The Timescapes Workshops were offered as three, one day events held around the UK for researchers and practitioners to learn about and interact with the Timescapes Archive.  This archive forms an integral part of a five year ESRC qualitative longitudinal study which explores and documents the changing nature of personal and family relationships.  The workshop provided a forum from which to explore the purpose and value of archiving qualitative data sets for future (secondary use).  Issues of ownership and consent were central to many of the discussion which took place throughout the day.  In addition, the practical ‘hands-on’ session with the archive raised issues about the skill of archiving for future use as well as the optimal functionality and usability of an archive for secondary analysis.  This workshop provided a useful addition to the training needs increasingly required by qualitative researchers where archiving for secondary use is now an important consideration within the design and dissemination phases of research

Reid, K.

English

Reid, Kate

Enlighten

          Reid, Kate (2011) Workshop Review: Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop, March 2011, Edinburgh. Qualitative Methods in Psychology Section Bulletin, 12 . ISSN 2044-0820.   Copyright © 2011 British Psychological Society  A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge  Content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s)   When referring to this work, full bibliographic details must be given    http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/72942/      Deposited on: 03 March 2014                Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk 1  Workshop Review by Kate Reid, University of Glasgow, School of Education Accepted for Publication in QMiP Bulletin (Qualitative Methods in Psychology) Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop (Edinburgh, March 2011)  The Timescapes Workshops were offered as three, one day events held around the UK for researchers and practitioners to learn about and interact with the Timescapes Archive.  This archive forms an integral part of a five year ESRC qualitative longitudinal study which explores and documents the changing nature of personal and family relationships.  The workshop provided a forum from which to explore the purpose and value of archiving qualitative data sets for future (secondary use).  Issues of ownership and consent were central to many of the discussion which took place throughout the day.  In addition, the practical ‘hands-on’ session with the archive raised issues about the skill of archiving for future use as well as the optimal functionality and usability of an archive for secondary analysis.  This workshop provided a useful addition to the training needs increasingly required by qualitative researchers where archiving for secondary use is now an important consideration within the design and dissemination phases of research.  The Timescapes Study  Timescapes is the first major ESRC funded qualitative longitudinal study to be funded in the UK.  The project spans a five year timeline and is funded until February 2012.  The study is currently in its dissemination phase.  Timescapes comprises seven complimentary research projects all which situate themselves at a point on the life course of individuals.  Young lives, mid lives and older lives projects are represented within the wider Timescapes study.  The projects track and document individuals and families over time, looking specifically at the changing nature of relationships and identities.  The wider remit of the individual projects are to consider how these relationships and life transitions are ‘worked out’ in the context of different socio-economic, psychological, historical and cultural contexts.  There are 400 participants accounts evidenced in some form within the study.  These accounts can be in the form of qualitative in-depth interviews (with available audio and transcription), oral narratives and photographs.   The study showcases how qualitative research can be designed and executed on a large scale while still retaining the idiographic level details specific to the individual projects.  This may placate the skeptics who argue that qualitative ‘can’t do’ big without losing the very essence of in-depth enquiry.  The combining of allied projects which compliment each other’s aims and methods injects a new form of rigor where standardized approaches to data collection and data management (archiving) across studies allow for more robust and unified datasets.  It is interesting to ponder how many complimentary but discrete data sets exist and never get the chance to ‘talk’ to one another and inform a robust analysis.  2  The possibility of recovering qualitative data from numerous datasets archived in one place and working collaboratively across research teams is an innovative step forward in this field.    The Timescapes Archive  The Timescapes Archive has been designed as an integral feature of the Timescapes Study.  The archive is managed from the University of Leeds where it benefits from designated technical support and is embedded into the library-managed repository system.  The archive can receive qualitative data in varied formats, thereby offering researchers the opportunity to record many aspects of psychological and sociological enquiry that have been under-evidenced in qualitative studies such as drawings, photographs, music as well as audio and written documents.  Access to the archive is regulated and only those with approved credentials are able to access the full archive.  There is a public, open access option with more limited functionality.   The practical aspects to the workshop allowed delegates the opportunity to search and browse the multi-media files contained within the archive.  The functionality and user interface of the archive does not offer the same degree of sophistication within its search and retrieve function as computer aided analysis packages such as NVivo.  However simple searches for key terms/words/participants names were possible.  This is a step forward from the Qualidata Archive (Economic and Social Data Service), which only supported searches across project titles and not within datasets.   The workshop activities offered a snap shot of what the archive can offer to the browsing researcher looking for access to secondary data.  For example, one activity allowed us to search for a young boy named Tim who had been involved in the Siblings and Friends project.   Tim is evidenced by named files which document a number of different but interconnected aspects to his life.  These included an in-depth interview with a researcher about his relationship with siblings and friends, a video-diary, photographs and drawings.  Some of the tasks were more thematically driven and delegates were able to search the database for evidence linked to key search terms such as ‘death’, and ‘fatherhood’.  Many qualitative researchers would argue that this ‘top down’ approach to analysis is not in the spirit of true inductive enquiry.  However it is hard to doubt the potential power of the simple search engine in helping the analyst understand the possible breadth and depth of the phenomenon under study.  Matching Data to Methods of Analysis Providing varied formats from which to record, preserve and re-use different types of qualitative ‘evidence’ is a key strength of the Timescapes archive.  However the issue of the researchers ‘situatedness’ and familiarity with this secondary data was a prominent concern for some of the delegates.  Discussions about the maintaining close proximity to the data, from collection through to analysis was considered to be a key aspect of gaining access to the all important ‘insider perspective’.  Reflective notes/diaries made by the primary researcher/interviewer about the context of the interview and interviewee were not always evidenced in the archive.  For those involved in interviewing participants face-to-face it is hard to imagine that the same degree of insight and interpretative 3  narrative can be achieved during secondary analysis by a researcher who may only dip in and out of the archive.  It may mean that some types of qualitative enquiry which consider the role of the analyst to be central in analysis process e.g., Interpretative Phenomenological Enquiry may not align either in method or epistemology when using secondary research data.  It is also unlikely that the preparation and notation of the transcribed interviews required by discourse analysts will be fulfilled within the remit of the archive. The browsing researcher needs to be mindful of this potential limitation when considering whether the data provides a suitable opportunity to engage in their chosen method of analysis.   Consent, ownership and the balance of open-access One of the most interesting discussions centered on ethical issues of consent and ownership when re-using qualitative data for secondary analysis.  The delegates were supportive of the movement away from the destruction of raw data upon completion of the research study, as per the requirement of many University and NHS ethics clearance forms. There was acceptance that qualitative data in its ‘raw’ state whether in the form of case notes, transcribed interviews, associated documents should be retained in some secure form for future use.  The length of time that this data should be retained for was debated.  Some delegates reported that in order to promote informed consent, participants should be able to know how long their accounts would continue to contribute to research.  In addition, concerns were raised about the loss of control over how the data would be used by others involved in secondary analysis.  Again, this was linked back into discussions about the role of informed consent where the participant is given clear information about what the purpose of the research is and exactly what the data will be used for.   Researchers familiar with the use of secondary data and members of the team involved in the Timescapes study were robust in their counter arguments about the protection of the participant and the role of informed consent.  There was a common sense argument put forward which illustrated that participants may prefer that the contribution that they make to research can ‘live-on’ and inform future research as and when it is appropriate.  Most of us are familiar with the notion of non identifiable, personal information being retained for the greater good of society, particularly in the context of policy and planning such as Census data.   In addition, participants may be more confident to be involved in research if they are assured that their accounts are valued and as such will be securely stored in central sites for future use.  This is in contrast to their accounts being kept for years languishing in a lonely filing cabinet or hard disc drive with no opportunity to contribute again into the research process.   The workshop trainers raised the issue of whether this data is ever ours to keep? Who has ownership at the end of the day and it is possible that researchers become too emotionally attached to this data?    Whatever the outcome of this debate, the dissemination requirements set by research councils where qualitative methods are used is changing.  The ESRC Research Data Policy requires that all research grant holders offer data collected during the course of their research for ‘preservation and sharing’ through archives such as Qualidata. Whether we are emotionally attached to our data or not, we need to accept that this data need not just inform our own research but may contribute to the research cycle of future studies.  Like so many aspects of society, research needs to become leaner, more efficient and place  less burden on those in society who are the focus for research.  By making more use of secondary 4  qualitative data, researchers may be able to research at a faster pace, leading to more research activity and publications.  Interestingly, the issue of output was raised within the context of the REF and whether the preparation of data for archiving and the resultant data set should be considered ‘REF-able’.  An interesting issue to finish the workshop on..! Concluding Remarks The Timescapes Archive is an interesting starting point for researchers who have yet to access secondary data.  The data is broad in thematic content and format.  The longitudinal and intergenerational features of the data mean that researchers from many disciplines such as psychology, sociology, history, education may find data to stimulate new ideas, grant proposals and hopefully, theory generation.  The archive also offers a coherent way for researchers from different disciplines to work collaboratively on shared datasets in order to extend the reach and rigor of their research.  The preparation of data for archiving has been embedded within the design stage of the projects contained in the Timescapes archive.  This raises issues about how future research studies may design and plan their projects.  Informed consent and ethical awareness were at the forefront of many of the discussion that took place during the workshop.  It is possible that researchers may be underestimating the acceptance and trust that participants place on being involved in research that they believe is worthwhile.  The value of this data does not diminish at the conclusion of one research project but can be retained for future use, securing its value for generations to come.    Website for Timescapes Archive http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/ 

Workshop Review: Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop, March 2011, Edinburgh.

Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk        Reid, K. (2011) Workshop Review: Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop. In: Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop , March 2011, Edinburgh.  Copyright © 2011 The Author  A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge  The content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s)     http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/73194/     Deposited on: 11 December 2012   1  Workshop Review by Kate Reid, University of Glasgow, School of Education Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop (Edinburgh, March 2011)  The Timescapes Workshops were offered as three, one day events held around the UK for researchers and practitioners to learn about and interact with the Timescapes Archive.  This archive forms an integral part of a five year ESRC qualitative longitudinal study which explores and documents the changing nature of personal and family relationships.  The workshop provided a forum from which to explore the purpose and value of archiving qualitative data sets for future (secondary use).  Issues of ownership and consent were central to many of the discussion which took place throughout the day.  In addition, the practical ‘hands-on’ session with the archive raised issues about the skill of archiving for future use as well as the optimal functionality and usability of an archive for secondary analysis.  This workshop provided a useful addition to the training needs increasingly required by qualitative researchers where archiving for secondary use is now an important consideration within the design and dissemination phases of research.  The Timescapes Study  Timescapes is the first major ESRC funded qualitative longitudinal study to be funded in the UK.  The project spans a five year timeline and is funded until February 2012.  The study is currently in its dissemination phase.  Timescapes comprises seven complimentary research projects all which situate themselves at a point on the life course of individuals.  Young lives, mid lives and older lives projects are represented within the wider Timescapes study.  The projects track and document individuals and families over time, looking specifically at the changing nature of relationships and identities.  The wider remit of the individual projects are to consider how these relationships and life transitions are ‘worked out’ in the context of different socio-economic, psychological, historical and cultural contexts.  There are 400 participants accounts evidenced in some form within the study.  These accounts can be in the form of qualitative in-depth interviews (with available audio and transcription), oral narratives and photographs.   The study showcases how qualitative research can be designed and executed on a large scale while still retaining the idiographic level details specific to the individual projects.  This may placate the skeptics who argue that qualitative ‘can’t do’ big without losing the very essence of in-depth enquiry.  The combining of allied projects which compliment each other’s aims and methods injects a new form of rigor where standardized approaches to data collection and data management (archiving) across studies allow for more robust and unified datasets.  It is interesting to ponder how many complimentary but discrete data sets exist and never get the chance to ‘talk’ to one another and inform a robust analysis.  The possibility of recovering qualitative data from numerous datasets archived in one place and working collaboratively across research teams is an innovative step forward in this field.   2   The Timescapes Archive  The Timescapes Archive has been designed as an integral feature of the Timescapes Study.  The archive is managed from the University of Leeds where it benefits from designated technical support and is embedded into the library-managed repository system.  The archive can receive qualitative data in varied formats, thereby offering researchers the opportunity to record many aspects of psychological and sociological enquiry that have been under-evidenced in qualitative studies such as drawings, photographs, music as well as audio and written documents.  Access to the archive is regulated and only those with approved credentials are able to access the full archive.  There is a public, open access option with more limited functionality.   The practical aspects to the workshop allowed delegates the opportunity to search and browse the multi-media files contained within the archive.  The functionality and user interface of the archive does not offer the same degree of sophistication within its search and retrieve function as computer aided analysis packages such as NVivo.  However simple searches for key terms/words/participants names were possible.  This is a step forward from the Qualidata Archive (Economic and Social Data Service), which only supported searches across project titles and not within datasets.   The workshop activities offered a snap shot of what the archive can offer to the browsing researcher looking for access to secondary data.  For example, one activity allowed us to search for a young boy named Tim who had been involved in the Siblings and Friends project.   Tim is evidenced by named files which document a number of different but interconnected aspects to his life.  These included an in-depth interview with a researcher about his relationship with siblings and friends, a video-diary, photographs and drawings.  Some of the tasks were more thematically driven and delegates were able to search the database for evidence linked to key search terms such as ‘death’, and ‘fatherhood’.  Many qualitative researchers would argue that this ‘top down’ approach to analysis is not in the spirit of true inductive enquiry.  However it is hard to doubt the potential power of the simple search engine in helping the analyst understand the possible breadth and depth of the phenomenon under study.  Matching Data to Methods of Analysis Providing varied formats from which to record, preserve and re-use different types of qualitative ‘evidence’ is a key strength of the Timescapes archive.  However the issue of the researchers ‘situatedness’ and familiarity with this secondary data was a prominent concern for some of the delegates.  Discussions about the maintaining close proximity to the data, from collection through to analysis was considered to be a key aspect of gaining access to the all important ‘insider perspective’.  Reflective notes/diaries made by the primary researcher/interviewer about the context of the interview and interviewee were not always evidenced in the archive.  For those involved in interviewing participants face-to-face it is hard to imagine that the same degree of insight and interpretative narrative can be achieved during secondary analysis by a researcher who may only dip in and out of the archive.  It may mean that some types of qualitative enquiry which consider the role of the analyst to be central in analysis process e.g., Interpretative Phenomenological Enquiry may not align either in method 3  or epistemology when using secondary research data.  It is also unlikely that the preparation and notation of the transcribed interviews required by discourse analysts will be fulfilled within the remit of the archive. The browsing researcher needs to be mindful of this potential limitation when considering whether the data provides a suitable opportunity to engage in their chosen method of analysis.   Consent, ownership and the balance of open-access One of the most interesting discussions centered on ethical issues of consent and ownership when re-using qualitative data for secondary analysis.  The delegates were supportive of the movement away from the destruction of raw data upon completion of the research study, as per the requirement of many University and NHS ethics clearance forms. There was acceptance that qualitative data in its ‘raw’ state whether in the form of case notes, transcribed interviews, associated documents should be retained in some secure form for future use.  The length of time that this data should be retained for was debated.  Some delegates reported that in order to promote informed consent, participants should be able to know how long their accounts would continue to contribute to research.  In addition, concerns were raised about the loss of control over how the data would be used by others involved in secondary analysis.  Again, this was linked back into discussions about the role of informed consent where the participant is given clear information about what the purpose of the research is and exactly what the data will be used for.   Researchers familiar with the use of secondary data and members of the team involved in the Timescapes study were robust in their counter arguments about the protection of the participant and the role of informed consent.  There was a common sense argument put forward which illustrated that participants may prefer that the contribution that they make to research can ‘live-on’ and inform future research as and when it is appropriate.  Most of us are familiar with the notion of non identifiable, personal information being retained for the greater good of society, particularly in the context of policy and planning such as Census data.   In addition, participants may be more confident to be involved in research if they are assured that their accounts are valued and as such will be securely stored in central sites for future use.  This is in contrast to their accounts being kept for years languishing in a lonely filing cabinet or hard disc drive with no opportunity to contribute again into the research process.   The workshop trainers raised the issue of whether this data is ever ours to keep? Who has ownership at the end of the day and it is possible that researchers become too emotionally attached to this data?    Whatever the outcome of this debate, the dissemination requirements set by research councils where qualitative methods are used is changing.  The ESRC Research Data Policy requires that all research grant holders offer data collected during the course of their research for ‘preservation and sharing’ through archives such as Qualidata. Whether we are emotionally attached to our data or not, we need to accept that this data need not just inform our own research but may contribute to the research cycle of future studies.  Like so many aspects of society, research needs to become leaner, more efficient and place  less burden on those in society who are the focus for research.  By making more use of secondary qualitative data, researchers may be able to research at a faster pace, leading to more research activity and publications.  Interestingly, the issue of output was raised within the context of the REF and 4  whether the preparation of data for archiving and the resultant data set should be considered ‘REF-able’.  An interesting issue to finish the workshop on..! Concluding Remarks The Timescapes Archive is an interesting starting point for researchers who have yet to access secondary data.  The data is broad in thematic content and format.  The longitudinal and intergenerational features of the data mean that researchers from many disciplines such as psychology, sociology, history, education may find data to stimulate new ideas, grant proposals and hopefully, theory generation.  The archive also offers a coherent way for researchers from different disciplines to work collaboratively on shared datasets in order to extend the reach and rigor of their research.  The preparation of data for archiving has been embedded within the design stage of the projects contained in the Timescapes archive.  This raises issues about how future research studies may design and plan their projects.  Informed consent and ethical awareness were at the forefront of many of the discussion that took place during the workshop.  It is possible that researchers may be underestimating the acceptance and trust that participants place on being involved in research that they believe is worthwhile.  The value of this data does not diminish at the conclusion of one research project but can be retained for future use, securing its value for generations to come.    Website for Timescapes Archive http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/ 

Workshop Review: Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop

Enlighten: Publications

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reid, Kate (2011) Workshop Review: Timescapes Secondary Analysis 
Workshop, March 2011, Edinburgh. Qualitative Methods in Psychology 
Section Bulletin, 12 . ISSN 2044-0820. 
 
 
Copyright © 2011 British Psychological Society 
 
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, 
without prior permission or charge 
 
Content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format 
or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s) 
 
 
When referring to this work, full bibliographic details must be given 
 
 
 
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/72942/ 
 
 
 
  Deposited on: 03 March 2014 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow 
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk 
1 
 
Workshop Review by Kate Reid, University of Glasgow, School of Education 
Accepted for Publication in QMiP Bulletin (Qualitative Methods in Psychology) 
Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop (Edinburgh, March 2011) 
 
The Timescapes Workshops were offered as three, one day events held around the UK for researchers 
and practitioners to learn about and interact with the Timescapes Archive.  This archive forms an 
integral part of a five year ESRC qualitative longitudinal study which explores and documents the 
changing nature of personal and family relationships.  The workshop provided a forum from which to 
explore the purpose and value of archiving qualitative data sets for future (secondary use).  Issues of 
ownership and consent were central to many of the discussion which took place throughout the day.  In 
addition, the practical ‘hands-on’ session with the archive raised issues about the skill of archiving for 
future use as well as the optimal functionality and usability of an archive for secondary analysis.  This 
workshop provided a useful addition to the training needs increasingly required by qualitative 
researchers where archiving for secondary use is now an important consideration within the design and 
dissemination phases of research. 
 
The Timescapes Study  
Timescapes is the first major ESRC funded qualitative longitudinal study to be funded in the UK.  The 
project spans a five year timeline and is funded until February 2012.  The study is currently in its 
dissemination phase.  Timescapes comprises seven complimentary research projects all which situate 
themselves at a point on the life course of individuals.  Young lives, mid lives and older lives projects are 
represented within the wider Timescapes study.  The projects track and document individuals and 
families over time, looking specifically at the changing nature of relationships and identities.  The wider 
remit of the individual projects are to consider how these relationships and life transitions are ‘worked 
out’ in the context of different socio-economic, psychological, historical and cultural contexts.  There are 
400 participants accounts evidenced in some form within the study.  These accounts can be in the form 
of qualitative in-depth interviews (with available audio and transcription), oral narratives and 
photographs.   
The study showcases how qualitative research can be designed and executed on a large scale while still 
retaining the idiographic level details specific to the individual projects.  This may placate the skeptics 
who argue that qualitative ‘can’t do’ big without losing the very essence of in-depth enquiry.  The 
combining of allied projects which compliment each other’s aims and methods injects a new form of 
rigor where standardized approaches to data collection and data management (archiving) across studies 
allow for more robust and unified datasets.  It is interesting to ponder how many complimentary but 
discrete data sets exist and never get the chance to ‘talk’ to one another and inform a robust analysis.  
2 
 
The possibility of recovering qualitative data from numerous datasets archived in one place and working 
collaboratively across research teams is an innovative step forward in this field.   
 
The Timescapes Archive  
The Timescapes Archive has been designed as an integral feature of the Timescapes Study.  The archive 
is managed from the University of Leeds where it benefits from designated technical support and is 
embedded into the library-managed repository system.  The archive can receive qualitative data in 
varied formats, thereby offering researchers the opportunity to record many aspects of psychological 
and sociological enquiry that have been under-evidenced in qualitative studies such as drawings, 
photographs, music as well as audio and written documents.  Access to the archive is regulated and only 
those with approved credentials are able to access the full archive.  There is a public, open access option 
with more limited functionality.   
The practical aspects to the workshop allowed delegates the opportunity to search and browse the 
multi-media files contained within the archive.  The functionality and user interface of the archive does 
not offer the same degree of sophistication within its search and retrieve function as computer aided 
analysis packages such as NVivo.  However simple searches for key terms/words/participants names 
were possible.  This is a step forward from the Qualidata Archive (Economic and Social Data Service), 
which only supported searches across project titles and not within datasets.   
The workshop activities offered a snap shot of what the archive can offer to the browsing researcher 
looking for access to secondary data.  For example, one activity allowed us to search for a young boy 
named Tim who had been involved in the Siblings and Friends project.   Tim is evidenced by named files 
which document a number of different but interconnected aspects to his life.  These included an in-
depth interview with a researcher about his relationship with siblings and friends, a video-diary, 
photographs and drawings.  Some of the tasks were more thematically driven and delegates were able 
to search the database for evidence linked to key search terms such as ‘death’, and ‘fatherhood’.  Many 
qualitative researchers would argue that this ‘top down’ approach to analysis is not in the spirit of true 
inductive enquiry.  However it is hard to doubt the potential power of the simple search engine in 
helping the analyst understand the possible breadth and depth of the phenomenon under study.  
Matching Data to Methods of Analysis 
Providing varied formats from which to record, preserve and re-use different types of qualitative 
‘evidence’ is a key strength of the Timescapes archive.  However the issue of the researchers 
‘situatedness’ and familiarity with this secondary data was a prominent concern for some of the 
delegates.  Discussions about the maintaining close proximity to the data, from collection through to 
analysis was considered to be a key aspect of gaining access to the all important ‘insider perspective’.  
Reflective notes/diaries made by the primary researcher/interviewer about the context of the interview 
and interviewee were not always evidenced in the archive.  For those involved in interviewing 
participants face-to-face it is hard to imagine that the same degree of insight and interpretative 
3 
 
narrative can be achieved during secondary analysis by a researcher who may only dip in and out of the 
archive.  It may mean that some types of qualitative enquiry which consider the role of the analyst to be 
central in analysis process e.g., Interpretative Phenomenological Enquiry may not align either in method 
or epistemology when using secondary research data.  It is also unlikely that the preparation and 
notation of the transcribed interviews required by discourse analysts will be fulfilled within the remit of 
the archive. The browsing researcher needs to be mindful of this potential limitation when considering 
whether the data provides a suitable opportunity to engage in their chosen method of analysis.   
Consent, ownership and the balance of open-access 
One of the most interesting discussions centered on ethical issues of consent and ownership when re-
using qualitative data for secondary analysis.  The delegates were supportive of the movement away 
from the destruction of raw data upon completion of the research study, as per the requirement of 
many University and NHS ethics clearance forms. There was acceptance that qualitative data in its ‘raw’ 
state whether in the form of case notes, transcribed interviews, associated documents should be 
retained in some secure form for future use.  The length of time that this data should be retained for 
was debated.  Some delegates reported that in order to promote informed consent, participants should 
be able to know how long their accounts would continue to contribute to research.  In addition, 
concerns were raised about the loss of control over how the data would be used by others involved in 
secondary analysis.  Again, this was linked back into discussions about the role of informed consent 
where the participant is given clear information about what the purpose of the research is and exactly 
what the data will be used for.   
Researchers familiar with the use of secondary data and members of the team involved in the 
Timescapes study were robust in their counter arguments about the protection of the participant and 
the role of informed consent.  There was a common sense argument put forward which illustrated that 
participants may prefer that the contribution that they make to research can ‘live-on’ and inform future 
research as and when it is appropriate.  Most of us are familiar with the notion of non identifiable, 
personal information being retained for the greater good of society, particularly in the context of policy 
and planning such as Census data.   In addition, participants may be more confident to be involved in 
research if they are assured that their accounts are valued and as such will be securely stored in central 
sites for future use.  This is in contrast to their accounts being kept for years languishing in a lonely filing 
cabinet or hard disc drive with no opportunity to contribute again into the research process.   
The workshop trainers raised the issue of whether this data is ever ours to keep? Who has ownership at 
the end of the day and it is possible that researchers become too emotionally attached to this data?    
Whatever the outcome of this debate, the dissemination requirements set by research councils where 
qualitative methods are used is changing.  The ESRC Research Data Policy requires that all research grant 
holders offer data collected during the course of their research for ‘preservation and sharing’ through 
archives such as Qualidata. Whether we are emotionally attached to our data or not, we need to accept 
that this data need not just inform our own research but may contribute to the research cycle of future 
studies.  Like so many aspects of society, research needs to become leaner, more efficient and place  
less burden on those in society who are the focus for research.  By making more use of secondary 
4 
 
qualitative data, researchers may be able to research at a faster pace, leading to more research activity 
and publications.  Interestingly, the issue of output was raised within the context of the REF and 
whether the preparation of data for archiving and the resultant data set should be considered ‘REF-
able’.  An interesting issue to finish the workshop on..! 
Concluding Remarks 
The Timescapes Archive is an interesting starting point for researchers who have yet to access secondary 
data.  The data is broad in thematic content and format.  The longitudinal and intergenerational features 
of the data mean that researchers from many disciplines such as psychology, sociology, history, 
education may find data to stimulate new ideas, grant proposals and hopefully, theory generation.  The 
archive also offers a coherent way for researchers from different disciplines to work collaboratively on 
shared datasets in order to extend the reach and rigor of their research.  The preparation of data for 
archiving has been embedded within the design stage of the projects contained in the Timescapes 
archive.  This raises issues about how future research studies may design and plan their projects.  
Informed consent and ethical awareness were at the forefront of many of the discussion that took place 
during the workshop.  It is possible that researchers may be underestimating the acceptance and trust 
that participants place on being involved in research that they believe is worthwhile.  The value of this 
data does not diminish at the conclusion of one research project but can be retained for future use, 
securing its value for generations to come.   
 
Website for Timescapes Archive 
http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/ 


Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow 
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reid, K. (2011) Workshop Review: Timescapes Secondary Analysis 
Workshop. In: Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop , March 2011, 
Edinburgh. 
 
Copyright © 2011 The Author 
 
A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or 
study, without prior permission or charge 
 
The content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format 
or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s) 
 
 
 
 
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/73194/ 
 
 
 
 
Deposited on: 11 December 2012 
 
 
1 
 
Workshop Review by Kate Reid, University of Glasgow, School of Education 
Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop (Edinburgh, March 2011) 
 
The Timescapes Workshops were offered as three, one day events held around the UK for researchers 
and practitioners to learn about and interact with the Timescapes Archive.  This archive forms an 
integral part of a five year ESRC qualitative longitudinal study which explores and documents the 
changing nature of personal and family relationships.  The workshop provided a forum from which to 
explore the purpose and value of archiving qualitative data sets for future (secondary use).  Issues of 
ownership and consent were central to many of the discussion which took place throughout the day.  In 
addition, the practical ‘hands-on’ session with the archive raised issues about the skill of archiving for 
future use as well as the optimal functionality and usability of an archive for secondary analysis.  This 
workshop provided a useful addition to the training needs increasingly required by qualitative 
researchers where archiving for secondary use is now an important consideration within the design and 
dissemination phases of research. 
 
The Timescapes Study  
Timescapes is the first major ESRC funded qualitative longitudinal study to be funded in the UK.  The 
project spans a five year timeline and is funded until February 2012.  The study is currently in its 
dissemination phase.  Timescapes comprises seven complimentary research projects all which situate 
themselves at a point on the life course of individuals.  Young lives, mid lives and older lives projects are 
represented within the wider Timescapes study.  The projects track and document individuals and 
families over time, looking specifically at the changing nature of relationships and identities.  The wider 
remit of the individual projects are to consider how these relationships and life transitions are ‘worked 
out’ in the context of different socio-economic, psychological, historical and cultural contexts.  There are 
400 participants accounts evidenced in some form within the study.  These accounts can be in the form 
of qualitative in-depth interviews (with available audio and transcription), oral narratives and 
photographs.   
The study showcases how qualitative research can be designed and executed on a large scale while still 
retaining the idiographic level details specific to the individual projects.  This may placate the skeptics 
who argue that qualitative ‘can’t do’ big without losing the very essence of in-depth enquiry.  The 
combining of allied projects which compliment each other’s aims and methods injects a new form of 
rigor where standardized approaches to data collection and data management (archiving) across studies 
allow for more robust and unified datasets.  It is interesting to ponder how many complimentary but 
discrete data sets exist and never get the chance to ‘talk’ to one another and inform a robust analysis.  
The possibility of recovering qualitative data from numerous datasets archived in one place and working 
collaboratively across research teams is an innovative step forward in this field.   
2 
 
 
The Timescapes Archive  
The Timescapes Archive has been designed as an integral feature of the Timescapes Study.  The archive 
is managed from the University of Leeds where it benefits from designated technical support and is 
embedded into the library-managed repository system.  The archive can receive qualitative data in 
varied formats, thereby offering researchers the opportunity to record many aspects of psychological 
and sociological enquiry that have been under-evidenced in qualitative studies such as drawings, 
photographs, music as well as audio and written documents.  Access to the archive is regulated and only 
those with approved credentials are able to access the full archive.  There is a public, open access option 
with more limited functionality.   
The practical aspects to the workshop allowed delegates the opportunity to search and browse the 
multi-media files contained within the archive.  The functionality and user interface of the archive does 
not offer the same degree of sophistication within its search and retrieve function as computer aided 
analysis packages such as NVivo.  However simple searches for key terms/words/participants names 
were possible.  This is a step forward from the Qualidata Archive (Economic and Social Data Service), 
which only supported searches across project titles and not within datasets.   
The workshop activities offered a snap shot of what the archive can offer to the browsing researcher 
looking for access to secondary data.  For example, one activity allowed us to search for a young boy 
named Tim who had been involved in the Siblings and Friends project.   Tim is evidenced by named files 
which document a number of different but interconnected aspects to his life.  These included an in-
depth interview with a researcher about his relationship with siblings and friends, a video-diary, 
photographs and drawings.  Some of the tasks were more thematically driven and delegates were able 
to search the database for evidence linked to key search terms such as ‘death’, and ‘fatherhood’.  Many 
qualitative researchers would argue that this ‘top down’ approach to analysis is not in the spirit of true 
inductive enquiry.  However it is hard to doubt the potential power of the simple search engine in 
helping the analyst understand the possible breadth and depth of the phenomenon under study.  
Matching Data to Methods of Analysis 
Providing varied formats from which to record, preserve and re-use different types of qualitative 
‘evidence’ is a key strength of the Timescapes archive.  However the issue of the researchers 
‘situatedness’ and familiarity with this secondary data was a prominent concern for some of the 
delegates.  Discussions about the maintaining close proximity to the data, from collection through to 
analysis was considered to be a key aspect of gaining access to the all important ‘insider perspective’.  
Reflective notes/diaries made by the primary researcher/interviewer about the context of the interview 
and interviewee were not always evidenced in the archive.  For those involved in interviewing 
participants face-to-face it is hard to imagine that the same degree of insight and interpretative 
narrative can be achieved during secondary analysis by a researcher who may only dip in and out of the 
archive.  It may mean that some types of qualitative enquiry which consider the role of the analyst to be 
central in analysis process e.g., Interpretative Phenomenological Enquiry may not align either in method 
3 
 
or epistemology when using secondary research data.  It is also unlikely that the preparation and 
notation of the transcribed interviews required by discourse analysts will be fulfilled within the remit of 
the archive. The browsing researcher needs to be mindful of this potential limitation when considering 
whether the data provides a suitable opportunity to engage in their chosen method of analysis.   
Consent, ownership and the balance of open-access 
One of the most interesting discussions centered on ethical issues of consent and ownership when re-
using qualitative data for secondary analysis.  The delegates were supportive of the movement away 
from the destruction of raw data upon completion of the research study, as per the requirement of 
many University and NHS ethics clearance forms. There was acceptance that qualitative data in its ‘raw’ 
state whether in the form of case notes, transcribed interviews, associated documents should be 
retained in some secure form for future use.  The length of time that this data should be retained for 
was debated.  Some delegates reported that in order to promote informed consent, participants should 
be able to know how long their accounts would continue to contribute to research.  In addition, 
concerns were raised about the loss of control over how the data would be used by others involved in 
secondary analysis.  Again, this was linked back into discussions about the role of informed consent 
where the participant is given clear information about what the purpose of the research is and exactly 
what the data will be used for.   
Researchers familiar with the use of secondary data and members of the team involved in the 
Timescapes study were robust in their counter arguments about the protection of the participant and 
the role of informed consent.  There was a common sense argument put forward which illustrated that 
participants may prefer that the contribution that they make to research can ‘live-on’ and inform future 
research as and when it is appropriate.  Most of us are familiar with the notion of non identifiable, 
personal information being retained for the greater good of society, particularly in the context of policy 
and planning such as Census data.   In addition, participants may be more confident to be involved in 
research if they are assured that their accounts are valued and as such will be securely stored in central 
sites for future use.  This is in contrast to their accounts being kept for years languishing in a lonely filing 
cabinet or hard disc drive with no opportunity to contribute again into the research process.   
The workshop trainers raised the issue of whether this data is ever ours to keep? Who has ownership at 
the end of the day and it is possible that researchers become too emotionally attached to this data?    
Whatever the outcome of this debate, the dissemination requirements set by research councils where 
qualitative methods are used is changing.  The ESRC Research Data Policy requires that all research grant 
holders offer data collected during the course of their research for ‘preservation and sharing’ through 
archives such as Qualidata. Whether we are emotionally attached to our data or not, we need to accept 
that this data need not just inform our own research but may contribute to the research cycle of future 
studies.  Like so many aspects of society, research needs to become leaner, more efficient and place  
less burden on those in society who are the focus for research.  By making more use of secondary 
qualitative data, researchers may be able to research at a faster pace, leading to more research activity 
and publications.  Interestingly, the issue of output was raised within the context of the REF and 
4 
 
whether the preparation of data for archiving and the resultant data set should be considered ‘REF-
able’.  An interesting issue to finish the workshop on..! 
Concluding Remarks 
The Timescapes Archive is an interesting starting point for researchers who have yet to access secondary 
data.  The data is broad in thematic content and format.  The longitudinal and intergenerational features 
of the data mean that researchers from many disciplines such as psychology, sociology, history, 
education may find data to stimulate new ideas, grant proposals and hopefully, theory generation.  The 
archive also offers a coherent way for researchers from different disciplines to work collaboratively on 
shared datasets in order to extend the reach and rigor of their research.  The preparation of data for 
archiving has been embedded within the design stage of the projects contained in the Timescapes 
archive.  This raises issues about how future research studies may design and plan their projects.  
Informed consent and ethical awareness were at the forefront of many of the discussion that took place 
during the workshop.  It is possible that researchers may be underestimating the acceptance and trust 
that participants place on being involved in research that they believe is worthwhile.  The value of this 
data does not diminish at the conclusion of one research project but can be retained for future use, 
securing its value for generations to come.   
 
Website for Timescapes Archive 
http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/ 


http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/72942/1/72942.pdf

Workshop Review: Timescapes Secondary Analysis Workshop

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Enlighten

Enlighten

Enlighten: Publications

Enlighten: Publications