The objective of this paper is to attempt to move beyond the impasse of ethical objections to reusing qualitative data. In doing so, there is no intention of dismissing the importance of ethical debates, in fact, quite the opposite. The debate about ethical reuse needs to be deepened and broadened. First, the current terrain of research ethics will be summarised and situated in the context of broader philosophical ethical frameworks. In contrast, the debates around ethics of archiving have often been narrowly focused on participants' rights. The framework of debate should be broadened first by recognising other entities traditionally deemed within the scope of research ethics, namely the scholarly community and the public. The second useful broadening of the framework is provided by a deontological ethical stance with its focus on duties. In the final section, this expanded framework will be used to rebut several common ethical arguments against archiving qualitative data: archiving violates confidentiality; informed consent for reusing data is impossible; reusing data violates trust between researcher and participant; and, archiving creates an unacceptably high risk of data misrepresentation. If a more general philosophical debate on ethics has something to contribute, the central message must be that no single ethical claim is incontestable. The conclusion will position these debates in a wider context by asking what is at stake when the boundaries of ethical discourse about sharing data are drawn too narrowly.

Secondary analysis of qualitative data entails reusing data created from previous research projects for new purposes. Reuse provides an opportunity to study the raw materials of past research projects to gain methodological and substantive insights. In the past decade, use of the approach has grown rapidly in the United Kingdom to become sufficiently accepted that it must now be regarded as mainstream. Several factors explain this growth: the open data movement, research funders' and publishers' policies supporting data sharing, and researchers seeing benefits from sharing resources, including data. Another factor enabling qualitative data reuse has been improved services and infrastructure that facilitate access to thousands of data collections. The UK Data Service is an example of a well-established facility; more recent has been the proliferation of repositories being established within universities. This article will provide evidence of the growth of data reuse in the United Kingdom and in Finland by presenting both data and case studies of reuse that illustrate the breadth and diversity of this maturing research method. We use two distinct data sources that quantify the scale, types, and trends of reuse of qualitative data: (a) downloads of archived data collections held at data repositories and (b) publication citations. Although the focus of this article is on the United Kingdom, some discussion of the international environment is provided, together with data and examples of reuse at the Finnish Social Science Data Archive. The conclusion summarizes the major findings, including some conjectures regarding what makes qualitative data attractive for reuse and sharing.

Though secondary analysis of qualitative data is becoming more prevalent, relatively few methodological studies exist that provide reflection on the actual, not idealised, process. This paper offers a reflexive account of secondary analysis focused on the topic of convenience food and choice. Several phases of the research process are examined: understanding context, defining a subject area, finding data and sampling, later sampling and topic refinement, and relating to transcripts. For each phase, I explore if reusing data is different from using it in the first instance, and if so, how those differences manifest themselves. The paper closes with reflections on the differences, similarities, and relationships between primary and secondary analysis of qualitative data. Although differences exist regarding the researcher-respondent relationship, primary and secondary analyses are more alike than not. The suitability of each approach can only be assessed in light of a particular research question.

No abstract