The ethics of secondary data analysis: learning from the experience of sharing qualitative data from young people and their families in an international study of childhood poverty

This working paper focuses on secondary analysis, an aspect of research practice that is sometimes assumed to pose few ethical challenges. It draws in particular on the experience of a collaborative research project involving secondary analysis of qualitative data collected as part of an ongoing international longitudinal study, Young Lives (www.younglives.org.uk), and sets this alongside a wider review of regulatory guidance on research ethics and academic debates. Secondary analysis can take many forms, and bring many benefits. But it is more ethically complex than regulatory frameworks may imply. Whether or not data are publicly archived, ethical considerations have to be addressed, including responsibilities to participants and the original researchers, and the need to achieve a contextual understanding of the data by identifying and countering risks of misinterpretation. The considerations raised here are intended to aid ethical research practice by supporting planning and reflection – for primary researchers who are planning to archive their data, as well as for researchers embarking on a qualitative secondary analysis. Not least, our experience highlights the importance of developing and maintaining trusting relationships between primary and secondary researchers

Sharing Qualitative and Qualitative Longitudinal Data in the UK: Archiving Strategies and Development

Over the past two decades significant developments have occurred in the archiving of qualitative data in the UK. The first national archive for qualitative resources, Qualidata, was established in 1994. Since that time further scientific reviews have supported the expansion of data resources for qualitative and qualitative longitudinal (QL) research in the UK and fuelled the development of a new ethos of data sharing and re-use among qualitative researchers. These have included the Timescapes Study and Archive, an initiative funded from 2007 to scale up QL research and create a specialist resource of QL data for sharing and re-use. These trends are part of a wider movement to enhance the status of research data in all their diverse forms, inculcate an ethos of data sharing, and develop infrastructure to facilitate data discovery and re-use. In this paper we trace the history of these developments and provide an overview of data policy initiatives that have set out to advance data sharing in the UK. The paper reveals a mixed infrastructure for qualitative and QL data resources in the UK, and explores the value of this, along with the implications for managing and co-ordinating resources across a complex network. The paper concludes with some suggestions for developing this mixed infrastructure to further support data sharing and re-use in the UK and beyond

Report to the Childhood Development Initiative on Archiving of C.D.I. Data

This report presents the ethical and legal issues involved in depositing data-sets of research for secondary use in Ireland

Qualitative and Qualitative Longitudinal Resources in Europe

In April 2009 the UK Timescapes Initiative, in collaboration with the University of Bremen, organised a residential workshop to explore the nature of qualitative (Q) and qualitative longitudinal (QL) research and resources across Europe. The workshop was hosted by the Archive for Life Course Research (Archiv für Lebenslaufforschung, ALLF) at Bremen and funded by Timescapes with support from CESSDA (The Council of European Social Science Data Archives, Preparatory Phase Project). It was attended by archivists and researchers from 14 countries, including ‘transitional’ states such as Belarus and Lithuania. The broad aim of the workshop was to map existing infrastructures for qualitative and QL data archiving among the participating countries, including the extent of archiving and the ethos of data sharing and re-use in different national contexts. The group also explored strategies to develop infrastructure and to support qualitative and QL research and resources, including collaborative research across Europe and beyond

JISC funded Kaptur project environmental assessment report

The overall objective of the JISC funded Kaptur project (October 2011 - March 2013) is to discover, create and pilot a sectoral model of best practice in the management of research data in the visual arts. This report outlines findings from the first workpackage, environmental assessment, based on the following research question: What is the nature of visual arts research data? Appendix A provides detail on the methodology; data was gathered from a literature review and 16 face-to-face interviews with visual arts researchers; four at each partner institution: Glasgow School of Art; Goldsmiths, University of London; University for the Creative Arts; and University of the Arts London

Sharing Social Research Data in Ireland: A Practical Tool

Your data is valuable and has an importance outside your own original project. Allowing other researchers to reuse your data maximises the impact of your work, and benefits both the scholarly community and society in general. Sharing your data allows other researchers to use your material in ways you may not have thought of, or may not have been able to do within your research project. It allows other researchers to replicate your findings, to verify your results, test your instruments and compare with other studies. It also allows them to use your work to expand knowledge in important areas. It provides value for money by reducing duplication and advancing knowledge and also has a significant value in education, as it allows both graduate and under-graduate students to develop their skills in qualitative and quantitative research by using high-quality data in their studies, without having to conduct their own surveys.Archiving your data also guarantees its long-term preservation and accessibility. As many research teams are assembled only for individual projects, long-term preservation and access to research data collections can only be guaranteed if they are deposited in an archive which will manage them, ensure access and provide user-support. In addition, the archives will ensure that the datasets do not become obsolescent or corrupted.Finally, increasingly funders require that you make your research data available as a condition of their funding your research, so that other researchers can test your findings, and use your data to extend research in your area. Equally, publishers are also specifying access to research data as a condition for publication

Promoting Inclusivity in the Archive: A literature review reassessing tradition through theory and practice

The call for social justice and rise of postmodernism in the second half of the 20th century forced the critical re-evaluation of the traditional archive and its presumed neutral role in the collection and creation of history. Reappraisal of traditional archive theory and practice was forced by heightened critical conscious among the field and its constituents. This literature review examines contemporary methodologies and methods influenced by the postmodern movement and call for social justice in the archive. Affect theory, radical empathy, and queer/ed methodology provide new frameworks for the thinking about the archive space and work towards the creation of a more diverse and inclusive archive. The collection of oral histories and participatory, community archiving practices provide concrete methods for employing the aforementioned theories. This paper purports that these ideas may be better framed within the context of the post-postmodern movement of metamodernism and calls for the continual evaluation of archival theory and practice within this vein

New frontiers in QLR: definition, design and display

Research that is attentive to temporal processes and durational phenomena is an important tradition within the social sciences internationally with distinct disciplinary trajectories. Qualitative longitudinal research emerged as a distinct methodological paradigm around the turn of the millennium, named within the UK through journal special issues, literature reviews and funding commitments. In 2012-3 the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods funded a network for methodological innovation to map ’New frontiers of QLR’, bringing together a group of scholars who have been actively involved in establishing QLR as a methodological field. The network provided an opportunity to consolidate the learning that has developed in QLR over a sustained period of investment and to engage critically with what QLR might mean in new times. This paper documents the series of discussions staged by the network involving the definition of QLR, the kinds of relationships and practices it involves and the consequences of these in a changing landscape for social research. The series was deliberately interdisciplinary ensuring that we engaged with the temporal perspectives and norms of different academic and practice traditions and this has both enriched and complicated the picture that has emerged from our deliberations. In this paper we argue that QLR is a methodological paradigm that by definition moves with the times, and is an ongoing site of innovation and experiment. Key issues identified for future development in QLR include: intervening in debates of ‘big data’ with visions of deep data that involve following and connecting cases over time; the potential of longitudinal approaches to reframe the ‘sample’ exploring new ways of connecting the particular and the general; new thinking about research ethics that move us beyond anonymity to better explore the meanings of confidentiality and the co-production of research knowledge; and finally the promotion of a QLR sensibility that involves a heightened awareness of the here and now in the making of knowledge, yet which also connects research biographically over a career, enriched by a reflexive understanding of time as a resource in the making of meaning

Enforcing public data archiving policies in academic publishing: A study of ecology journals

To improve the quality and efficiency of research, groups within the scientific community seek to exploit the value of data sharing. Funders, institutions, and specialist organizations are developing and implementing strategies to encourage or mandate data sharing within and across disciplines, with varying degrees of success. Academic journals in ecology and evolution have adopted several types of public data archiving policies requiring authors to make data underlying scholarly manuscripts freely available. Yet anecdotes from the community and studies evaluating data availability suggest that these policies have not obtained the desired effects, both in terms of quantity and quality of available datasets. We conducted a qualitative, interview-based study with journal editorial staff and other stakeholders in the academic publishing process to examine how journals enforce data archiving policies. We specifically sought to establish who editors and other stakeholders perceive as responsible for ensuring data completeness and quality in the peer review process. Our analysis revealed little consensus with regard to how data archiving policies should be enforced and who should hold authors accountable for dataset submissions. Themes in interviewee responses included hopefulness that reviewers would take the initiative to review datasets and trust in authors to ensure the completeness and quality of their datasets. We highlight problematic aspects of these thematic responses and offer potential starting points for improvement of the public data archiving process.Comment: 35 pages, 1 figure, 1 tabl