Sharing Qualitative Interview Data in Dialogue with Research Participants

被引:2
作者
Kvale L.H. [1 ]
Pharo N. [2 ]
Darch P. [3 ]
机构
[1] University of Oslo, Norway
[2] OsloMet- Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway
[3] University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States
关键词
Data Sharing; Privacy; Qualitative Research; Research Ethics; Research into Practice;
D O I
10.1002/pra2.783
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Research data sharing is embedded in policies, guidelines and requirements commonly promoted by research funding organizations that demand data to be “as open as possible, as closed as necessary” and FAIR. This paper discusses the challenges of balancing privacy protection with data sharing in a PhD project involving long-tail, small-sized qualitative human subjects' data. Based on experiences and feedback from project participants, we argue that privacy protection is about respecting the participants and their self-image. This can be achieved through dialogue and involvement of the participants building on the principles of shared stewardship. Further, we suggest that de-identification and plain language consent materials are better at protecting privacy than anonymisation, which in a digital data environment is difficult to achieve and not necessarily a sensible approach for qualitative data, where the gold is in the details. The literature indicates that it matters to participants whether data are reused for research or other purposes, and that they trust the institutions. This supports our claim that research data services must find better solutions for restricted sharing when necessary. Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science & Technology | Oct. 27 – 31, 2023 | London, United Kingdom. Author(s) retain copyright, but ASIS&T receives an exclusive publication license.
引用
收藏
页码:223 / 232
页数:9
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
Barocas S., Nissenbaum H., Big data's end run around anonymity and consent, Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good: Frameworks For Engagement, pp. 44-75, (2014)
[2]  
Birt L., Scott S., Cavers D., Campbell C., Walter F., Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation?, Qualitative Health Research, 26, 13, pp. 1802-1811, (2016)
[3]  
Borgman C.L., Big Data, Little Data, No Data: Scholarship in the Networked World, (2015)
[4]  
Carlson J., Avoiding Traps in Member Checking, The Qualitative Report, (2014)
[5]  
Carroll S.R., Garba I., Figueroa-Rodriguez O.L., Holbrook J., Lovett R., Materechera S., Hudson M., The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance, Data Science Journal, 19, (2020)
[6]  
Creswell J.W., Miller D.L., Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry, Theory Into Practice, 39, 3, pp. 124-130, (2000)
[7]  
Creswell J.W., Plano Clark V.L., Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, (2018)
[8]  
de Koning M., Meyer B., Moors A., Pels P., Guidelines for anthropological research: Data management, ethics, and integrity, Ethnography, 20, 2, pp. 170-174, (2019)
[9]  
DuBois J.M., Strait M., Walsh H., Is It Time to Share Qualitative Research Data?, Qualitative Psychology, 5, 3, pp. 380-393, (2018)
[10]  
Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020. European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Pub. L. No. 32016R0679, 119 (2016), (2016)