A Researchers Literature Review Involves Secondary Data Researchã¢â‚¬â€¹

• Journal List
• HHS Writer Manuscripts
• PMC6428200

Qual Soc Piece of work. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2019 Mar 21.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC6428200

NIHMSID: NIHMS1005823

Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how?

Nicole Ruggiano

School of Social Work, University of Alabama, USA

Tam East Perry

School of Social Work, Wayne State University, USA

Abstract

While secondary data assay of quantitative data has go commonplace and encouraged across disciplines, the practise of secondary data assay with qualitative data has met more than criticism and concerns regarding potential methodological and ethical issues. Though commentary about qualitative secondary data analysis has increased, little is known about the current state of qualitative secondary data analysis or how researchers are conducting secondary data analysis with qualitative data. This critical interpretive synthesis examined inquiry articles (n = 71) published between 2006 and 2016 that involved qualitative secondary data analysis and assessed the context, purpose, and methodologies that were reported. Implications of findings are discussed, with particular focus on recommended guidelines and best practices of conducting qualitative secondary data analysis.

Keywords: Critical interpretive synthesis, systematic review, secondary data analysis, methodology

There has been increasing commentary in the literature regarding secondary information analysis (SDA) with qualitative data. Many critics assert that there are potential methodological and ethical problems regarding such exercise, especially when qualitative data is shared and SDA is conducted by researchers non involved with data drove. Notwithstanding, less has been written on how sharing and SDA of qualitative data is actually conducted by scholars. To meliorate understand this practise with qualitative research, this critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) appraised studies that accept involved SDA with qualitative data, examining their context, belittling techniques, and methods applied to promote rigor and ethical conduct of research. Following this assay, the strengths and weaknesses of such practice and strategies for promoting the advocacy of science will be discussed in lite of findings.

The merits of sharing data for quantitative secondary analysis

SDA involves investigations where data nerveless for a previous report is analyzed – either by the aforementioned researcher(s) or different researcher(s) – to explore new questions or use dissimilar analysis strategies that were not a part of the primary assay (Szabo and Strang, 1997). For enquiry involving quantitative data, SDA, and the procedure of sharing data for the purpose of SDA, has become commonplace. Though not without its limitations, Hinds et al. (1997) argue that information technology is a "respected, mutual, and cost-effective approach to maximizing the usefulness of collected data" (p. 408). They draw four approaches to SDA: (1) enquiry where SDA focuses on a different unit of analysis from that of the parent report; (2) research involving a more in-depth analysis of themes from the parent report with a subset of data from that study; (iii) analyses of data from the parent report that appear important, but not sufficiently focused on in the chief analysis; and (iv) analyses with a dataset that includes information from a parent study and newly-nerveless data that refines the parent study'southward purpose or inquiry questions (Hinds et al., 1997).

Scholars have also promoted the practice of sharing data for the purpose of SDA, asserting that it may respond new research questions, as well as increase sample sizes and statistical ability (Perrino et al., 2013). Sharing data also allows for the generation of new knowledge without the costs of administration and implementation of additional data collection and maximizes the output of large-calibration studies that are funded by public or private sources. Recognizing the value of sharing data, researchers and institutions have created an infrastructure to promote such practice by: making datasets more bachelor through the procedure of archiving; making archived data available through a number of media, such as the net, CD-ROMS, and other removable storage devices; and documenting and providing detailed data about the sampling, design, and data collection strategies from such parent studies then that researchers tin can better understand the qualities of the information they obtain for hereafter use (Hox and Boeije, 2005; Perrino et al., 2013).

Concerns about secondary data analysis when using qualitative data

The primary concerns almost SDA with qualitative information surround rigor and ethics from a number of stakeholder perspectives, including research participants, funders, and the researchers themselves. Heaton (2004) suggests that a force of secondary analysis of qualitative data is that it relieves the brunt of participation from inquiry participants and customs partners who collaborate with researchers to identify, admission, and recruit research participants. Even so, nosotros must also consider how SDA fits within guidelines for duplicate publishing of qualitative research (Morse, 2007) in an era of a quantity-driven publishing as one mark of scholarliness.

Debates regarding rigor in qualitative SDA.

Despite the demonstrated benefits from its practice in quantitative studies, sharing qualitative information for SDA has non been as widely promoted and even has received considerable criticisms in the literature. 1 criticism relates to the socio-cultural-political context under which qualitative studies are implemented. As highlighted by Walters (2009), qualitative research involves the collection and interpretation of subjective information that often is shaped past the social, cultural, and political realities that are evident at the time of information collection. When such data are re-analyzed or reinterpreted during some other fourth dimension period, the changes in social, cultural and/or political norms may result in investigators exploring research questions or utilizing analysis strategies that are inappropriate or they may misinterpret the original data. Mauthner et al. (1998) affirm that the process of re-analyzing data can be unlike even for researchers who are revisiting their own data that was nerveless at an earlier fourth dimension. Nonetheless, they also report that some researchers may discover benefits to this process. For instance, some researchers may observe themselves less emotionally invested in the data and therefore more than objective, though, other researchers may observe this emotional distance to upshot in less immersion in the data. Thorne (1994) has provided a number of approaches to increasing rigor in SDA, such every bit inspect trails and disquisitional and reflective constant comparison. Yet, it is unclear the extent to which such practices actually overcome challenges that compromise qualitative SDA, such every bit inappropriate coding and interpretation of data and/or lack of offset-hand knowledge of information by SDA researchers (Thorne, 1994).

Debates regarding ideals in qualitative secondary data analysis.

In add-on to questions of methodological rigor, there are criticisms regarding ethical dilemmas posed by SDA of qualitative information. Many criticisms centre on basic questions of inquiry ethics – the risks to informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity when such data are archived and/or shared (Morrow et al., 2014). For instance, Parry and Mauthner (2004) argue that the in-depth nature of qualitative data may pose particular challenges to de-identifying information for the purpose of archiving it for shared use. The descriptiveness of the information alone may allow others to identify respondents, while removing such descriptors may compromise the quality of the data.

There are as well arguments that qualitative data is not created by researchers alone – they represent the "joint endeavor between respondent and researcher" and therefore assuasive other researchers to re-utilise data poses pregnant ethical and legal dilemmas by disregarding the respondent's ownership of the data (Parry and Mauthner, 2004: 142). Parry and Mauthner (2004) write that the collaborative effort of creating qualitative data too poses upstanding dilemmas for qualitative researchers, who often offer personal information to respondents in an endeavour to develop rapport. Therefore, they adventure breeches in anonymity/confidentiality when such data are shared for future utilise.

Purpose of disquisitional interpretive synthesis

To date, in that location has been increasing dialogue and controversy surrounding the practice of SDA with qualitative data. However, few studies have examined how qualitative SDA is being conducted or guidelines on conducting such investigations with loftier amounts of rigor and ethics. To accost this issue, a CIS of studies identified every bit having qualitative SDA as a methodology was undertaken to accost the post-obit questions:

1. What is the extent and context under which SDA is conducted with qualitative data?

2. What are mutual approaches and purposes for conducting SDA with qualitative data?

3. In what means exercise researchers maintain rigor and ideals in qualitative SDA? and

4. What limitations in qualitative SDA have been identified in exercise?

Methodology

Although systematic reviews are ordinarily used to synthesize quantitative studies on a specific topic, Dixon-Forest et al. (2006) fence that the nature of systematic reviews and their focus on examining studies that emphasize testing theories is inappropriate when different types of evidence are existence synthesized and/or there is a demand for interpretation of studies. This review involved a CIS of literature that was identified through multiple search strategies. CIS differs from quantitative systematic reviews in several means: (ane) it uses broad review questions to guide the identification and assay of studies, rather than specific hypotheses; (ii) it relies on sources other than bibliographic databases to place studies for inclusion; (3) information technology does not use a preconceived hierarchy of methods to guide report inclusion (e.g. only including randomized control trials, due to their perceived higher level of rigor); and (4) it uses ongoing inductive and interpretive strategies in the identification and analysis of studies, which may event in ongoing revision to the guiding review questions or revisiting search criteria and/or strategies (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006). CIS differs from meta-ethnography in that the latter involves a more interpretive manner of linking ethnographic findings from multiple studies, often on a specific topic (Flemming, 2010). By contrast, the electric current assay involves the interpretation and comparison of context and methodologies of studies focused on a broad diverseness of topics.

Eligibility criteria

This CIS identified and assessed inquiry published in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals betwixt the years 1996 and 2016. They also had to run across the post-obit inclusion criteria: (a) involving analysis of data derived through qualitative methodologies; (b) research involving social or wellness-related inquiry with man subjects; (c) use of SDA or repurposing of parent study information for subsequent analysis; and (d) research published in English. For the purpose of time sensitivity, unpublished dissertations were excluded from the concluding review. Given prior assertions that not all qualitative studies using SDA are identified as being such (Hinds et al., 1997), the researchers bandage a broad internet and did non impose any additional exclusion criteria based on the perceived quality or arroyo to methodology, assay, or focus area (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006; Walsh and Downe, 2005).

Sources and process of search

Studies were identified between May and June of 2016 (come across effigy one) past searching through the post-obit eight databases: Expanded Academic ASAP, EBSCO Host, PsychInfo, PubMed, Social Services Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Scientific discipline. The titles and/or abstracts were reviewed for more than than 10,373 results that were yielded from the initial search. For each database, a search was conducted using combinations of the following search terms: qualitative enquiry OR qualitative analysis OR qualitative report AND secondary data analysis OR secondary analysis OR combining data* OR sharing data* OR integrating data* OR ii studies OR 2 field studies. Among these studies, 76 unduplicated studies were selected for total-text review. A second search strategy took place in September of 2016, where peer-reviewed journals that are dedicated to qualitative research and have bear upon factors (International Periodical of Qualitative Methods, Qualitative Health Research, Qualitative Enquiry, Qualitative Enquiry, Qualitative Social Work, and Qualitative Sociology) were searched. This subsequent search yielded 49 additional articles selected for full-text review. Amid the 125 articles that were fully-reviewed, 54 did non meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded from the final analysis.

Search strategy and results for systematic review.

Appraisal of studies

The approach for appraising the included studies were derived from a number of recommendations in the literature (Barnett-Page and Thomas, 2009; Schoenberg and McAuley, 2007; Walsh and Downe, 2005). Given that the current CIS focuses on an analysis of context and methodologies, rather than the findings of qualitative research on a specific topic, the appraisement of primary studies focused on the inclusion, description, and comparison/contrast of methods beyond the following categories:

• Relationship of researchers with parent report: Here, the extent to which researchers conducting the SDA were involved with the parent study or studies was assessed. The relationships were identified past: authors self-citing the parent written report, authors describing their contribution to the parent written report, and authors describing their use of other researchers' data or archived data.

• Context of secondary analysis: For this category, manufactures were assessed by the context under which SDA took identify. For instance, whether the data from parent written report were analyzed post hoc, whether entire datasets or subsets were analyzed in the SDA, whether data from multiple studies were combined, or whether new research questions or analytical approaches were explicitly used. It was also assessed whether the secondary analysis aimed at advancing theory regarding a sure topic or methodology.

• Details about parent study: To understand the context under which the data were initially collected in the parent studies, manufactures were assessed for whether they included details about the parent studies, such as their: context and methodologies, IRB approval, funding sources, and procedure of sharing data (when applicative).

• Ethical considerations in secondary analysis: Articles were assessed for whether ethical considerations were described that were specific to secondary analysis. For instance, whether researchers made additional steps in the SDA to protect human subjects who participated in the parent study or descriptions of obtaining IRB approval for SDA.

• Methodological rigor in secondary analysis: Articles were assessed for whether the researchers described aspects specific to the secondary analysis that were used to increase rigor, including descriptions of the SDA procedure or specific strategies to improve rigor.

• Methodological challenges in secondary assay: Articles were assessed for whether the researchers identified aspects of SDA that created challenges or limitations for their findings.

Both authors assessed each article independently and created a thematic chart based on these assessment criteria. Discrepancies in this assessment were resolved through give-and-take until understanding was reached. The authors acknowledge that the cess is based on the published text, and thus, may not reflect further details outlined in other manufactures on the research or details not published. For instance, in cases where researchers did not identify obtaining IRB approval specifically for the SDA, that does non necessarily mean that the authors did not obtain IRB blessing.

Findings

Lxx-1 studies were included in this analysis. A tabular array listing the studies and their appraisal using the criteria higher up can be accessed as an online supplementary appendix file. Virtually of the studies (north = 51, 71.eight%) that met the inclusion criteria involved research focused on physical and mental health enquiry, with fewer studies focused on social or economic issues.

Authors of these qualitative studies used a myriad of terms to describe their efforts to "repurpose parent study data for subsequent analysis," including secondary data analysis, post hoc assay, re-analysis, and supplemental assay. Hence, the term qualitative secondary information assay is not used consistently in the qualitative inquiry literature. Through the appraisal of these studies, three central themes emerged that shed light on the current state of qualitative SDA and relate to current controversies to such practices within the literature: (1) the relationship of the SDA study to the parent study or studies; (two) ethical considerations and man discipline protections in qualitative SDA; and (3) attention given to methods and rigor in writing nearly primary and secondary studies. These themes, along with their sub-themes, are described in detail below. Delight note that when interpreting these thematic findings that the articles were assessed based on what information they included or did non include in the reporting of their studies and that the findings should not be used to assess actual rigor or quality in methodologies of private studies.

Relationship of the SDA study to the parent study or studies

In most cases (due north = 60, 84.5%), qualitative SDA among the included studies involved researchers re-examining qualitative information from parent studies that they were involved with to explore new research questions or analytic strategies. Therefore, most were familiar with the methodologies and information of the parent studies and were able to write about the parent studies and quality of data in significant detail. Variation in relationships betwixt parent and secondary studies was generally based on the following characteristics:

Involvement of researchers across studies.

In the majority of cases (n = 60, 84.v%), information technology was clear when the researchers conducting the SDA were involved in the parent study, as indicated past researchers self-citing their previous piece of work on the parent report or directly referring to their participation in the parent study (e.grand. Nosotros conducted in-depth interviews...). However, it was not always clear when new investigators were included on the research team for SDA and therefore, the exact number of SDA researchers who were besides involved with the parent study was not always easily determined. In some cases, the relationship could exist assumed (merely was not assumed for the current analysis), such as those where the SDA researchers did not explicitly point their involvement with the parent study, just described that the study was conducted at their establishment and/or their IRB approved the written report for research with man subjects (run across Bergstrom et al., 2009). In that location were other cases where researchers shared their data with i another and combined data from contained parent studies for the purpose of SDA and indicated that they were involved with one or more of the studies that data were derived from, only not all of the studies (come across Sallee and Harris, 2011; Taylor and Brownish, 2011). Hence, the in-depth knowledge of parent report methodologies and information by each researcher was limited.

There were a smaller number of cases (n = 8, 11.3%) where researchers reported that they conducted an SDA with qualitative data derived from an qualitative data archive where the author(southward) did non indicate having an affiliation with the archive team (see Kelly et al., 2013; Wilbanks et al., 2016). In these cases, it was common for SDA researchers to describe the methods used to collect the information for the annal, or at a minimum, draw the purpose and source of the data archive. Very few studies included in this analysis involved researchers conducting SDA using data that they were not involved with at all and/or not obtained through an archive. The virtually common case for this (n = 3, four.iii%) involved researchers who conducted analyses with information collected through program or government evaluations (see Hohl and Gaskell, 2008; Romero et al., 2012; Wint and Frank, 2006). Ane notable instance involved an SDA using data nerveless by unrelated independent researchers to reanalyze archetype sociological research (Fielding and Fielding, 2000).

Context and purpose of SDA.

In almost all cases of enquiry included in this analysis (n = 68, 95.vii%), the SDA researchers provided the context and methodologies of the parent studies, though these descriptions varied in detail. Most were explicit in whether the data used in the SDA involved an unabridged dataset, a subset of data, or combination of data from the parent study or studies. The most common reason (n = 57, 80.2%) to conduct SDA was to explore new research questions postal service hoc that would advance theory in a particular area. In a smaller number of cases (n = 18, 25.4%), SDA was conducted post hoc to advance methodology. For instance, Myers and Lampropoulou (2016) conducted an SDA with data from several studies to examine the practice of identifying laughter in transcriptions of audio information. In other cases, SDA was conducted to demonstrate novel analytic approaches (run across Henderson et al., 2012; Patel et al., 2015) or approaches to research (see Morse and Pooler, 2002; Schwartz et al., 2010).

Clarity in distinguishing between main and secondary analyses.

While it was clear in most studies, there lacked consistency in the identification and description of SDA amidst the articles assessed. Some studies did not identify as being an SDA, merely described methods and purposes that diverged from those of the parent studies and/or indicated that the assay of the information for SDA was completed after the primary analysis in the parent study. In other cases, the researchers identified the research equally being SDA, merely it was not articulate if the purpose or aims of the SDA diverged from the initial analysis or occurred subsequent to the parent study. For instance, Cortes et al. (2016) indicated that their study was considered SDA, considering the theme that emerged wasn't sufficiently explored earlier the IRB protocol period concluded and therefore the findings existence presented really emerged during the primary analysis. In Coltart and Henwood's (2012) written report, they reported that they "routinely crossed conventional boundaries betwixt primary and secondary analysis" (p. 39).

Ethical considerations and human subject protections in qualitative SDA

The manufactures assessed in this analysis also varied in the extent to which they discussed ethical considerations and protections of human subjects. The following is an analysis of the extent to which upstanding issues were identified and/or addressed in the parent and/or SDA research presented in the articles.

Attention given to ethical safeguards in writing near primary and secondary studies.

For the majority of studies assessed, information technology was most common for researchers to provide information regarding IRB approving and/or ethical considerations given in the parent study methodology (northward = 26, 36.6%) with fewer cases indicating that IRB approval or exemption was specifically obtained or ethical considerations were made in their effort to conduct SDA. Most articles indicated that IRB approval was obtained for the parent study with no mention nearly IRB review of the SDA (n = 19, 26.eight%). In 17 cases (23.ix%), the researchers indicated that IRB blessing was obtained for the SDA study alone or for both the parent written report and SDA. In 1 of these cases, a researcher using archived information reported that IRB approval was sought out, but non required for the telescopic of their study (Heaton, 2015).

Examples of upstanding procedures in secondary analysis.

Some researchers described steps for protecting human subjects that extended to the SDA, such as de-identifying data before SDA was conducted. Very few studies (n = 5, vii.0%) specifically indicated that participants in the parent studies consented to having their information available for SDA. Some researchers identified ethical considerations that are intrinsic to the nature of SDA, such as their efforts to conduct SDA in order to not overburden vulnerable populations that were participating in research (encounter Turcotte et al., 2015). Too less common was for researchers to report ethical dilemmas or concerns in conducting SDA, such equally Coltart and Henwood's (2012) enquiry with longitudinal qualitative data, were the researchers presented concerns about anonymity and ethics regarding archived data.

Attention given to methods and rigor in writing about primary and secondary studies

Finally, articles varied in the extent to which they described bug of rigor and limitations stemming specifically from the SDA. There was variation on the attention researchers gave to describing methods and rigor in the parent and SDA studies, their approaches to increasing rigor in SDA, and the limitations they identified that were specific from conducting an SDA.

Attention and focus of parent and secondary studies.

For nearly of the articles appraised (n = 60, 84.5%), researchers provided detail on the methodologies used to collect and analyze data in the parent study. The level of detail of these descriptions varied significantly, with some researchers providing a few sentences on the overall methodological approach to data collection in the parent report with lilliputian to no item on principal assay, to extensive sections of research articles beingness defended to the methods of the parent studies. Some researchers besides reported the funding sources of the parent studies (n = 28, 39.4%), which may further assistance readers assess bias in the SDA. Many studies too described the process of SDA every bit existence distinctively dissimilar from master analysis, though in some articles, it was difficult to assess how SDA dissimilar from primary information assay.

Examples of rigor in secondary assay.

Some studies presented strategies used by researchers to increase rigor in the SDA study. Many studies (due north = 25, 35.ii%) reported common practices in qualitative data assay to increase rigor, such as fellow member checking, memoing, triangulation, peer debriefing, inter-rater understanding, and maintaining audit trails. In some articles, researchers indicated inclusion of members of the parent written report research team or new researchers with expertise in the area of focus for the SDA with the intent of increasing rigor. Other articles asserted that the research questions explored through SDA were "a skillful fit" with those of the parent report, and therefore increased the trustworthiness of findings. Simply a few studies reported that steps were taken in SDA to analyze information with a lens that was not influenced by the researchers' interest with the parent study, such every bit using make clean, uncoded transcripts from parent written report (see Williams and Collins, 2002) or purposefully reading transcripts with new perspective (see Moran and Russo-Netzer, 2016). Some articles reported that a strength in the SDA was that the researchers involved were very familiar with the parent study methodology and information. One time (Volume and Farris, 2000), the researchers indicated that ane source of rigor was that emerging findings during analysis could not influence hereafter interviews, since the information were already all collected, which may minimize bias.

Identification of limitations in secondary analysis.

Most articles reported limitations in their studies that are often reported in qualitative research (eastward.g. minor samples, not generalizable), though virtually of these descriptions did non relate specifically to SDA. Most half (n = 36, 50.vii%) of articles identified limitations in their study that resulted from the nature of their SDA, such as: not being able to return to participants for member checking or conduct farther interviews to clarify or validate thematic findings in the SDA; conducting research with one purpose using data that were nerveless for another purpose, which express the number of cases or extent to which a thematic finding could be identified; and conducting qualitative research with data that may non exist as relevant as when it was first collected, given changes in context and/or time that may have influenced the data if collected in present day.

Discussion

In response to growing dialogue and criticisms nearly conducting SDA with qualitative data, this CIS set up out to better understand the context of qualitative SDA in practice, with particular attention given to issues of methodological rigor and ethical principles. Overall, 71 articles met the inclusion criteria and were appraised, a number that is expectedly dwarfed by the number of quantitative studies that are identified as using SDA. However, thematic findings in this assessment address controversies in the literature and also raise issues in conducting SDA with qualitative data that can be used to guide future inquiry and assessment of qualitative SDA studies.

The need for better and consistent definitions of qualitative SDA

Revisiting Hinds et al.'s (1997) approaches to qualitative SDA described earlier, most qualitative SDA studies identified and appraised through this CIS best reflect the approaches of conducting a more in-depth analysis of themes from the parent written report with a subset of data from that study and conducting an assay of information from the parent written report that announced important, but not sufficiently focused on in the primary analysis, though all 4 approaches they identified were observed amidst studies. However, the main business that arose from this CIS was that researchers often failed to describe the differences betwixt master and secondary analysis (or at least the relationship between the two analyses). Many described SDA strategies that were similar in telescopic and appeared to have been conducted in close timing to the primary analysis. As a result, it was not always articulate cutting if findings were more than related to master analysis than an actual secondary analysis.

In that location were likewise cases where researchers described conducting qualitative SDA, but did non characterization it as such. As a result, ane of the primary limitations of this CIS is that the extent to which qualitative SDA studies were excluded from search results and therefore not included in this synthesis is unclear. Scholars tin can improve this issue past explicitly referring to qualitative SDA as such and describing the study methods in a way that make clear how SDA differed from chief analysis in telescopic, context, and/or methodology. Otherwise, given the fluid and/or emerging nature of many qualitative analyses and the fact that many researchers acquit qualitative SDA with their own data, there are limitations on the extent to which audiences tin can fully appraise such inquiry.

Maintaining ethical standards in qualitative SDA

It is by and large accepted that most all inquiry involving human being subjects, including research involving SDA, should be reviewed past an IRB and determined if the study is exempt from further review or canonical based on its treatment of man subjects. However, the majority of articles included in this analysis reported that IRB approval was obtained for the parent study with no mention of whether review was sought for the SDA or if the SDA was included under the same protocol. In the case of quantitative SDA, this issue may be more conspicuously explained in inquiry reporting, since data is often shared among researchers who were non involved with the parent study and therefore SDA researchers would not be able to merits to be covered under the protocol approval for the parent study. Every bit was found through this CIS, many qualitative SDA researchers are conducting analysis with their ain data and may feel that the SDA is covered under the original protocol approval. Yet, information technology is unclear if this is always appropriate, given that many SDA investigations involve new research questions, unit of analysis, or focus from which the participants of the parent study may have consented to.

In improver, specific safeguards aimed at protecting human being subjects should ever exist taken in qualitative SDA and described in the research reporting. For researchers who are interested in conducting studies that may be open up to SDA in the futurity, this may mean taking specific steps that would make additional IRB review unnecessary (when the same researchers are conducting further analysis) or eligible for exemption. For case, qualitative researchers should take participants consent to SDA of their information during the recruitment process or explain to participants during the consent process that researchers may written report findings from their data that are unexpectedly derived and therefore not feasibly explained in the purpose and goals of the study through the initial consent form. They can also design interview and focus group guides that could more easily be de-identified for researchers to use later and think critically about whether additional safeguards should exist in place to protect the participants in primary studies. Researchers should report about these procedures and then that their audience can adequately access the ethical considerations taken in their research.

Ways to movement frontward

Promoting qualitative data sharing.

While much of the literature on the topic has criticized the use of qualitative information for SDA, some scholars have recognized its potential benefit to the land of science and have offered suggestions to promote this practise. Drawing upon the literature, Dargentas (2006) identified several ways of advancing the practice of SDA of qualitative data, including: increasing access to archived qualitative data, training researchers on using reckoner assisted qualitative analysis software, and addressing issues related to qualitative methodologies (p. 3). Such efforts accept initiated, merely have been slower to develop than those for quantitative data. Examples include the Britain Data Service, the Timescapes Archive (University of Leeds) and The Oxford Health Experiences Research Grouping (University of Oxford).

Arguments have also been made that qualitative researchers can deploy strategies to collect information that is suitable and appropriate for SDA by other investigators. Walters (2009) asserts that through constructive use of reflexivity, qualitative researchers can collect data that identifies and documents the socio-cultural-political context under which the data are collected so the dataset is relevant and important for future apply by other researchers. However, Parry and Mauthner (2004) caution that researchers who develop plans at the beginning of their projects to collect qualitative information that may be shared in the future may run the risk of restraining themselves, through the questions that they enquire, data drove strategies, or even their own contributions to creating the data (e.g. offering personal information to respondents to develop rapport) in a fashion that they would not if they were creating the data for solely their own use. This could compromise the quality of the data.

Recommendations

After our review of the literature, we offering 3 sets of recommendations to requite SDA mutual anchors in qualitative enquiry, designed to stress its strengths and reveal its limitations.

1. Increasing clarity and transparency in SDA.

We recommend a clearer and consistent definition of qualitative SDA where some or all of the following data is included in manuscripts. This includes: (1a) describing if and how the SDA researchers were involved with the parent written report or studies; and (1b) a distinction betwixt primary and secondary analysis should exist provided so that the readers can determine if findings reflect the emerging nature of qualitative inquiry findings or a new approach or purpose for re-assay. Such descriptions will help readers evaluate the researchers' familiarity of the parent study methods, sample, data, and context. This will besides assist readers evaluate whether findings were the issue of the emerging process of qualitative analysis, equally opposed to SDA, which ideally would be a new assay with a different purpose or arroyo from the parent written report, even if the researchers remain the same across studies. A number of exemplary studies were identified that helped create clear and transparent understandings nearly the difference between the parent and SDA studies, including: Molloy et al. (2015), Myers and Lampropoulou's (2016), and Pleschberger et al. (2011).

2. Ethics in conducting qualitative SDA studies.

The ideals of conducting qualitative SDA is one of the most common topics written about in the literature nigh this practice. Hence, it was surprising that many studies in this CIS did not talk over IRB approval or strategies for protecting human being subjects in the SDA study. It may exist that researchers and peer reviewers presume that IRB approval was given or extended from the parent report's protocol. However, researchers should take responsibility to written report their efforts in protecting human subjects through qualitative SDA. Some specific recommendations include: (2a) clarity about how the researchers obtained approval or exemption for the SDA; and (2b) methods to protect human subjects in the SDA, such as de-identified data, or consent forms that outlined SDA.

3. Increasing rigor and identifying our limitations in qualitative SDA.

Researchers are expected to maximize rigor in their enquiry methodologies and identify limitations in their studies that may influence their audience'due south interpretation of findings. However, in this CIS information technology was found that just about half of the manufactures identified how the nature of SDA may affect their findings. Some recommendations for increasing rigor and transparency include: (3a) employing and describing strategies for increasing rigor within the SDA, such equally including research squad members from the parent written report, including new inquiry team members with specific expertise or fresh perspectives uninfluenced by the primary analysis, conducting SDA with uncoded transcripts, or other methods (audit trails, peer debriefing, member checking); and (3b) identifying limitations in qualitative SDA, such as how fourth dimension or context may have changed the relevance of the data and/or the extent to which the goals and purpose of the SDA research were a good fit with those of the parent written report. Examples of SDA studies that described rigor include: Borg et al. (2013), Chau et al.'s (2008), and Mayer and Rosenfeld (2006).

Decision

Qualitative research often involves long data drove sessions and/or participants who share intimate, sensitive and detailed data about themselves with researchers to promote the goal of generating new noesis that may benefit society. SDA of qualitative research is one fashion to advance this goal while minimizing the burden of research participants. Although SDA of qualitative data may non exist appropriate or ethical in all cases, researchers should take the responsibility of recognizing when qualitative information are appropriate and condom to bear SDA and/ or find creative ways that new studies may be designed that promote SDA. In such efforts, researchers should also take responsibility for identifying means of promoting rigor and ethical inquiry practices in SDA and clearly identify and draw these efforts so that the bookish community tin appropriately appraise such work while also learn from one another to advance methodology.

Acknowledgments

Funding

The writer(s) received no fiscal support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the inquiry, authorship, and/or publication of this commodity.

Correspondent Data

Nicole Ruggiano, School of Social Work, University of Alabama, USA.

Tam East Perry, School of Social Work, Wayne Country University, U.s.a..

References

• Barnett-Folio E and Thomas J (2009) Methods for the synthesis of qualitative enquiry: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology ix(one): i. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bergstrom L, Richards Fifty, Proctor A, et al. (2009) Birth talk in second stage labor. Qualitative Health Inquiry 19: 954–964. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Borg M, Veseth Thou, Binder PE, et al. (2013) The role of work in recovery from bipolar disorders. Qualitative Social Work 12: 323–339. [Google Scholar]
• Chau L, Hegedus L, Praamsma One thousand, et al. (2008) Women living with a spinal cord injury: Perceptions about their inverse bodies. Qualitative Wellness Research 18: 209–221. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Coltart C and Henwood K (2012) On paternal subjectivity: A qualitative longitudinal and psychosocial case analysis of men's classed positions and transitions to first-time fatherhood. Qualitative Research 12: 35–52. [Google Scholar]
• Cortés YI, Arcia A, Kearney J, et al. (2017) Urban-abode community members' views on biomedical enquiry date. Qualitative Health Research 27: 130–137. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dargentas 1000 (2006, September) Secondary analysis and culture of disputation in European qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Enquiry vii(4): 1–19. [Google Scholar]
• Dixon-Woods One thousand, Cavers D, Agarwal Due south, et al. (2006) Conducting a disquisitional interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Enquiry Methodology half dozen(1): 1. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fielding NG and Fielding JL (2000) Resistance and adaptation to criminal identity: Using secondary assay to evaluate archetype studies of offense and deviance. Sociology 34: 671–689. [Google Scholar]
• Flemming K (2010) Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research: An instance using disquisitional interpretive synthesis. Periodical of Advanced Nursing 66: 201–217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Heaton J (2004) Reworking Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
• Heaton J (2015) Utilize of social comparisons in interviews almost immature adults' experiences of chronic illness. Qualitative Health Research 25: 336–347. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Henderson Due south, Holland J, McGrellis S, et al. (2012) Storying qualitative longitudinal research: Sequence, voice and motif. Qualitative Enquiry 12: 16–34. [Google Scholar]
• Hinds PS, Vogel RJ and Clarke-Steffen 50 (1997) The possibilities and pitfalls of doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set. Qualitative Health Research seven: 408–424. [Google Scholar]
• Hohl K and Gaskell Grand (2008) European public perceptions of nutrient risk: Cross-national and methodological comparisons. Risk Assay 28: 311–324. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hox JJ and Boeije HR (2005) Data collection, primary vs. secondary In: Kempf-Leonard K (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Measurement. Atlanta, GA: Elsevier Science, pp. 593–599. [Google Scholar]
• Kelly L, Jenkinson C and Ziebland Due south (2013) Measuring the effects of online wellness data for patients: Detail generation for an e-health impact questionnaire. Patient Education and Counseling 93: 433–438. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mauthner NS, Parry O and Backett-Milburn G (1998) The data are out at that place, or are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative information. Folklore 32: 733–745. [Google Scholar]
• Mayer D and Rosenfeld A (2006) Symptom interpretation in women with diabetes and myocardial infarction: A qualitative written report. The Diabetes Educator 32: 918–924. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Molloy J, Evans G and Coughlin K (2015) Moral distress in the resuscitation of extremely premature infants. Nursing Ethics 22: 52–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Moran 1000 and Russo-Netzer P (2016) Agreement universal elements in mental wellness recovery: A cantankerous-exam of peer providers and a non-clinical sample. Qualitative Health Research 26: 273–287. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Morrow V, Boddy J and Lamb R (2014) The Ethics of Secondary Data Analysis: Learning from the Experience of Sharing Qualitative Information from Young People and their Families in an International Study of Childhood Poverty. London: Thomas Coram Research Unit of measurement and the Institute of Education University of London; Available at: http://sro.sussex.ac.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/49123/ane/NOVELLA_NCRM_ethics_of_secondary_analysis.pdf. [Google Scholar]
• Morse JM (2007) Duplicate publication. Qualitative Health Inquiry 17: 1307–1308. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Morse JM and Pooler C (2002) Assay of videotaped data: Methodological considerations. International Periodical of Qualitative Methods 1: 62–67. [Google Scholar]
• Myers M and Lampropoulou S (2016) Laughter, non-seriousness and transitions in social research interview transcripts. Qualitative Enquiry xvi: 78–94. [Google Scholar]
• Parry O and Mauthner NS (2004) Whose data are they anyhow? Applied, legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data. Folklore 38: 139–152. [Google Scholar]
• Patel K, Auton MF, Carter B, et al. (2016) Parallel-serial memoing: A novel arroyo to analyzing qualitative data. Qualitative Health Enquiry 26: 1745–1752. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Perrino T, Howe 1000, Sperling A, et al. (2013) Advancing scientific discipline through collaborative information sharing and synthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8: 433–444. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pleschberger S, Seymour JE, Payne S, et al. (2011) Interviews on end-of-life intendance with older people reflections on half-dozen European studies. Qualitative Health Research 21: 1588–1600. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Romero SL, Ellis AA and Gurman TA (2012) Disconnect betwixt discourse and beliefs regarding concurrent sexual partnerships and condom use: Findings from a qualitative study amid youth in Malawi. Global Wellness Promotion 19: twenty–28. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Sallee MW and Harris F (2011) Gender operation in qualitative studies of masculinities. Qualitative Research xi: 409–429. [Google Scholar]
• Schoenberg NE and McAuley WJ (2007) Promoting qualitative research. The Gerontologist 47: 576–577. [Google Scholar]
• Schwartz S, Hoyte J, James T, et al. (2010) Challenges to engaging Black male victims of community violence in healthcare enquiry: Lessons learned from two studies. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy 2: 54–61. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Szabo V and Strang VR (1997) Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Advances in Nursing Science 20: 66–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Taylor S and Dark-brown CW (2011) The contribution of gifts to the household economy of low-income families. Social Policy and Society 10: 163–175. [Google Scholar]
• Thorne South (1994) Secondary assay in qualitative inquiry: Issues and implications In: More JM (ed.) Critical Bug in Qualitative Research Methods. G Oaks: Sage, pp. 263–279. [Google Scholar]
• Turcotte PL, Carrier A, Desrosiers J, et al. (2015) Are health promotion and prevention interventions integrated into occupational therapy do with older adults having disabilities? Insights from six customs health settings in Quebec, Canada. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 62: 56–67. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Volume CI and Farris KB (2000) Hoping to maintain a balance: The concept of hope and the discontinuation of anorexiant medications. Qualitative Wellness Enquiry 10: 174–187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Walsh D and Downe Due south (2005) Meta-synthesis method for qualitative enquiry: A literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 50: 204–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Walters P (2009) Qualitative archiving: Engaging with epistemological misgivings. Australian Journal of Social Issues 44: 309–320. [Google Scholar]
• Wilbanks BA, Geisz-Everson M and Boust RR (2016) The role of documentation quality in anesthesia-related closed claims: A descriptive qualitative study. Computers, Informatics, Nursing: CIN 34: 406–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Williams CC and Collins AA (2002) The social construction of disability in schizophrenia. Qualitative Health Research 12: 297–309. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wint E and Frank C (2006) From poor to not poor: Improved understandings and the advantage of the qualitative arroyo. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 33: 163–177. [Google Scholar]

williamsshationd.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6428200/

Share this post