It is time to share (some) qualitative data: Reply to Guishard (2018), McCurdy and Ross (2018), and Roller and Lavrakas (2018).

Abstract

In this article, we offer a reply to the three commentaries on our article, "Is It Time to Share Qualitative Research Data?" (DuBois, Strait, & Walsh, 2018). We agree with the commenters on many points, including the need to honor relationships with communities, the need to protect participants from harm, and the usefulness of having a framework for data sharing that is informed by quality standards. We also respond to several areas of apparent disagreement regarding the need to be accountable to those who fund and consume science, the possibility that many participants-much like authors-prefer that their contributions to science be broadly disseminated and presented in proper context, and the common legal fact of institutional ownership of research data in the United States. We conclude that it will not be possible to share all data in a responsible manner but that this does not prevent a change in our default assumption regarding qualitative data sharing. In general, data should be shared unless compelling concerns exist that cannot be addressed adequately.

Research Participant Views regarding Qualitative Data Sharing

“…Sharing qualitative data poses unique challenges of which researchers must be aware in order to share such data responsibly. Because qualitative methods are often used to explore highly sensitive or stigmatized issues, 4 a trusting relationship between researchers and participants may be especially important to enable participants to talk openly about issues they might not otherwise reveal 5 . While quantitative research aims to produce generalizable findings abstracted from context, qualitative research is primarily inductive and descriptive, with the aim of producing contextually rich data to better understand lived experiences 6 .…”

Opportunities, challenges and tensions: Open science through a lens of qualitative social psychology

“…After highlighting (1) that anonymizing co‐produced qualitative data is complex and resource intensive (Branney et al, 2019; Neale & Bishop, 2011; Roller & Lavrakas, 2018), (2) participants may still be identifiable through what is termed the ‘innocent collection of details’ (Branney et al, 2017; see also, Broom et al, 2009; McCurdy & Ross, 2018; Parry & Mauthner, 2004) and (3) qualitative data are rarely shared; Karhulahti notes changes that mean archiving may now be easier and is becoming an expectation, if not a requirement. DuBois, Strait, and Walsh (2018); DuBois, Walsh, and Strait (2018), for example, argue that sharing qualitative data should become the default assumption ‘unless concerns exist that cannot be overcome’, which is similar to the British Psychological Society's principle of ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary (, 2020; see also, DuBois, Walsh, & Strait, 2018). Karhulahti boldly challenges readers to consider the sharing of co‐produced qualitative data as more ethical, less risky and easier than sharing of quantitative data where researchers ostensibly maintain a distance from their participants.…”

Quantity Over Quality? Reproducible Psychological Science from a Mixed Methods Perspective

“…One respondent mentioned that "there are also ethical concerns about publishing personal experiences, even if de-identified, for all to see." A robust debate continues around the ethics and feasibility of qualitative data sharing (for a particularly useful exchange, see DuBois, Walsh, & Strait, 2018;Guishard, 2018;McCurdy & Ross, 2018;Roller & Lavrakas, 2018).…”