Understanding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Perspectives on Archiving Qualitative Data: Implications for Feminist Approaches to Open Science

Abstract

The open science movement has framed data sharing as necessary and achievable best practices for high-quality science. Feminist psychologists have complicated that narrative by questioning the purpose of data sharing across different paradigms, methodologies, and research populations. In these debates, the academic community has centered the needs and voices of researchers, and participants’ perspectives are largely missing from this literature. In this study, we sought to understand how research participants feel about sharing qualitative data on a sensitive subject—sexual victimization. As part of a participatory action research project, we conducted qualitative interviews with sexual assault survivors about their post-assault help-seeking experiences. The federal funding agency that supported this project requires researchers to archive de-identified data in a national data repository (the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data [NACJD]). All participants consented to archiving data, and the vast majority expressed positive views about data sharing because they wanted to help other survivors. Participants emphasized that our participatory action research approach and our stated goal of helping survivors were important considerations in their decisions regarding data sharing. Researchers should obtain informed consent from their participants for data sharing/archiving, and discuss their dissemination plans during the informed consent process.

Open-Science Guidance for Qualitative Research: An Empirically Validated Approach for De-Identifying Sensitive Narrative Data

“…So why did we press on? First and foremost, because our research participants explicitly said they wanted others to learn from their experiences and they wanted these data to be a catalyst for criminal-justice-system reform (Campbell, Goodman-Williams, Javorka, et al, 2023). Participants wanted to help other sexual-assault survivors, and they felt that making their data available to researchers would promote education, training, advocacy, and new discoveries (Campbell, Goodman-Williams, Javorka, et al, 2023).…”

“…First and foremost, because our research participants explicitly said they wanted others to learn from their experiences and they wanted these data to be a catalyst for criminal-justice-system reform (Campbell, Goodman-Williams, Javorka, et al, 2023). Participants wanted to help other sexual-assault survivors, and they felt that making their data available to researchers would promote education, training, advocacy, and new discoveries (Campbell, Goodman-Williams, Javorka, et al, 2023). There are risks associated with sharing data, but our mandated archive (ICPRS’s National Archive of Criminal Justice Data) is a secure resource that provides multiple options for protecting data and restricting access to qualified users (ICPSR, 2023).…”

“…However, participants emphasized that researchers must seek informed consent for data sharing; consent to participate in the study does not give researchers implicit permission to share the data collected in that study (for consent-language options, see Kaiser, 2009). Although some researchers may be concerned that such procedures could adversely affect participants’ engagement, multiple studies have found that explicitly requesting consent for data sharing does not affect participation rates or the quality and richness of the data provided (Campbell, Goodman-Williams, Javorka, et al, 2023; Cummings et al, 2015; VandeVusse et al, 2022).…”

A Transparency Checklist for Qualitative Research

“…We believe that including considerations about which materials to eventually make public is a significant benefit of this checklist. By considering ethical issues such as data sharing early, researchers can plan accordingly and include participants' perspectives into the relevant decisions [21,23,56] and thus addressing ethical concerns to sharing qualitative data. We also hold, however, that this tool remains useful even if used exclusively as an internal checklist.…”

Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data

“…Prior efforts at recontacting participants have enabled data from a majority of participants to be shared ( 43 ), and some small studies indicate that most participants support sharing qualitative data when they are deidentified and shared only with other researchers ( 5 , 19 ). This pattern has held even in studies of sensitive issues with participants who have survived trauma ( 44 ).…”