Last week’s Hammersely (2010)
reading got me thinking about some issues relating to archiving qualitative
social science data. In a study I read regarding data sharing across different
academic disciplines, social science disciplines lagged behind almost every other
discipline grouping except medicine (Tenopir et al. 2010). Although the study
was fairly limited in its scope and the discrepancies in data sharing likely
had to do with confidentiality issues involving human participants, it got me
thinking about some of the difficulties that might be involved with submitting
qualitative data to open data projects.
One of the
major justifications for open data is that it allows for the reuse and
reinterpretation of shared data. Hammersely (2010) describes the construction
process involved with transcribing interviews. He explains that a number of
decisions are made which are dependent on the cultural and cognitive
understandings of the transcriber (2010, p.560). Kuula (2010) explains that a
major concern for qualitative researchers submitting their data for public
consumption is a fear of misinterpretation (p.14). Moreover, Kuula points out
there is a tendency of original researchers to feel only they can fully
understand and interpret qualitative data because of the co-constructed nature
of interviews (Kuula, 2010, p.14). Because interview transcriptions can be so selective
in what they include (Hammersely, 2010), I wonder if is possible to make all of
the decisions and interpretations of the transcriber transparent so that
qualitative data can be truly reused?
Hammersely, M. (2010).
Reproducing or construction: some questions about transcription in social
research. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 553-569.
Kuula, A. (2010). Methodological
and ethical dilemmas of archiving qualitative data. IASSIST Quarterly, 34(3), 12-17
Tenopir, C., Allard, S.,
Douglass, K., Aydinoglu, A. U., Wu, L., Read, E., Frame, M. (2011). Data
sharing by scientists: Practices and perceptions. PloS One, 6(6),
e21101.
No comments:
Post a Comment