DESCRIPTION

Open materials, as Bowman and Spence note, entails 'authors publish[ing] some or all of their research materials in a manner that makes them available freely [...] and without qualifications to interested readers' (2020, 709). The materials made open can include a range of items depending on the study type, but for AHSS studies, may include 'stimulus materials, questionnaires, interview guides, coding guides, and any other materials needed to elicit the data' (Greenspan et al., 2024, n.p.), as well as field notes, positionality statements and data analysis strategies (Cook et al., 2022, 276). Where coding schemes are shared, researchers may choose to include materials documenting their evolution, as in the 'living codebook' approach detailed by Reyes et al. (2024). For art practice research, it may be valuable to share such materials as rehearsal notes, initial drafts of scripts or scores, space/staging plans and exhibition documentation. Materials such as participant information sheets and blank copies of consent forms are also valuable in illustrating the approach taken.

When considering which materials it may be possible to share, researchers might consider field-specific transparency guidelines or reporting requirements and the ways open material can strengthen transparency on these points, in addition to such resources as Frohwirth and Karcher's transparency checklist for qualitative research (2023). For discussion of the kind of materials that can be made open, see also Klein et al. (2018) and van Dijk et al. (2021).

Open materials are in some instances required by journals - for example, those signed up to the TOP guidelines, which detail three possible levels of materials sharing that journals might mandate - but researchers can do this of their own accord regardless of requirement in order to increase their work's transparency and usefulness. Jeng and He consider sharing materials as 'a first step on the road toward social scientists' acceptance of more extensive data sharing' (2022, 1289), perhaps due to considerations of open materials as one of the 'least complicated and time consuming of the open science practices' (van Dijk et al., 2021, 147).

The benefits of making research materials open are numerous. Sharing materials provides a corrective to the limited space available in journal article methods sections (Bowman and Spence, 2020, 709) and enables a much richer communication of the research process. This, in turn, enables others to verify the appropriateness and rigour of the approach, increasing credibility and facilitating replication where this is epistemically appropriate (Fleming et al., 2021, 114; Cook et al., 2022, 276). Open materials benefit the research community more broadly in enabling reuse - a survey instrument, for example, could be adapted and reused in a different setting rather than designed from the beginning, reducing the time and resource demands of subsequent projects and potentially facilitating comparative work. Benefits to the researcher who shares include the potential for increased impact and citation, with recognition possible for the materials themselves as well as related publications. Finally, and especially relevant in social science contexts like education, sharing materials can benefit practitioners in the field, providing tools and resources that can be adapted and applied in professional settings (van Dijk et al., 2021, 140; Fleming et al., 2021, 115).

How can researchers most effectively share open materials? Although more commonly cited in the context of open data, the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) provide the best guide on how to make materials open in ways that maximise their usefulness. The findability of open materials is enhanced by placing them in a repository commonly used in the research field (see the Re3Data registry for suggestions), or, failing that, a generalist repository such as Figshare, Zenodo or the Open Science Framework, often alongside any data that it is also possible to share. A repository can attribute to the deposited materials a DOI that can be cited in related publications, providing a straightforward means of linking to the supporting materials, and will accommodate detailed metadata to describe the materials shared. Publishing open materials in the 'supplementary information' on a journal's website is unlikely to enable such granularity of documentation, and may limit the possibilities for citation and discovery as a result. For a helpful discussion of the use of Open Science Framework (OSF) Projects to share open materials, see Lewis, 2020.

To enhance the accessibility of open materials, researchers should where possible use open and accessible file formats, avoiding the need for proprietary software and resulting access barriers. This also improves interoperability - the extent to which others can engage meaningfully with the materials and integrate them as appropriate into their own project workflows. The principle of reusability is further supported by the presence of a README file or other set of instructions to support interpretation and use of the materials, and the presence of a licence (such as, for example, one of the suite of Creative Commons licences) in a human- and machine-readable format to clarify the conditions under which the material can be reused. Where the materials to be made open draw on existing materials created by others, it is vital to ensure that the licence conditions of the original materials permit onward sharing of derivatives, and that appropriate attribution is given.

References

Bowman, N.D. and Spence, P.R. (2020). 'Challenges and Best Practices Associated with Sharing Research Materials and Research Data for Communication Scholars', Communication Studies, 71(4), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1799488

Center for Open Science (2025). TOP Guidelines. https://www.cos.io/initiatives/top-guidelines [accessed 03/09/2025]

Cook, B.G. et al. (2022). 'A How-to Guide for Open-Science Practices in Special Education Research', Remedial and Special Education, 43(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211019100 Open access version available here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9426775/

Fleming, J.I. et al. (2021). 'Open Accessibility in Education Research: Enhancing the Credibility, Equity, Impact, and Efficiency of Research', Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1897593 Open access version available here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9109832/

Frohwirth, L., and Karcher, S. (2023). 'Transparency in Qualitative Research – A Checklist (2.0)'. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7814497

Greenspan, R.L., Baggett, L. and Boutwell, B.B. (2024). 'Open Science Practices in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals', Journal of Experimental Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09640-x

Jeng, W. and He, D. (2022). 'Surveying Research Data-Sharing Practices in US Social Sciences: A Knowledge Infrastructure-Inspired Conceptual Framework', Online Information Review, 46(7), 1275–1292. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-03-2020-0079

Klein, O. et al. (2018). 'A Practical Guide for Transparency in Psychological Science', Collabra: Psychology, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.158

Lewis, N.A. (2020). 'Open Communication Science: A Primer on Why and Some Recommendations for How.' Communication Methods and Measures, 14.2, 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1685660

Reyes, V., Bogumil, E. and Welch, L.E. (2024). 'The Living Codebook: Documenting the Process of Qualitative Data Analysis', Sociological Methods & Research, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120986185

van Dijk, W., Schatschneider, C. and Hart, S.A. (2021). 'Open Science in Education Sciences', Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420945267