DESCRIPTION

A pre-registration is a time-stamped record of the plans for data collection and analysis in a study, posted in a public repository prior to data collection taking place, with the option of applying an embargo (a delay in public access) to protect against 'scooping'. This creates a transparent record of the study's initial conception. Pre-registration originated in the posting of protocols for randomised control trials in medicine (Jacobs, 2020, 236-7), before its adoption more widely by the Open Science movement. Restricting researcher degrees of freedom at the analysis stage, it offers a way of reducing (and evidencing the lack of) questionable research practices such as HARKing (Hypothesising After Results are Known) and P-hacking (exhaustively manipulating variables in order to find a statistically significant result). Coupled with results-blind peer review, pre-registration has also been used to address publication bias through the phenomenon of Registered Reports, which use a two-stage review process to offer publication based on a rigorous research plan (provided this is followed) rather than rewarding novel or significant findings. In the social sciences, pre-registrations are often hosted either in generalist repositories like OSF Registries and AsPredicted, or on subject-specific platforms such as the American Economic Association's RCT registry and the now-discontinued (but still searchable) Evidence in Governance and Politics (EGAP) registry.

The relevance of pre-registration - a practice developed in the context of quantitative hypothesis-testing research in STEM subjects - to qualitative research in areas like the humanities and social sciences - has been questioned. Critics have queried the extent to which the iterative temporalities of qualitative methods like grounded theory are compatible with the apparently linear proscriptions of pre-registration, which in its original format requires the full specification of research plans at the outset (Tamminen et al., 2021, 870; Schwarz-Shea & Yanow, 2012, 36). By some, the suggestion that pre-registration should be extended to qualitative research has been perceived as epistemically inappropriate, applying a 'solution' to a problem that is located elsewhere and unnecessarily subordinating qualitative research to quantitative-derived logics, exacerbating perceived knowledge hierarchies and overlooking the mechanisms of rigour and transparency that already exist in qualitative research (Pratt et al., 2020; Huma & Joyce, 2023).

Nevertheless, other scholars have taken the view that pre-registration of qualitative research is not only possible but valuable. Jacobs (2020) argues that qualitative research is just as susceptible as other research types to the misrepresentation of aims and analyses, including the implicit or explicit presentation of findings from an exploratory analysis as confirmations of a hypothesis or theory. Haven and van Grootel (2019) highlight a number of additional benefits to pre-registration that do not depend on the denial of questionable practices: the transparency benefits of 'putting the study design and plan on an open platform for the (scientific) community to scrutinize' (236), the opportunities pre-registration provides for researchers to clarify their theoretical and methodological approaches (237), and the fact that the process makes studies discoverable regardless of whether they are eventually published (239). Pre-registration also places a study in the context of its own historical unfolding, which may be valuable and informative for readers and reviewers (Haven et al., 2020, 1), and as Branney et al. (2023, 6) note, it can further render visible 'the reflexive labour of qualitative research'.

In the context of these perspectives, work has taken place to create pre-registration frameworks and templates that are tailored to the particularities of qualitative research. These include the PAP-Q (Pre-Analysis Plan: Qualitative) framework (Piñeiro and Rosenblatt, 2016) and the Open Science Framework's Qualitative Pre-registration template (Open Science Framework / Mellor et al., 2016, 2023), the latter of which we focus on here.

The OSF Qualitative Pre-registration template was developed through sustained and extensive consultation with qualitative researchers using diverse methods, and draws on existing reporting standards for qualitative research such as COREQ and JARS (Haven et al., 2020). Its structure and content are comprised of the items converged on via a two-stage Delphi process, which include the sections 'Research Aims' and 'Research question(s)' (rather than 'Hypotheses' in the standard pre-registration template) and the more flexible 'Data collection methods', 'Data collection tools, instruments or plans' and 'Data analysis approach' in place of 'Manipulated variables', 'Statistical models' and 'Inference criteria' of the standard template. The qualitative template also includes a 'Credibility strategies' section, which contains a range of suggested epistemically appropriate items such as triangulation, member checking and peer debriefing; and a space to reflect on researcher positionality, in this way incorporating and foregrounding qualitative-aligned practices of rigour and transparency. While the template is not without its critics (e.g. Huma & Joyce, 2023, 1594), it offers a fittingly qualitative framework that enables researchers to thoroughly think through qualitative studies in a productive level of detail and scope prior to commencing data collection, as well as making those plans openly available.

References

Branney, P.E. et al. (2023). 'Three Steps to Open Science for Qualitative Research in Psychology', Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12728

Haven, T.L., and Van Grootel, L. (2019). 'Preregistering Qualitative Research', Accountability in Research, 26(3), 229–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147

Haven, T.L. et al. (2020). 'Preregistering Qualitative Research: A Delphi Study', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920976417

Huma, B. and Joyce, J.B. (2023). '"One size doesn't fit all": Lessons from Interaction Analysis on Tailoring Open Science Practices to Qualitative Research', British Journal of Social Psychology, 62(4), 1590–1604. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12568

Jacobs, A.M. (2020). 'Pre-Registration and Results-Free Review in Observational and Qualitative Research' in Elman, C. et al. (eds), The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. pp. 221–64

Open Science Framework / Bowman et al. (2016). 'OSF [standard] Prereg Template'. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/epgjd [accessed 18/08/25]

Open Science Framework / Mellor et al. (2016, 2023). 'Qualitative Pre-registration Template'. https://osf.io/w4ac2 [accessed 18/08/25]

Piñeiro, R. and Rosenblatt, F. (2016) 'Pre-Analysis Plans for Qualitative Research', Revista de Ciencia Política, 36(3), 785–796. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-090X2016000300009

Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., and Whittington, R. (2020). 'Editorial essay: The Tumult over Transparency: Decoupling Transparency from Replication in Establishing Trustworthy Qualitative Research', Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663

Schwartz-Shea, P., and Yanow, D. (2012). Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. New York: Routledge

Tamminen, K.A. et al. (2021). 'Considerations for Making Informed Choices about Engaging in Open Qualitative Research', Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health, 13.5, 864–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2021.1901138