These discussions regarding protection of participants have been raised on
many occasions now, and always provoke great debate.
I would like to reflect on some of our experiences in preserving other
people' s research material data, over the past 5 years. Our work in this
field has enabled us to develop strategies for dealing with many situations
regarding the preservation of data, including that of a sensitive nature.
Issues of informed consent should always be taken very seriously, but we
have found the 'problem' of preserving anonymity to be diverse. Many
researchers who have collected data are more than happy to share their
materials with others. Here we are relying on their own instincts about the
nature of the fieldwork and the context of the research. Others are certain
that they cannot possibly ever let anyone else see the material. The
latter is a position which can happen less and less as the funding bodies
impose archival requirements for all kinds of data. Because of the
Datasets Policy imposed by ESRC on insisting that all data be offered for
archiving at the end of a project, investigators are now having to rethink
what they tell people about what will happen to their contributions, at the
time of fieldwork. For example it is no longer possible to tell
participants that the materials will be destroyed or that only the research
team will see the materials. Other funders have similar, yet less formal,
policies: JRF, Wellcome, Nuffield, Leverhulme etc. This is now a way of
life and a new culture of qualitative social research practice is seen to be
emerging.
The issue of RE-USE raises many of the same problems as does an initial
publication from a piece of research. Can we ever assure participants that
no harm will come to them? We know from the past that even a publication by
the researcher themselves can have detrimental implications for the
participants themselves or their community etc. The issue of re-use is
similar, and we have to TRUST the instincts of new researchers who are
allowed access to the original materials, which in turn have their own
specific gatekeeping procedures)
We employ a variety of means aimed at enhancing the protection of
confidentiality for participants in addition to basic anonymisation such as
removal of second names and addresses, organisations and other bodies etc.
(where appropriate).
These are negotiated with the depositor, the host archive and, where
appropriate research participants, a set of terms and conditions by which
future access is provided to the data. In this sense, Qualidata fulfils an
advisory role. They include:
¨ Closure of the material: whether the data can be made accessible
immediately or whether data should to be closed for a specified period.
Charles Kirke's interviews with soldiers are a classic case of an archive
having to close materials for a set period. Many established archives are
happy to do this IF the collection is deemed to be significant enough.
¨ Restricted Access: whether or not the data is to be restricted to use only
by researchers for bona fide research purposes; whether or not the depositor
is to be contacted prior to a secondary user having access to the data; and
whether or not the depositor must give approval before access is provided
¨ User undertaking not to disseminate any identifying information: operated
by all archives where specified. This condition is, of course, more
effective if used in conjunction with restricting access to bona fide
researchers. Such a written undertaking does have contractual force in law.
Furthermore, the good reputation of a secondary user depends upon abiding by
these undertakings.
¨ Re-contacting participants: it is possible to go back to research
participants to obtain consent for deposit in a public archive. This can be
a time-consuming but should be considered in the case of recent or small
studies where consent has not been given for future use of material. We
should point out that we have had great success in attracting positive
response to archiving from participants who have been re-contacted. Most
are more than happy to see their contributions as important sources of
information for future research and for the documentation of history.
Moreover, many participants expect their information to be used as a
contribution to public knowledge. It is us, as researchers who take the
more 'paranoid' stance about protecting them. Some involved in in-depth
interview projects wish to put their names to their own words.
¨ Gaining informed consent in writing for material to be placed in an
archive (at the time of fieldwork, but usually after an interview).
Qualidata has a sample Informed Consent form, which is also available upon
request. This also allows for transfer of copyright in cases where
copyright may be an issue. Many researchers are now moving towards written
informed from participants to protect themselves as well as the
participants. Statements concerning the Data Protection Act, intellectual
property rights and copyright are becoming more of a necessity now as people
in Britain become more aware of them.
Qualidata provides a form, Terms and Conditions for Access to Research
Materials After Deposit, offering these options and which must be completed
and signed by all depositors. Moreover, the host archive must agree to
honour these wishes as a condition of accepting the material.
Lastly, in our five years of existence, we have found a huge and disparate
variety of attitudes of qualitative researchers to sharing their work - it
has appeared to us in some cases (although clearly not for extra sensitive
field of research), that it is the close-mindedness and possessiveness of
the investigator rather than the reality of re-use which predominates in
arguments against archiving.
We are trying to help shift this attitude in encouraging researchers to
share their data. In the broadest and most controversial sense, data
carried out in the context of awards from funding bodies belongs, officially
and legally, to that body. Some may be regarded as public goods. The
archiving requirements from ESRC and other bodies are first and foremost to
encourage others to re-use existing resources, which help reduce the waste
of new resources in collecting similar data time and time again.
We need to balance the rights of protection of participants against
knowledge for the public good and the for the future of high quality social
research.
Louise Corti
Manager, Qualidata
Department of Sociology
University of Essex
Colchester CO4 3SQ
UK
+ 44 1206 873058
email: [log in to unmask]
url: <www/essex.ac.uk/qualidata/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Birrell Walsh [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 6:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CAQDAS and secondary analysis of qual.data
Alan Simpson wrote:
>
> Following on from recent discussions concerning secondary analysis:
>
> What do people think about possible ethical implications of other
> researchers having access to and analysing data that may have been
collected
> using 'informed consent' which has not anticipated and included mention of
> such an eventuality?
>
> I've just been reading around some of the ethical issues related to
research
> and it occurred to me that perhaps this aspect hadn't been considered. I'd
> welcome any thoughts.
>
This is a very sharp issue. Most interviews, and the consent thereto,
are given in the context of the original research. The consent is given
at least in part because the person interviewed has confidence in the
researcher.
To hand the data to a person who may have a different agenda is to
expose the person interviewed to conditions they do not expect. For
instance, what if a secondary researcher is doing a study on
"Prevarication and Accidental Self-Revelation in Interview Situations."
It is a legitimate topic, but it exposes the person interviewed to
ridicule that they never agreed to.
My release forms mention all future uses I think I might want to make of
the interview material.
Birrell Walsh
MicroTimes Magazine
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
