Now’s not the time! Qualitative data repositories on tricky ground: Comment on Dubois et al. (2018).

Abstract

In this commentary, I reflect on DuBois, Strait, and Walsh's (2018) provocation, the call for qualitative researchers to ponder the benefits and disadvantages of sharing our data from the standpoint of a Black womanist, a practitioner of decolonial participatory action research, and an ethicist. I begin with a brief defense of critical reflectivity, which is much more than a disclosing practice of qualitative research. Critical reflexivity is a critique of liberalism, a decentering of "whitestream" epistemes, and a refusal of erasure. Working through three examples, I will (a) problematize the notion that funding policies should dictate the foci and direction of qualitative inquiry, (b) argue that positivist conceptions of replicability and validity are incommensurate with the relational analyses and radical solidarities participatory researchers strive to conurture, and (c) detail the few circumstances wherein I would be amenable to supporting the use of qualitative data repositories.

Qualitative Data Management and Analysis within a Data Repository

“…Our experience in using the HRDR revealed that resistance to adopting data repositories for qualitative research is much broader than the present focus on data sharing (Brown et al, 2015;Chauvette et al, 2019;DuBois et al, 2017;Guishard, 2017;Jones et al, 2018;McCurdy & Ross, 2017). Rather, current designs of data repositories may not be supporting the messy, unknown, and emergent aspects of qualitative analysis.…”

“…Although the HRDR supported our ability to organize and maintain vast amounts of data, our team had ongoing concerns over the broader promotion of data repositories for data repurposing and sharing. We shared Guishard's (2017) concerns in juggling the "precarious terrain" of data sharing through data repositories, with our methodological position on relational accountability, transparency, data ownership, and knowledge dissemination. In a survey of data sharing for quantitative data, Stuart et al (2018) found researchers were more likely to share larger datasets.…”

“…Yet, this perspective towards data sharing may dictate research processes that may not easily align with an interpretive approach. Most specifically, approaches that support quantitative data sharing through a data repository may be creeping into qualitative data management without sufficient recognition of the contextual information that prohibits qualitative data from being fully de-identified (Guishard, 2017; Jones et al, 2018; McCurdy & Ross, 2017).…”

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).…”

Examining Data Repository Guidelines for Qualitative Data Sharing

“…Qualitative data contains rich details that can be sensitive; thus participant privacy, confidentiality, and consent become concerns (Parry & Mauthner, 2004). The potential misuse of data in future research is a particular concern, especially when data come from vulnerable communities (Guishard, 2017; McCurdy & Ross, 2017). For example, McCurdy and Ross (2017) discuss international research on criminal activities, which could expose reidentified participants to risk of blackmail, arrest, or death.…”