of course, this would not be the case with all interviewees, but the tendency could be anticipated.
The anonymization processes are often mentioned as possible solutions for such a situation [6]. Landi et al. admit that “health data deriving from patients affected by rare diseases should be considered more sensitive (e.g., identifiable) and additional safeguards measures should be taken” [19]. The interlocutors from small communities or particular groups could be more easily identified as well and therefore additional measures should be taken for them.
Landi et al. display an argumentation that is in line with anthropologists’ and ethnologists’ opinions and their primary concerns to protect the interlocutors. They also agree that informed consent (providing a priori information to data subjects about the way their data will be processed) should be the main guideline [19].
“Additionally, considering the GDPR aims to strengthen the rights of individuals to be better informed about the processing of their data, which should be lawful and fair, and give them greater control over their own data; it is important to verify that existing metadata take into account the original consent and all existing and applicable data sharing, data use agreements and data protection policies. Moreover, it should be investigated that metadata have already been implemented with the information provided to the data subject in personal data processing according to Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR, and that all the data subject’s rights have been and will be respected” [19].
Furthermore, these authors stress the need for metadata, not data, to be shared, and this is in line with certain opinions expressed in the survey. These metadata should have clearly stated the conditions under which accessibility is possible, if at all.
Other authors, e.g., Mons et al. [21], underline that “The A’ in FAIR stands for ‘Accessible under well-defined conditions’” and mention personal privacy, national security and competitiveness as reasons for data to be shielded.
It is important, however, to keep in mind what Briggs [38] has pointed out, i.e., that “Once informed consent” is “obtained”, researchers ordinarily gain exclusive rights over how that discourse circulates and is interpreted, along with who receives it and who benefits from it.
“Interviews thus impose standardized social scientific knowledge production and circulation practices that further subordinate and obscure the knowledge-making practices that interviewees use in making social worlds and challenging forms of symbolic and other violence” [38].
This power imbalance can be mitigated with the CARE approach toward raw data and metadata sharing. As mentioned above, CARE principles are developed for Indigenous People and their protection. They are developed having in mind the power imbalance of colonial encounters. However, even in cases where the interlocutor and researcher belong to the same community, the power imbalance exists and the majority of the respondents of the survey take this protective and caring standpoint when elaborating their opinions. They clearly express the need to protect the sensitive data and confidentiality obtained in the process of research.
A standard procedure in conducting an in-depth interview (the most common qualitative methodological tool used in cultural anthropology (today mostly anthropology by appointment [39])) is providing enough information for the interlocutor in order to sign an informed consent form. Apart from describing the research, the informed consent form has to contain the data explaining the procedure of keeping and managing the data, as well as mentioning the media in which the data will be presented (articles, exhibitions, documentaries, etc.). Anonymity is always one of the possibilities the informed consent offers, and the majority of interlocutors opt for it, but not all. Occasionally, the interlocutor insists on periodically switching off the recorder by the researcher, usually when something delicate is being recollected. Also, quite often, after the interview ends, the researcher can hear the information not intended for recording. Although there are ways to anonymize the data (as explained in Celjak et al. [6]), interlocutors from smaller communities or groups could be recognized due to the transcript parts not being removed, not to mention by voice.
While preparing the informed consent form for the Solidarity Economy in Croatia: Anthropological Perspective (SOLIDARan) project (SOLIDARan) project Informed consent form, Appendix B), the research team tried to follow disciplinary ethics requirements. The process prior to the interview related to the informed consent form went as follows: each interlocutor takes a personal copy of the informed consent form, so they can later review the documents they have signed. However, the researchers often had to explain everything orally because most of them did not want to take the time to read it prior to interview. They made decisions about their anonymity and the modes of receiving the raw data (if at all). While preparing the documentation for the Ethical Board (to approve the research), the Ethical principle of CES, as well as other relevant sources, were followed. Also, it was clearly stated who will have access to the raw data and how the data will be used. This is the way all collaborators on the project have to treat the data obtained.
All these issues raise a question: is it really the ideal goal for all the data to be only FAIR ones? The answers received with the questionnaire revealed that sharing data among Croatian ethnologists and cultural anthropologists means primarily sharing data within the team or project members and keeping it within institutional documentation. The majority of the respondents expressed accordance with the principle “do no harm” to the community researched. They also stressed the interview topic-dependent decision about data sharing, and the need to protect sensitive and personal data. Some of them constantly stressed the fact that anonymization does not fully work in small communities. Also, the majority emphasized the fact that the interlocutors should be in charge of deciding to what extent the data provided by them, should be subject to sharing, if at all. Some ethnologists and cultural anthropologists stated that raw data obtained by the qualitative methodology and ethnography are not the kind of data one can simply reuse because they can be simplified or incorrectly interpreted without knowing the rich context of the research encounter. Some of them went even so far as they envisage the production of digital waste that in the end will not be useful. However, some researchers thought that raw data should be made available in the same way as the archival data and that if the researcher will not use the data, then it is better to share them.
Related to two questions adopted from Damalas et al. [27] that would reveal the selfish scientist paradox, the Croatian answers were a bit different. Respondents mainly claimed that they would not share data if it grants them funding, publishing in high-ranking journals or collaborating with reputable scientists.
FAIR should not be a top-down requirement, but an increasing projectification of science (grants received and project funding have become an important means of scientists’ validation), as well as the publish-or-perish principle, create a clear IF NOT—THEN causal logic. Therefore, not only further research is needed in order to evaluate the above-mentioned claims and praxis, but continuous discussions within the broader scientific community would facilitate the incorporation of specific values and ethical principles of ethnology and cultural anthropology more clearly into open science.

5. Conclusions

The results of the study suggest that Croatian ethnologists and cultural anthropologists consider the disciplinary code of ethics and care for interlocutors as their most important obligation. They do share data, but usually only within a limited circle of collaborators, usually while working on the same project or topic. For the majority, this was the only meaningful option. This is in line with the ethical principles of disciplines and is not in conflict with the FAIR principles related to metadata sharing exclusively. This is in line with the authors mentioned above (Figure 1) [22] who emphasize that the degree of openness (i.e., accessibility) varies depending on the context of the discipline.
Metadata should be open, but accessibility should be applied to each particular case, regulated by the informed consent in each particular case (the interlocutors have different attitudes toward the idea of their data being revealed). Some researchers stress the need for data to undergo a moratorium time, or that only metadata should be fully accessible.
Some consider ethnology and acultural anthropology to be a special cognitive strategy where there is no meaningful way of reusing someone else’s raw data. The need to have a further discussion and to clearly define what raw data are (especially if they are considered the researcher’s own data, such as notes and opinions and personal information revealed to the interlocutor during the interview).
Results of the questionnaire carried out within the purposeful sample of working ethnologists and cultural anthropologists in Croatia showed that the majority of the respondents would follow a kind of combined FAIR/CARE approach to data sharing (although the respondents did not use these terms!), because of reasons of complying with the disciplinary Code of Ethics primarily. They stressed the need to protect the interlocutors. Different situations and topics also dictate the approach the researchers have to take toward data sharing as a desirable goal of open science.
If FAIR principles fail to be considered as guidelines, and become a standard, in ethnology and anthropology (and disciplines using the qualitative methodology) it may lead to collecting auto censored narratives from interlocutors, (and therefore can be perceived as a kind of FAIRy Tales). In the long run, it can impoverish the data available for interpretation, even for the ones who collected the data, not to mention the ones reusing it.
Funding agencies, including our national one too, may fund the research of so-called “hard” sciences more intensively, but they nevertheless fund the humanities as well, regardless of the marginality of such endeavour. They must keep in mind that not all disciplinary raw data cannot be shared in the same way.
In the case of data collected by interviewing a simple additional question in the informed consent form related to interlocutors’ willingness to open access data sharing could be a solution:
Do you want your data (anonymized/not anonymized) to be completely available in the open access (available in various online repositories)?
YES/NO
Additionally, a set of options (as elaborated in Mons et al. [22] and Celjak et al. [6]) can be offered to interlocutors to choose the option that does not make them feel exposed.
This is in line with opinions expressed by respondents who often mentioned the need to inform the interlocutor and to follow their wishes related to data processing. Some respondents followed the institutional procedure, while others criticized the fact that there is a praxis that shows neglect toward data-keeping.
The results of a survey point to the need for further advocacy for both FAIR and CARE principles as important and ethical building blocks of open science in Croatia. This includes not only further research but further educational activities as well, especially among the researchers who are not sufficiently aware of the open science requirements and their meaning. The requirements for each discipline concerning evaluation and proposing of the optimal model for implementing FAIR and CARE principles in their perspective RDMP have to be met. Apart from this, differences between disciplines have to be taken into account (and respected) by funding agencies when promoting open science and FAIR principles as their standard or prerequisite for funding.

Funding

This paper is part of the research project “Solidarity Economy in Croatia: Anthropological Perspective” (SOLIDARan), funded by the Croatian Science Foundation (IP-2019-04-3946).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this article are not readily available because of the lack of direct permissions for data sharing. It is not possible to get permissions due to the anonymity of the survey. However, some of the raw data are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the author.

Acknowledgments

I also want to thank all the anonymous respondents to the questionnaire. Without them, this analysis would not be possible. I would like to thank to my colleagues with whom I have openly discussed the matter (Lidija Nikočević, Duga Mavrinac, Ivona Orlić, Koraljka Kuzman Šlogar, and Mojca Ramšak (but others as well)), and to the members of the Managing Board of Croatian Ethnological Society (Željka Petrović Osmak, Tihana Rubić, Marija Mesarić, Ivana Radovani Podrug, Danijela Birt Katić, Jasmina Jurković Petras, Klementina Batina and Melita Trbušić) with whom I have had vivid discussions concerning the formal request on data sharing opinion in museum(s). I also want to thank the editors of this Special Issue and to the anonymous reviewers for their tremendous patience and work.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

The results of the survey (n = 33)
The numbers in the brackets refer to the actual number of respondents to a particular question.
Publications 12 00042 g0a1
Figure A1. How do you keep/store your data?
Figure A1. How do you keep/store your data?
Publications 12 00042 g0a1
Publications 12 00042 g0a2
Figure A2. Do you share data with other colleagues?
Figure A2. Do you share data with other colleagues?
Publications 12 00042 g0a2
Publications 12 00042 g0a3
Figure A3. Do you use other researchers data?
Figure A3. Do you use other researchers data?
Publications 12 00042 g0a3
Publications 12 00042 g0a4
Figure A4. Who should have access to the data?
Figure A4. Who should have access to the data?
Publications 12 00042 g0a4
Publications 12 00042 g0a5
Figure A5. Do you think data should be shared?
Figure A5. Do you think data should be shared?
Publications 12 00042 g0a5
Publications 12 00042 g0a6
Figure A6. I would agree to share the raw data before publication.
Figure A6. I would agree to share the raw data before publication.
Publications 12 00042 g0a6
Publications 12 00042 g0a7
Figure A7. I would agree to share data if it is a requirement for funding.
Figure A7. I would agree to share data if it is a requirement for funding.
Publications 12 00042 g0a7
Publications 12 00042 g0a8
Figure A8. I would agree to share raw data to achieve open science’ goals.
Figure A8. I would agree to share raw data to achieve open science’ goals.
Publications 12 00042 g0a8
Publications 12 00042 g0a9
Figure A9. I support open science’s goals of the raw data sharing.
Figure A9. I support open science’s goals of the raw data sharing.
Publications 12 00042 g0a9
Publications 12 00042 g0a10
Figure A10. I would agree to share raw data if it ensures publication in high-ranking scientific journals.
Figure A10. I would agree to share raw data if it ensures publication in high-ranking scientific journals.
Publications 12 00042 g0a10
Publications 12 00042 g0a11
Figure A11. I would agree to share raw data if it means I can collaborate with reputable scientists.
Figure A11. I would agree to share raw data if it means I can collaborate with reputable scientists.
Publications 12 00042 g0a11

Appendix B

Informed consent was created and used for the “Solidarity Economy in Croatia: Anthropological Perspective” (SOLIDARan) project.
Informed consent—information for interlocutor
Dear Madam or Sir,
You are invited to participate as an interlocutor in the scientific research conducted by the Institute for Anthropological Research (Zagreb) as a part of the “Solidarity Economy in Croatia: Anthropological Perspective” (SOLIDARan) project, financed by the Croatian Science Foundation.
The principal investigator of the research is dr.sc Olga Orlić, the senior research associate at the Institute for Anthropological Research (Zagreb). The research will be conducted on the territory of the Republic of Croatia (Zagreb and its surroundings, Slavonia Dalmatia, Istria and Primorje regions). The main goal of the research is to provide a contribution to theoretical reflections on a solidarity economy. In this part of the research, the elements of the solidarity economy phenomenon in the contemporary Croatian context is to be explored, primarily from the anthropological perspective. This is to gain a better insight into practices and potential problems different actors in the practices of the solidarity economy have as well as into ways of solving them, if such exist.
For this project, its applied goal is also extremely important—to create a model (guidelines) for implementation of solidarity economy practices’ elements in public policies, but also to encourage such practices in a wider society. The data collected in this way can significantly contribute to the creation of such guidelines that can be useful to practitioners of the solidarity economy, if implemented in an appropriate manner.
For all additional questions about the research, please contact dr.sc Olga Orlić at: [email protected]
Please read this Informed Consent for Research Participation carefully. In case you do not understand any part of the Informed Consent, please contact the examiner or the project manager for an explanation. Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you may withdraw or choose to skip any of the questions at any time. If you decide to participate in this research, you will be asked to sign the Informed Consent with an indication of the date. Beside by the project leader/principal investigator, the Informed Consent is signed by the interlocutor and the researcher who conducts the research interview before the start of the interview. The informed consent is signed in 2 copies, one of which remains in the possession of the research interviewee.
Your personal data collected through this research interview will be used exclusively for scientific purposes. The data from your interview can be used (in the form of quotes or isolated statements) during the dissemination of research results by all collaborators on the project: in scientific papers, books or during conference presentations, at presentations or on posters. If you want to remain anonymous, your name and surname will not be mentioned anywhere, and your anonymity is guaranteed. In that case, you can choose a pseudonym The audio recording of the conversation and/or the transcript of the interview can, if you wish, be delivered to you by e-mail or to your home address.
The audio recording of the research conversation will be stored in the main researcher’s computer and in the Audio Materials Database of the Institute for Anthropological Research. Transcripts of the conversation (coded information about the interlocutor, the code book will be stored the project leader) will be printed and stored in the Database of Qualitative Research of the Institute for Anthropological Research under a project number. Also, the transcripts of the research interview will be available for use only to collaborators of this research, for purposes of scientific analyses.
Informed consent—permissions
I want my data to remain anonymous during the abovementioned form of use (please circle the desired answer)
YES/NO
If the answer is YES, I want the following pseudonym to be used in addition to the statements and data I provided to the researcher:
                                                                                                                                        
I would like to receive an audio recording and a transcript of the conversation after the research completion (please circle the desired answer)
YES/NO
If the answer is YES, please, indicate the e-mail address to which you would like to receive the materials, considering that we are unable to send the audio recording by post.
e-mail address:
                                                                                                                                        
Home address (in this case, only the conversation transcript’s printout will be sent by mail):
                                                                                                                                        
I confirm with this signature that I am informed about the goals, advantages and risks of this research, that I agree to participate in it, and that the abovementioned approved ways of using my data and statements in the dissemination of research results are correct.
                                               ,                             (Date).
 
 
                                                                                                                
Signature of the interlocutor,        Dr.sc. Olga Orlić,
                                                          SOLIDARan principal investigator
                                                  Institute for Anthropological Research
 
                                                                                                                      
Name and surname of the interlocutor (printed letters)
I, the researcher, hereby confirm that I verbally provided the necessary information about this study and gave one copy of the informed consent, signed by the interlocutor and the researcher, to the interlocutor before the research interview.
                                                                                                   
The name and surname of the researcher—project collaborator, the institution of the collaborator (printed letters and signature).

References

  1. Miedema, F. Open Science: The Very Idea; Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste; Nice, R., Translator; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  3. Frank, J.; Foster, R.; Pagliari, C. Open access publishing—Noble intention, flawed reality. Soc. Sci. Med. 2023, 317, 115592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mehrpour, S.; Khajavi, Y. How to spot fake open access journals. Learn. Publ. 2014, 27, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hebrang Grgić, I. Otvoreni pristup—Deus ex machina za izdavaštvo znanstvenih časopisa? [Open access—Deus ex machina for publishing scientific journals?]. Libellarium 2015, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Celjak, D.; Dorotić Malič, I.; Matijević, M.; Poljak, L.; Posavec, K.; Turk, I. Istraživački Podaci—Što s Njima? Priručnik o Upravljanju Istraživačkim Podacima [Research Data—What to Do with it? Handbook of Research Data Management]; Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Sveučilišni Računski Centar: Zagreb, Croatia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartling, S.; Friesike, S. (Eds.) Opening Science. The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research; Springer Open: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tenopir, C.; Allard, S.; Douglass, K.; Aydinoglu, A.U.; Wu, L.; Read, E.; Manoff, M.; Frame, M. Data Sharing by Scientists: Practices and Perceptions. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e21101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Pampel, H.; Dallmeier-Tiessen, S. Open Research Data: From Vision to Practice. In Opening Science. The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research; Bartling, S., Friesike, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 213–224. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wilkinson, M.; Dumontier, M.; Aalbersberg, I.; Appleton, G.; Axton, M.; Baak, A.; Blomberg, N.; Boiten, J.-W.; da Silva Santos, L.B.; Bourne, P.E.; et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 2016, 3, 160018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kolbe, V. Open Science versus Data Protection—Challenges and Solutions in Sign Language Acquisition Studies. Hrvat. Rev. Za Rehabil. Istraživanja 2022, 58, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Burrows, T. Sharing humanities data for e-research: Conceptual and technical issues. In Sustainable Data from Digital Research; Thieberger, N., Ed.; PARADISEC: Melbourne, Australia, 2011; pp. 177–192. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/7938 (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  13. Jacobsen, A.; Azevedo, R.d.M.; Juty, N.; Batista, D.; Coles, S.; Cornet, R.; Courtot, M.; Crosas, M.; Dumontier, M.; Evelo, C.T.; et al. FAIR Principles: Interpretations and Implementation Considerations. Data Intell. 2020, 2, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jones, S.; Pergl, R.; Hooft, R.; Miksa, T.; Samors, R.; Ungvari, J.; Davis, R.I.; Lee, T. Data Management Planning: How Requirements and Solutions are Beginning to Converge. Data Intell. 2020, 2, 208–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stojanovski, J. Promicanje ideja otvorene znanosti u Hrvatskoj. [Promoting the ideas of open science in Croatia]. Soc. Teme 2019, 1, 166–170. [Google Scholar]
  16. FAIR. Sve što Trebate Znati o FAIR Podacima. NI4OS-Europe. Nacionalne Inicijative za Otvorenu Znanost u Europi. Available online: https://training.ni4os.eu/pluginfile.php/3637/mod_resource/content/0/HR-NI4OS%20-%20FAIR.pdf (accessed on 3 February 2024).
  17. Plan Upravljanja Istraživačkim Podacima [Research Data Management Plan]. Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost [Croatian Science Foundation]. Available online: https://hrzz.hr/plan-upravljanja-istrazivackim-podacima-za-projekte-hrvatske-zaklade-za-znanost/ (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  18. Välikangas, A. The Limited Role of Social Sciences and Humanities in Interdisciplinary Funding: What are Its Effects? Soc. Epistemol. 2023, 38, 152–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Landi, A.; Thompson, M.; Giannuzzi, V.; Bonifazi, F.; Labastida, I.; Bonino da Silva Santos, L.O.; Roos, M. The “A” of FAIR—As open as possible, as closed as necessary. Data Intell 2020, 2, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brewster, C.; Nouwt, B.; Raaijmakers, S.; Verhoosel, J. Ontology-based access control for FAIR data. Data Intell 2020, 2, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mons, B.; Schultes, E.; Liu, F.H.; Jacobsen, A. The FAIR principles: First generation implementation choices and challenges. Data Intell 2020, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mons, B.; Neylon, C.; Velterop, J.; Dumontier, M.; Santos, L.O.B.d.S.; Wilkinson, M.D. Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud. Inf. Serv. Use 2017, 37, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Carroll, S.R.; Herczog, E.; Hudson, M.; Russell, K.; Stall, S. Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures. Sci. Data 2021, 8, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kimberly, C.; Davis, L.; Griffith, Z.; Neely, J. Traditional Knowledge and Digital Archives: An Interview with Kim Christen. Discl. A J. Soc. Theory 2018, 27, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carroll, S.R.; Garba, I.; Figueroa-Rodríguez, O.L.; Holbrook, J.; Lovett, R.; Materechera, S.; Parsons, M.; Raseroka, K.; Rodriguez-Lonebear, D.; Rowe, R.; et al. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Sci. J. 2020, 19, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dunning, A.; de Smaele, M.; Boehmer, J. Are the FAIR Data Principles fair? Int. J. Digit Curation 2017, 12, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Damalas, D.; Kalyvioti, G.; Sabatella, E.C.; Stergiou, K.I. Open data in the life sciences: The ‘Selfish Scientist Paradox’. Ethics Sci. Environ. Polit. 2018, 18, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Leve, L. Interlocutors: Language, Power and Relationality in Decolonial Ethnographic Practice. Fieldwork Relig. 2022, 17, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  30. Miles, M.B.; Huberman, A.M. Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sklevicky, L. Profesija etnolog—Analiza pokazatelja statusa profesije. In Simboli Identiteta. Studije, Eseji, Građa; Rihtman-Auguštin, D., Ed.; Hrvatsko etnološko društvo: Zagreb, Croatia, 1991; pp. 45–67. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ethical Code of Croatian Ethnological Society. Available online: https://hrvatskoetnoloskodrustvo.hr/o-nama/eticki-kodeks/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
  33. Milas, G. Istraživačke Metode u Psihologiji i Drugim Društvenim Znanostima; Naklada Slap: Jastrebarsko, Croatia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Malinowski, B. A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term; Guterman, N., Translator; Athlone Press: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  35. Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life; Doubleday & Company: Garden City, NY, USA, 1959. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rihtman-Auguštin, D. Pretpostavke suvremenog etnološkog istraživanja. Nar. Umjet. 1976, 13, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rajković, Z. Obilježja etnografske građe i metode njezina terenskog istraživanaja. Etnološki Pregl. 1974, 12, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  38. Briggs, C. Against Methodological Essentialism, Fragmentation and Instrumentalism in Times of COVID-19. Am. Anthropol. 2021, 123, 954–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hannerz, U. Studying down, up, sideways, through, backward, forwards, away and at home: Reflections on the field worries of an expansive discipline. In Locating the Field: Space, Place and Context in Anthropology; Coleman, S., Collins, P., Eds.; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 23–42. [Google Scholar]
Publications 12 00042 g001
Figure 1. Varying degrees of FAIRness, taken from Mons et al. [22].
Figure 1. Varying degrees of FAIRness, taken from Mons et al. [22].
Publications 12 00042 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Orlić, O. Is This the End of Anthropology as We Know It? Some Implication of FAIR Principles on Tales in Ethnological and Anthropological Qualitative Research. Publications 2024, 12, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040042

AMA Style

Orlić O. Is This the End of Anthropology as We Know It? Some Implication of FAIR Principles on Tales in Ethnological and Anthropological Qualitative Research. Publications. 2024; 12(4):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040042

Chicago/Turabian Style

Orlić, Olga. 2024. "Is This the End of Anthropology as We Know It? Some Implication of FAIR Principles on Tales in Ethnological and Anthropological Qualitative Research" Publications 12, no. 4: 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040042

APA Style

Orlić, O. (2024). Is This the End of Anthropology as We Know It? Some Implication of FAIR Principles on Tales in Ethnological and Anthropological Qualitative Research. Publications, 12(4), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications12040042

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop