Back to Basics: Who Re-uses Qualitative Data and Why?
Back to Basics: Who Re-uses Qualitative Data and Why?
复制标题
回到基础：谁重复使用定性数据以及为什么？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
N. Mauthner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O. Parry;N. Mauthner
Libby Bishop（2005）对我们的文章《他们到底是谁的数据》（Parry and Mauthner, 2004）的回应澄清了ESDS（经济和社会数据服务）目前阐述的一系列定性数据归档程序。她认为，这些程序解决了我们文章中提出的许多实际、法律和伦理问题。然而，由于认识到定性数据存档所带来的挑战，Bishop欢迎对这些问题进行进一步的辩论，正是本着这一邀请的精神，我们回到这个问题上来。我们的出发点是，关于ESDS Qualidata站点上可用的定性数据机制的信息的可用性，我们没有争论。通过机制，我们不仅指以存档友好的格式准备研究材料，更重要的是为了保护研究参与者的利益而采取的预防措施，那些开发和执行原始研究的人的关注以及数据本身的完整性。事实上，这些问题现在在任何有自尊的定性数据和二次分析中都得到了充分的阐述，我们认为在这里重新讨论它们没有什么意义。为了推动辩论向前发展，我们愿把注意力集中在实际重新使用定性数据上。也就是说，谁在使用它们，出于什么目的。第一个问题不像想象的那么容易被忽略。目前存档的定性数据集的实际使用情况并没有出现（据我们所见）要公布。从ESDS Qualidata中，我们确实了解到一些特定的开创性数据集经常被重新访问。然而，很少提及存档的其他定性数据集。一项审查定性数据重复使用的ESRC研究报告说，总体数量为
Libby Bishop’s (2005) response to our article Whose Data Are They Anyway (Parry and Mauthner, 2004) clarifies a range of qualitative data archiving procedures currently elaborated by the ESDS (Economic and Social Data Service). These procedures, she argues, address many of the practical, legal and ethical issues which our article raised. In recognition of the challenges which qualitative data archiving poses, however, Bishop welcomes further debate on the issues and it is in the spirit of this invitation that we return to the subject. Our starting point is that we have no quarrel regarding the availability of information about the mechanics of qualitative data available on the ESDS Qualidata site. By mechanics we refer not only to the preparation of research materials in an archive friendly format but more importantly to the precautions to be taken in the interests of protecting the research participants, the concerns of those who developed and carried out the original research and the integrity of the data themselves. Indeed, these issues are now well-rehearsed in any selfrespecting account of qualitative data and secondary analysis, and we see little point in revisiting them here. In the interests of moving the debate forward we would like to focus attention upon the actual re-usage of qualitative data. That is, who is using them, and for what purposes. The first issue not as easily dispensed with as might be imagined. Actual figures on the current usage of archived qualitative datasets do not appear (as far as we can see) to be published. From ESDS Qualidata, we do learn that a few specific seminal datasets are frequently revisited. However, little mention is made of the other qualitative datasets archived. An ESRC study examining the re-use of qualitative data reported that the overall volume of