Qualitative Researchers’ Understandings of Their Practice and the Implications for Data Archiving and Sharing

Abstract

With the systematic archiving of qualitative data emerging as a distinct possibility in Australia, both the practices of qualitative research and how subsequent outputs are ‘used’ are coming under increased scrutiny and reflection. Drawing on a series of focus groups with qualitative researchers, this article critically explores the meanings ascribed to qualitative research practice and the perceived challenges posed by contemporary innovations in data management, access, and analysis through electronic archiving. The accounts presented provide much needed insight into key debates (and divergences) within the qualitative community regarding the values and meanings of qualitative practice, but also how contemporary innovations may come to challenge these core values.

What does ‘acceptance’ mean? Public reflections on the idea that addiction is a brain disease

“…First, the personal, intimate engagement between participant and researcher valued in anthropological and qualitative sociological traditions was not a valued aspect of the data collection process that was here outsourced to an external provider (cf. Broom et al, 2009). Second, high importance was placed on the 'reliability' of analysis and double coding of data was carried out resulting in a highly structured process for discussing agreements and disagreements over coding.…”

Role of communication in data reuse

“…Data reuse practices can be distinctive, depending on the types of data being reused, and some research has focused on certain types of data for reuse, such as quantitative (Faniel, Kriesberg, & Yakel, 2016) or qualitative data (e.g., Broom, Cheshire, & Emmison, 2009;Moore, 2007;Yoon, 2014). Several researchers have also conducted multidisciplinary studies, for instance, Birnholtz and Bietz's (2003) research on earthquakes, HIV/AIDS, and space physics, as well as Faniel, Barrera-Gomez, Kriesberg, and Yakel's (2013) investigation of quantitative social science, archaeology, and zoology, through the Dissemination Information Packages for Information Reuse (DIPIR) project from the University of Michigan and OCLC Research.…”

Emotional Reflexivity and the Guiding Principle of Objectivity in an Inter-Disciplinary, Multi-Method, Longitudinal Research Project

“…Finch (1984) points out that this is particular pertinent in studies of women and researchers need to be wary as to how female participants' perspectives are represented. Whilst this feminist perspective is not central to the argument presented in this paper, it has to be acknowledged that the researcher comes from a particular perspective before, during and after the research has taken place (Homfray 2008) and that the resultant data emerges from the contextual relationship between the researcher and the researched (Broom et al 2009). Therefore, the researcher needs to ensure that the standpoint adopted provides an inclusive account and does not misrepresent the views of research participants (Finch 1984;Broom et al 2009;Delamont 2016).…”

“…That is, the diary can allow the researcher to capture the emotional impact of the interview encounter that may not be immediately evident when reading the interview transcript alone (Broom et al 2009). This points to the primary importance of the experiential component of emotion (Barbalet 2002).…”