“Making a square fit into a circle”: Researchers’ experiences reusing qualitative data

Abstract

Although researchers have shown their skepticism of qualitative data reuse due to the epistemological issues, interest in qualitative data reuse has continuously grown. Discussions regarding qualitative data sharing and reuse have also been very active, especially in Europe and Australia. Compared with efforts in other countries, the discussions do not seem to be as prominent in the United States, in spite of a long history of data‐depositing and ‐curating practices and researchers’ reusing qualitative data in some disciplines. This research aims to explore qualitative researchers’ experiences reusing data in the field of social science in US, which have not been empirically addressed yet. The preliminary results from the in‐depth interviews with qualitative researchers who have used secondary data are presented, along with the barriers or hindrances to reusing qualitative data and the keys to successful data reuse.

Social scientists' data reuse behaviors: Exploring the roles of attitudinal beliefs, attitudes, norms, and data repositories

“…Several recent studies have investigated data reuse practices and behaviors in the social sciences (Daniels, Faniel, Fear, & Yakel, 2012;Faniel, Kriesberg, & Yakel, 2012;Faniel, Kriesberg, & Yakel, 2016;Niu, 2009;Yoon, 2014bYoon, , 2016Yoon, , 2017 as part of a broader drive to understand data practices within the social sciences. While these studies have captured some of the contexts and characteristics of social science data reuse by focusing on specific aspects of data reuse practices, which may overlap with other disciplinary contexts, fewer studies have used theoretical approaches or models to explain social scientists' data reuse behaviors.…”

“…In addition, although the possibility of misinterpretation is a concern with all data reuse, qualitative researchers are more concerned with the nature of their data in general, because "knowledge about qualitative data is highly contextual and experience-dependent" (Niu & Hedstrom, 2008, p. 7). Reused data can also be perceived as less valuable (Goodwin, 2012;Martin, 1995), and the qualitative researchers in Yoon's (2014b) study faced challenges publishing their work which reused existing data; this too raised concerns about reusing data. Curty (2015) also reported that perceived risk involved in data reuse significantly affected social scientists' data reuse intentions.…”

“…In the context of social science data reuse, researchers expressed concern about data reuse because they had experienced challenges when trying to publish articles reusing existing data (Yoon, 2014b). As Martin (1995) and Goodwin (2012) suggest, reused data might be perceived as less acceptable or less valuable in some social science disciplines.…”

“…As Martin (1995) and Goodwin (2012) suggest, reused data might be perceived as less acceptable or less valuable in some social science disciplines. The possibility of misrepresentation arising from missing information or missing context was also a major concern, not only for data producers but also for data reusers, particularly qualitative researchers (Niu & Hedstrom, 2008;Yoon, 2014b). Perceived concern comprises potential risks involved in data reuse, and TAM was extended by later studies including a perceived risk construct (Featherman & Pavlou, 2003;Wu & Wang, 2005).…”

“…As implied by this definition, quantitative data have been the dominant form of data in social science, and Fear (2013) states that reuse of such data from repositories is the most common type of data reuse in social science. Other types of data have been also generated and reused in social science; for instance, qualitative data reuse is an established practice in some social science disciplines (Yoon, 2014b) and discussions of qualitative data sharing and reuse have emerged in journals such as Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Bergman & Eberle, 2005) and IASSIST Quarterly (Rasmussen, 2010).…”