I have updated the online supplement for our paper on party positions on immigration (with Laura Morales) to add more data, including data that I coded after the article was published. While the online supplement (PDF) of that article included party positions and packed lots of additional information on its 102 pages, there is now more on OSF.
You can find:
N=422 party manifestos coded using the checklist approach
N=9,147 individual sentences coded
N=461 sections on migration, manually selected
word counts of these sections on migration
Although I wish I could say that the data are complete, they are a mix from Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Some coverage is pretty systematic, other coverage is more selective — reflecting what I have worked on.
P.S. please don’t use the CMP/MARPOR codes 607 and 608 when you want to measure positions on immigration, they are too generic and do not correlate well. There are more specific sub-codes in data coded after 2014 that are conceptually fine.
A while ago, I shared how we do research ethics at the Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies (SFM). Given that we often do commissioned research at the SFM, it’s important that the administrative burden is kept low, but we do and want to take ethical questions serious. Here I share the updated guidelines that I have put together for the institute, recently further streamlined. The aim remains to encourage all researchers to think about and take research ethics serious, and the guidelines are a synthesis of other ethics guidelines (duly acknowledged).
The guidelines begin with a short flowchart to deal with the most common cases. The list of exempt cases is now more explicit, with the understanding that if researchers identify ethical questions in seemingly benign approaches such as a literature review (e.g. because of the way the research question is posed, or because of the funder) can require a more thorough reflection (and thus the checklist to be filled in).
The core of the guidelines remains a checklist with 11 question. Each question — like “Does the research involve sensitive topics?” — comes with a few examples, and there are three possible responses: yes, uncertain, no. Researchers can tick the appropriate boxes, but it proved useful to use numbers for “yes” and “uncertain” answers to facilitate cross-referencing with part 2 of the guidelines.
Where some of the answers are “yes” or “uncertain”, researchers fill in part 2. Now more detail is required, including a brief description of the work, but normally the longest part is “Steps taken to address ethical issues”. Here the cross-references come in handy. If I identified 3 issues in part 1, I can now refer to them by number.
An uncontroversial list of ethical principles like “no harm to subjects and researcher” or “informed consent should normally be obtained” is included at the end of the checklist.
With the streamlined design, for some projects the ethical checklist takes only a short moment (e.g. literature review, analysis of secondary data where individuals are not identifiable). For other projects, we can typically handle the situation at the institutional level (e.g. interviews), while occasionally we want to have a thorough examination by the ethics commission of the university (e.g. field experiments).
The CESSDA Data Management Expert Guide (DMEG) is designed by European experts to help social science researchers make their research data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). They have made available an expert guide for data management, freely (of course) on Zenodo.