Search for: All records

How do researchers in fieldwork-intensive disciplines protect sensitive data in the field, how do they assess their own practices, and how do they arrive at them? This article reports the results of a qualitative study with 36 semi-structured interviews with qualitative and multi-method researchers in political science and humanitarian aid/migration studies. We find that researchers frequently feel ill-prepared to handle the management of sensitive data in the field and find that formal institutions provide little support. Instead, they use a patchwork of sources to devise strategies for protecting their informants and their data. We argue that this carries substantial risks for the security of the data as well as their potential for later sharing and re-use. We conclude with some suggestions for effectively supporting data management in fieldwork-intensive research without unduly adding to the burden on researchers conducting it.

 

As funder, journal, and disciplinary norms and mandates have foregrounded obligations of data sharing and opportunities for data reuse, the need to plan for and curate data sets that can reach researchers and end-users with disabilities has become even more urgent. We begin by exploring the disability studies literature, describing the need for advocacy and representation of disabled scholars as data creators, subjects, and users. We then survey the landscape of data repositories, curation guidelines, and research-data-related standards, finding little consideration of accessibility for people with disabilities. We suggest three sets of minimal good practices for moving toward truly accessible research data: 1) ensuring Web accessibility for data repositories; 2) ensuring accessibility of common text formats, including those used in documentation; and 3) enhancement of visual and audiovisual materials. We point to some signs of progress in regard to truly accessible data by highlighting exemplary practices by repositories, standards, and data professionals. Accessibility needs to become a mainstream component of curation practice included in every training, manual, and primer.

 

Accessibility of research data to disabled users has received scant attention in literature and practice. In this paper we briefly survey the current state of accessibility for research data and suggest some first steps that repositories should take to make their holdings more accessible. We then describe in depth how those steps were implemented at the Qualitative Data Repository (QDR), a domain repository for qualitative social-science data. The paper discusses accessibility testing and improvements on the repository and its underlying software, changes to the curation process to improve accessibility, as well as efforts to retroactively improve the accessibility of existing collections. We conclude by describing key lessons learned during this process as well as next steps. 

Expectations to share data underlying studies are increasing, but research on how participants, particularly those in qualitative research, respond to requests for data sharing is limited. We studied research participants’ willingness to, understanding of, and motivations for data sharing. As part of a larger qualitative study on abortion reporting, we conducted interviews with 64 cisgender women in two states in early 2020 and asked for consent to share de-identified data. At the end of interviews, we asked participants to reflect on their motivations for agreeing or declining to share their data. The vast majority of respondents consented to data sharing and reported that helping others was a primary motivation for agreeing to share their data. However, a substantial number of participants showed a limited understanding of the concept of “data sharing.” Additional research is needed on how to improve participants’ understanding of data sharing and thus ensure fully informed consent. 

In this short practice paper, we introduce the public version of the Qualitative Data Repository’s (QDR) Curation Handbook. The Handbook documents and structures curation practices at QDR. We describe the background and genesis of the Handbook and highlight some of its key content. 

Data sharing and reuse are becoming the norm in quantitative research. At the same time, significant skepticism still accompanies the sharing and reuse of qualitative research data on both ethical and epistemological grounds. Nevertheless, there is growing interest in the reuse of qualitative data, as demonstrated by the range of contributions in this special issue. In this research note, we address epistemological critiques of reusing qualitative data and argue that careful curation of data can enable what we term “epistemologically responsible reuse” of qualitative data. We begin by briefly defining qualitative data and summarizing common epistemological objections to their shareability or usefulness for secondary analysis. We then introduce the concept of curation as enabling epistemologically responsible reuse and a potential way to address such objections. We discuss three recent trends that we believe are enhancing curatorial practices and thus expand the opportunities for responsible reuse: improvements in data management practices among researchers, the development of collaborative curation practices at repositories focused on qualitative data and technological advances that support sharing rich qualitative data. Using three examples of successful reuse of qualitative data, we illustrate the potential of these three trends to further improve the availability of reusable data projects. 

The discipline of political science has been engaged in vibrant debate about research transparency for more than three decades. Over the last ten years, scholars who generate, collect, interpret, and analyze qualitative data have become increasingly involved in these discussions. The debate has played out across conference panels, coordinated efforts such as the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (Büthe et al. 2021), articles in a range of journals, and symposia in outlets such as PS: Political Science and Politics, Security Studies, the newsletter of the Comparative Politics section of the American Political Science Association (APSA), and, indeed, QMMR. Until recently, much of the dialogue has been conducted in the abstract. Scholars have thoroughly considered the questions of whether political scientists who generate and employ qualitative data and methods can and should seek to make their work more transparent, what information they should share about data generation and analysis, and which (if any) data they should make accessible in pursuit of transparency.