The Epistemological and Ethical Challenges of Archiving and Sharing Qualitative Data

Abstract

This article identifies the epistemological and ethical problems that accompany the growing mandate to archive and share qualitative data. We call attention to the potential consequences of “shared access” for data that is premised on meaning-making and interpretation embedded in interactions between the researcher and those they study. We argue that context specificity and the co-constitutive processes of qualitative data production preclude the separation of “evidence” from the relations of its production that is required when evidence is archived for future use by others. Furthermore, we identify the ethical challenges that attend to ensuring the rights and confidentiality of those we engage and the particular concerns such engagement entails for vulnerable populations when securing informed consent for the use of data by future unknown researchers. Finally, we ask whether the claim for greater efficiencies and accountability of public access are appropriate for the co-constitutive character of qualitative evidence and what these demands portend for knowledge production. We conclude by calling for the development of protocols to guide researchers who are sensitive to these issues but must respond to calls to archive and share their data.

The Ethical and Practical Challenges of Archiving Refugee Accounts: Reflections from Two Research Projects in the UK

“…There is a need to maintain the authenticity and integrity of the data while also ensuring that the original consent provided by individuals is honoured. Securing informed consent for future data use from vulnerable individuals is challenging (Feldman and Shaw, 2019). When ethical approval was sought for both research projects, the respective Ethics Committees recommended that a statement be included in the consent form to allow for the storage and future use of interview data.…”

“…Given the demands on the part of the depositor to have knowledge regarding the data collection and production as well as the refugee situation in the area, size of community, and identifiable nature of the data, we think it is preferable for the original researcher(s) and interviewer(s) to conduct the depositing rather than outsourcing this process. The most practical and obvious impact related to the redaction of details is how the data is used in the future, highlighting the epistemic distinction between inductive and deductive research that is often ignored by archiving requirements (Feldman and Shaw, 2019). In our projects, there may be certain constraints imposed on the reuse of data due to the redactions.…”

“…Fundamentally, the context specificity and co-constitutive processes of qualitative data production raises important questions about reusing data. Some query whether qualitative material can be separated from the relations of its production, which is necessary when evidence is archived for future use by others (Feldman and Shaw, 2019). As a result, questions persist over whether institutional demands to deposit qualitative data are appropriate for the co-constitutive nature of qualitative data, and particularly knowledge that is collected from vulnerable populations.…”

Introduction: Archiving Qualitative Data in Practice: Ethical Feedback

“…Generally speaking, pro-ORD literature rests – more or less explicitly – on ‘positivist’ postulates (Feldman and Shaw, 2019). Data tends to be seen as ‘objective’ and ‘factual’ observations that can be easily communicated, re-used and replicated.…”

“…The second burst of criticism to ORD comes from authors who stress the ethical issues raised by data sharing, such as the difficulty of obtaining informed consent in certain situations, the sensitivity of certain issues and data, the vulnerability of certain populations, and the particularity of some approaches that rest on a certain degree of confidentiality (Anderson and Schonfeld, 2009; Both and Garcia, 2014; Bull et al, 2015; Cooper, 2007; Feldman and Shaw, 2019; Haddow et al, 2011; Harding et al, 2013; Kostkova, 2018; Kowalczyk and Shankar, 2011; Mbuagbaw et al, 2017; Mennes et al, 2013; Prost and Schöpfel, 2015; Sheather, 2009; Takashima et al, 2018). Researchers who express such concerns generally tend to base their work on a contextual, situational and relational ethics that is less oriented towards the general public – as in the libertarian universalist approach of ORD – than towards the participants in research projects.…”