Understanding the data-sharing debate in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand: a narrative review on the perspectives of funders, publishers/journals, researchers, participants and Māori collectives

Abstract

This review outlines current debates about the sharing of research data, with a focus on relevance for Aotearoa/New Zealand. Recent years have seen increasingly frequent calls for public sharing of data from funders and publishers/journals in particular. Past research has suggested that researchers tend to agree that any detriments of data-sharing are outweighed by benefits for transparency and progress. We summarise trends across past research into perspectives of funders, publishers/journals, and researchers on data-sharing before raising three considerations. Firstly, past research on data-sharing has tended to overlook the potential implications of data-sharing for participants. We review the small body of research on participant perspectives. This research has conceptualised participants as a homogenous group without theorising how participants make sense of data-sharing. Secondly, perspectives on data-sharing vary depending on the methodology being applied, and we raise some specific considerations when datasharing is proposed in long-term longitudinal research such as the Dunedin Study. Thirdly, Indigenous perspectives on data-sharing must be central to all research into data-sharing with any of the stakeholder groups, and we review existing research on data sovereignty in relation to data-sharing in Aotearoa/New Zealand and globally. We conclude by summarising a series of tensions between stakeholders in the data-sharing debate.

A one-size-fits-all approach to data-sharing will not suffice in lifecourse research: a grounded theory study of data-sharing from the perspective of participants in a 50-year-old lifecourse study about health and development

“…For example, the sharing of raw data has been central to providing prompt solutions to emerging problems, and COVID-19 is a case in point [ 2 ]. However, data-sharing comes with many ethical considerations, and there is a pressing need for research to address the privacy implications for participants and the wider implications for participants’ ongoing engagement in research [ 3 ]. Data-sharing decisions become increasingly complex for studies that are not cross-sectional, and particular tensions are likely to exist for research participants who are taking part in ongoing lifecourse studies due to their ongoing participation [ 3 ].…”

“…Such policies are often interpreted as broad statements and run the risk of data being shared without careful planning specific to the research methodology in question. Moreover, the application of broad data-sharing policies can directly conflict with ethical guidelines and data policies that aim to protect the rights of research participants if privacy and informed consent are not addressed appropriately [ 3 , 5 ]. There is a lack of consistency across data-sharing policies that means researcher have to handle aspects of different guidance; moreover, real-world decisions about the practice of data-sharing are in the hands of researchers as opposed to the participants in studies, and this is where complex ethical concerns can arise [ 6 , 7 ].…”

Three steps to open science for qualitative research in psychology

“…The so‐termed ‘replication crisis’ in psychology marks a critical juncture for the growth of open science within psychology (Norris & O’Connor, 2019). Additionally, the embedding of open science practices within psychology has gained momentum due to external pressures, including journal and funding body requirements (e.g., Reeves et al., 2021), as well as promotion and hiring criteria for academics. At present, open research practices in psychology are predominantly concerned with researchers who are engaged with quantitative, positivist, experimental approaches to psychology.…”

“…Our objective in this paper is to inform ways of collectively constructing open research practices and systems that are appropriate to, and get the best out of, the full range of qualitative and mixed‐method approaches used in psychology. We build on the existing debates within psychology and other disciplines, which includes arguments for aspects of open science such as open data as well as sceptical arguments about constraints and conditions for open data (Bishop, 2005, 2007; Branney et al., 2017, 2019; Corti, 2006; Corti et al., 2014; Parry & Mauthner, 2004; Pownall et al., 2022; Reeves et al., 2021). The aim of this introductory paper is to increase the capability of qualitative researchers in psychology to make informed decisions about applying principles of open science to qualitative research ‘one open research behaviour at a time’ (Norris & O’Connor, 2019, p. 1403).…”

Three Steps to Open Science for Qualitative Research in Psychology

“…. The embedding of open science practices has also gained momentum due to external pressures, including journal and funding body requirements (e.g., Reeves et al, 2021), as well as promotion and hiring criteria for academics. At present, open research practices in psychology are predominantly concerned with researchers who are engaged with quantitative, positivist, experimental approaches to psychology.…”