The Value of Moral Theory for Addressing Ethical Questions When Reusing Qualitative Data

Abstract

In this paper, I explore two ethical questions that arise in reusing qualitative data. First, how should secondary researchers respond when they uncover research practices of primary researchers that appear to be ethical breaches? Second, does data sharing alter researchers' moral relationships with their participants? I begin by reviewing a contemporary debate in qualitative research ethics. In this debate, the general view embraces ethical frameworks that place specific situations and context at centre stage, and relegate broad ethical theories to the background. As a comparison, I present a synopsis of a very similar debate in bioethics between particularist and universalist ethical frameworks. I employ several case studies in an attempt to demonstrate the value of universalist moral frameworks for moral reasoning while still sustaining a keen awareness of and sensitivity to specifics of situation and context. My claim is that ethical debates about reusing qualitative data (and perhaps for social research more generally) can be best served by not limiting the focus of ethical concerns to particulars, situations, or even principles, but by engaging equally deeply with universalist moral theories.

Beyond anonymity: temporality and the production of knowledge in a qualitative longitudinal study

“…One study of young people with cancer found parents wanted themselves and their children's names to be used in research reports (Grinyer, 2009). The recent push to archive qualitative data for reuse has raised questions about how much participants are able to consent to unknown future scenarios and what sort of anonymisation protocols are appropriate for reuse (Bishop, 2013;Moore, 2012;Parry & Mauthner, 2004).…”