Reactivity in qualitative data collection occurs when a researcher generates data about a situation with reactivity, that is, a situation in which the ongoing research affects the research participants such that they, say, diverge from their routines when the researcher is present, or tell the researcher what they think she wants to hear. In qualitative research, there are two basic approaches to reactivity. The traditional position maintains that data should ideally be collected in situations without any reactivity. In other words, good data are reactivity free. By contrast, the more recent view holds that data from situations with reactivity are fine as long as the researcher is aware of the occurring reactivity so that she can take it into account when interpreting her data. In this fashion, good data are reactivity transparent. In this paper, I first spell out and defend the more recent approach to reactivity. I argue that qualitative data are reactivity transparent when conjoined with true reactivity assumptions and that, thus supplemented, data are informative about social life independently of its being studied. Next, I examine various issues raised by the requirement to put forth true reactivity assumptions. Lastly, I use my discussion of reactivity transparency as a basis for providing a framework for thinking about good qualitative data.

当研究人员生成有关具有反应性的情况的数据时，定性数据收集中的反应性发生研究他们认为她想听什么。在定性研究中，有两种基本的反应性方法。传统立场认为，理想情况下，数据应该在没有任何反应的情况下收集。换句话说，好的数据是无反应的。相比之下，最近的观点认为，只要研究人员意识到正在发生的反应，以便她在解释她的数据时可以考虑到它，那么来自具有反应性情况的数据就可以了。以这种方式，好的数据是反应透明的。在本文中，我首先阐明并捍卫最近的反应性方法。我认为，当与真实的反应性假设相结合时，定性数据是反应性透明的，因此补充数据可以提供有关社会生活的信息，而与所研究的无关。接下来，我研究了提出真实反应性假设的要求所引发的各种问题。最后，我以我对反应性透明度的讨论为基础，为思考良好的定性数据提供了一个框架。我研究了提出真实反应性假设的要求所引发的各种问题。最后，我以我对反应性透明度的讨论为基础，为思考良好的定性数据提供了一个框架。我研究了提出真实反应性假设的要求所引发的各种问题。最后，我以我对反应性透明度的讨论为基础，为思考良好的定性数据提供了一个框架。