CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Data Analysis and ArchivingQualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

The Epistemological and Ethical Challenges of Archiving and Sharing Qualitative Data

Feldman, Shelley, Shaw, Linda·2019·American Behavioral Scientist
DOI 10.1177/0002764218796084
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002764218796084

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Relational ethics are important to PAR projects and raise critical questions regarding the purpose and conduct of knowledge production and application.

    “Beyond procedural research ethics perspectives, relational ethics [G] are important to PAR projects and raise critical questions regarding the purpose and conduct of knowledge production and application.39,60,61”

    From Participatory action research (2023) · cites this paper as [61]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Feldman, S., & Shaw, L.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • California State University, San Marcos (US)
Corresponding author
Feldman, Shelley
ORCID
Feldman, Shelley
Venue
American Behavioral Scientist
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-09-06
Volume
63
Issue
6
Pages
699-721
ISSN
  • 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3381
DOI
10.1177/0002764218796084
OpenAlex
W2891063483
Cited by
38
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
qualitative data archiving, data sharing mandates, epistemology of qualitative research, shared access, context specificity, researcher-participant relationship, confidentiality, informed consent, vulnerable populations, public access to research data, data sharing protocols

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review