Examining Data Repository Guidelines for Qualitative Data Sharing

Abstract

Qualitative data provide rich information on research questions in diverse fields. Recent calls for increased transparency and openness in research emphasize data sharing. However, qualitative data sharing has yet to become the norm internationally and is particularly uncommon in the United States. Guidance for archiving and secondary use of qualitative data is required for progress in this regard. In this study, we review the benefits and concerns associated with qualitative data sharing and then describe the results of a content analysis of guidelines from international repositories that archive qualitative data. A minority of repositories provide qualitative data sharing guidelines. Of the guidelines available, there is substantial variation in whether specific topics are addressed. Some topics, such as removing direct identifiers, are consistently addressed, while others, such as providing an anonymization log, are not. We discuss the implications of our study for education, best practices, and future research.

Are we ready to share qualitative research data? Knowledge and preparedness among qualitative researchers, IRB members, and data repository curators

“…DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/iq952 sets. Due to the limited number of qualitative repositories globally, we included curators from international social science repositories in addition to US curators (Antes et al, 2017). IRB members and staff were identified through the websites of 62 academic medical institutions with NIH Clinical and Translation Science Awards (CTSA).…”

“…Repositories such as the UK Data Archive or Finnish Social Science Data Archive provide national storehouses for social science and humanities data Backhouse, 2000, Kuula, 22011, Yoon, 2014). Data repositories exist in the US, but most are not capable of handling sensitive qualitative data (Antes et al, 2017, Mannheimer et al, 2018. Some repositories may only be able to take data that will be made available open access, prohibiting them from accepting sensitive data (Antes et al, 2017).…”

“…Data repositories exist in the US, but most are not capable of handling sensitive qualitative data (Antes et al, 2017, Mannheimer et al, 2018. Some repositories may only be able to take data that will be made available open access, prohibiting them from accepting sensitive data (Antes et al, 2017). A review of qualitative data repository guidelines found 32 English language social science repositories globally; only 12 repositories had written guidelines for qualitative data, and only 5 were located in the US (Antes et al, 2017).…”

Managing and sharing research data in children's palliative care: Risks, benefits and imponderables

“…proach, either limiting this to bona fide researchers who will need to meet certain criteria and be accountable for their use of data, or by limiting what data may be accessible (e.g. metadata only), or by limiting access in time such as having an embargo in place for a specified period (Antes, Walsh, Strait, Hudson-Vitale, & DuBois, 2018). These arrangements will need enforceable license agreements in place to specify how data will be used, that it will not be disseminated further and that confidentiality will be respected.…”

Data Management and Curation for Qualitative Research: Collaborative Curriculum Development and Implementation

“…The fourth leg of the collaborative curriculum development process was informed by needs discussed in Table 1 and Table 5, a review of literature on critical perspectives on qualitative data curation and literacy (Antes et al 2018, Bishop 2009, Cligget 2013, Corti 2011, D'Ignazio 2017, Hardy 2016, Rawson 2016, Yardly 2014 and developing learning outcomes and assessing active learning in graduate-level data management courses (Whitmire 2015). During the Spring of 2017 the author circulated a draft course proposal for the three-credit data management and curation course.…”