Back to Basics: Who Re-uses Qualitative Data and Why?

Libby Bishop’s (2005) response to our article Whose Data Are They Anyway (Parry and Mauthner, 2004) clarifies a range of qualitative data archiving procedures currently elaborated by the ESDS (Economic and Social Data Service). These procedures, she argues, address many of the practical, legal and ethical issues which our article raised. In recognition of the challenges which qualitative data archiving poses, however, Bishop welcomes further debate on the issues and it is in the spirit of this invitation that we return to the subject. Our starting point is that we have no quarrel regarding the availability of information about the mechanics of qualitative data available on the ESDS Qualidata site. By mechanics we refer not only to the preparation of research materials in an archive friendly format but more importantly to the precautions to be taken in the interests of protecting the research participants, the concerns of those who developed and carried out the original research and the integrity of the data themselves. Indeed, these issues are now well-rehearsed in any selfrespecting account of qualitative data and secondary analysis, and we see little point in revisiting them here. In the interests of moving the debate forward we would like to focus attention upon the actual re-usage of qualitative data. That is, who is using them, and for what purposes. The first issue not as easily dispensed with as might be imagined. Actual figures on the current usage of archived qualitative datasets do not appear (as far as we can see) to be published. From ESDS Qualidata, we do learn that a few specific seminal datasets are frequently revisited. However, little mention is made of the other qualitative datasets archived. An ESRC study examining the re-use of qualitative data reported that the overall volume of