This vignette shows the Preregistration Template for Qualitative and
Quantitative Ethnographic Studies form. It can be initialized as
After this, content can be specified with preregr::prereg_specify()
To check the next field(s) for which content still has to be specified,
The form is defined as follows (use preregr::form_show()
to show the form in the console, instead):
Preregistration Template for Qualitative and Quantitative
A preregistration is a way to design your research project before you
begin and to document your decisions, rationale. A template such as this
one can be employed to think about what you want to do and how, and
subsequently, if you wish, you can submit the finished preregistration
to a registry, such as OSF’s (https://osf.io/registries). This template was developed
to aid the preregistration of quantitative ethnographic studies, but due
to its modular nature, it can be employed for qualitative studies as
Sections and items
Tentative title of project
Please state the aims of your research. Your aim may be different across
different domains (e.g.: knowledge generation, policy development,
community resourcing). If so, specify your aim for each domain that is
relevant for your study.
Exploratory projects may not have any hypotheses or even specific
research questions, their aim is to explore a general topic, community,
or practice. Confirmatory studies have specific hypotheses and/or
research questions, theories that are either proven or disproven. Other
aims than “Exploratory” or “Confirmatory” may be specified, too, but in
that case it is recommended that they are defined, too.
Please state your research question(s). Research questions are subject
to change and/or elaboration. Some beneficial times to review these
questions may be at, e.g.: 1) preregistration, 2) after the first
instances of data collection, 3) when discussing the first results, 4)
when starting write-up of findings
Please specify the role of theory in your research design. Are you
planning to work primarily inductive (theory use mainly for purpose
relevance of the research), inductive with deductive aspects (theory
development using open theoretical concepts) or primarily deductive
(mainly refining existing theory)? Some examples are “Primarily
inductive”, “primarily deductive”, and “inductive with deductive
Please elaborate if your research is conducted from a certain
theoretical paradigm (for example, social constructionism, positivism,
post-positivism, critical theory, etc.). How will this paradigm
influence your research?
Please select whether you are working with original data, pre-existing
data, or both.
How long do you imagine the study taking, from its preregistration to
the final write-up of results?
Please describe your sampling strategy. Please provide a short rationale
for why you selected this type of strategy. Describe inclusion and
exclusion criteria. Some examples are convenience sampling, purposive
sampling, snowball sampling, theoretical samlping, maximum variation
sampling, proportional quota sampling, non-proportional quota sampling,
random sampling, and mixed sampling.
Please describe from where you are recruiting the participants for your
study and how you will be getting in touch with them.
Planned number of participants (or providers of data or “cases”)
Section: Data collection
Data collection method
Please indicate the data collection procedure(s) you will use. Some
examples are “Semi-structured interview”, “Structured interview”, “Focus
group”, “Enabling technique”, “Self-report”, “Field notes”, “Diary”,
“Participant observation”, “Observation”, “Archival research”, “Log
file”, and “Survey”.
Type of raw data
In what form will you be collecting data for your study? Some examples
are audio, video, audio-video, text, and numerical.
Your study may be conducted with individuals but data is recorded from a
dyad or a group; individuals may not be considered separately (some
examples are individual, dyad, group (≥3), individual and group, etc).
Thus, please indicate who/what you consider data providers in your
Data collection tools
Please describe or upload the tools, instruments or plans you will use
in collecting or generating your data. Some examples are using a topic
guide, interview structure, questionnaire, focus group guide,
observation scheme, standardized prompts, protocol, and archival search
interfaces and queries.
Please describe the criteria or rationale for stopping data generation
or collection. These can differ for various aspects of the project. Some
examples are data saturation (in that case, please explain how you
operationalie this), when inclusion criteria are satisfied, resource
constraints (e.g. time/funding), and when the analysis has produced an
enriching answer to the research question(s).
Metadata or Attributes
Please specify what constitutes metadata and/or attributes in your
Metadata = data about the data collection process or the data itself
(interviewer, date of interview, timestamp, etc.)
Attributes = characteristics of data providers (e.g., age, sex,
education of cases)
Type of coding
Please indicate whether you will be developing your own codes
(inductively) or adopting codes from a previous study or theoretical
framework (deductive). You may be using a combination of these, e.g.,
inductively developing codes through test coding and then deductively
applying the final code structure.
Process of coding
If there is more than one rater, are they coding with the same or a
different set of codes? For example, all raters may employ different
codes, all raters can employ the same codes, or it can be a mix.
Are you using automated or manual coding or a combination of both?
Please describe in detail the stages of code development. If applicable,
you may upload different code structures developed before triangulation,
as well as anything in the process of creating the final version.
Describe the final code structure, if you have it at the time of
preregistration: If you are applying your codes deductively, how many
levels of abstraction do you have? How many codes are at the lowest
level? (If possible, please upload your final codebook with your
preregistration or to your repository)
Are you using classifiers for automated coding? If so, please elaborate
your considerations in developing your classifiers. Provided you have
them at the time of preregistration, please list your classifiers,
upload them, or indicate that you will have them in your repository.
Types of raters
Who or what is performing the coding? For example, human only, computer
only, or human and computer.
Number of raters
How many researchers are performing coding? If automated coding is
(also) being used, please include the computer as a “rater”.
Are you planning on using any specific tools for performing coding?
(e.g.: interface for the Reproducible Open Coding Kit (iROCK), nCoder,
Are you planning to calculate IRR? (Can be simple, e.g. “yes”, “no”,
“not applicable”, etc)
Smallest unit of segmentation
Define the smallest meaningful unit of segmentation (one sentence, one
log entry, one second, etc.)
Other levels of segmentation
Define any other level(s) of segmentation (intermediate, highest), for
example: a topic, psychological proximity, recent temporal context,
utterances from one participant during one session, an interview
transcript, a focus group session transcript, log entries within the
duration of 24 hours, observations from one group performing one task,
Type of segmentation
Please indicate whether you will be performing segmentation manually or
automating it or a combination of both. This answer may differ depending
on level of segmentation; please indicate separately for each level of
segmentation you plan to perform. (e.g. “automated”, “manual”,
“automated and manual”, “not applicable”, etc)
Coding and segmentation level
Please indicate on which level(s) of segmentation you will be performing
coding. You may want to distinguish between coding a narrative and
designating attributes or metadata.
Operationalization of source (codable or coded file)
What data will your files contain? (e.g.: one interview, a series of
interviews, all think-aloud entries from a participant)
Please specify what type of analysis you are planning on conducting.
(e.g.: Narrative analysis, Interpretative phenomenological analysis,
Grounded theory, Thematic analysis, Content analysis, Process tracing,
Comparative analysis, Discourse analysis)
Please describe the process that your analysis approach requires and how
you see this process manifesting in your study.
If you intend to do so, describe how you will change the grouping or
representation of your data in order to perform analysis (e.g.: a higher
order grouping of sources, cases, or attributes).
Are you planning on using any tools to perform analysis? If so, please
specify them here. (e.g.: the Reproducible Open Coding Kit (ROCK),
Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA), nCoder, Rho, Topic modelling)
Section: Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA)-Specific
What will constitute “units”, i.e., for what will you be generating
networks? If you know this ahead of time, please indicate it here.
What will constitute “conversation”, i.e., how do you plan to aggregate
(bounded sets of) utterances? If you know this ahead of time, please
indicate it here.
ENA stanza window
How will code co-occurrences be accumulated? If you know this ahead of
time, please indicate it here. For example, “moving window”, “whole
conversation”, or “infinite stanza”.
ENA moving stanza window
If you will be using a moving stanza window, what will be its length? If
you know this ahead of time, please indicate it here along with a
justification or rationale. If you don’t know, how do you plan on
deciding its size?
What will the edge weight threshold be set to? Will there be any changes
in the analytical process or among various networks? If you know this
ahead of time, please indicate it here.
Will means rotation be performed? If you know this ahead of time, please
indicate it here.
What constitutes a strong or weak connection? How will this be
determined? If you know this ahead of time, please indicate it here.
Section: Positionality and Credibility
Feel free to reflect on your relation to or association with the studied
phenomenon and your position in the research setting/field, including
your academic/personal standpoints, assumptions and values. In addition,
if there is a potential conflict of interest that can arise, you may
want to report that here.
Please indicate any strategies you will be employing to ensure better
credibility of analyses and conclusions. (e.g.: member checking /
respondent validation, triangulation with other data sources, asking
different researchers to analyze the data, inter-rater reliability,
negative case analysis, peer debriefing, cross-checks for rivalling
explanations, bringing in an ‘auditor’, reflexivity)
Section: Open Science
Do you currently have or are you planning to create a repository for
making any aspects of your research process open (preregistration, data,
code development, codebook, analysis, etc.)? If so, please indicate it