The Principal Barriers to Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data - Report Example

The Principal Barriers To Secondary Analysis Of Qualitative Data and Why Researchers Pursue The Approach Introduction Secondary analysis of data is the investigation by researchers who may not have been involved in the primary data collection. The purpose of such an analysis is also different from the purpose of those who were involved in the original data collection1. This type of analysis can either be qualitative or quantitative, and aims at dealing with new study questions by investigating previously collected data. This discussion is focused on secondary analysis of qualitative data. There is no difference in definition to secondary analysis of data, except for the difference between qualitative and quantitative data involved. In the case of secondary analysis of qualitative data, the existing data use is qualitative rather than quantitative2. Qualitative data is all about behaviour and attitudes which cannot be quantified. Quantitative data however, focuses on numerical data. Analysis involves large sets of data that are used to make predictions or generalizations3. Secondary analysis brings in a new body of knowledge. Mostly, secondary analyses have been carried out in cases where authors want to: Perform additional analysis to a subset of the original dataset, Perform additional analysis to the original dataset, Pursue distinct interests from the original analysis, Provide case material for teaching and methodological development, Apply a new conceptual focus or new perspective to the original research issues, and Describe the historical and contemporary attributes, and behaviour of groups, individuals, organizations or societies. Secondary analysis is also important in situations where the participants are difficult to access, especially in sensitive topics4. Secondary analysis for qualitative data focuses on qualitative research. An example could be, a research focusing on the attitudes of footballers towards the media. An analysis of these attitudes can be done on a primary level. A secondary analysis may have a different target, for example, it would say, the attitudes reveal the footballers’ real emotions, and use the primary data from the original research to prove the point. These secondary analyses to qualitative data have barriers and benefits. These are as discussed below. Barriers to Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data There is lack of familiarity with the data. When collecting primary data, the aim of the research guides the arrangement of such data, so that familiarity, with its structure and various features is not an issue. When conducting a secondary analysis however, a researcher has to take time finding out why certain qualitative data is coded as they are in the primary dataset. This means that the researcher will need a lot of time to decode the primary dataset, and in some cases, to understand the complexity of the dataset’s organization. If the qualitative dataset is found to be complex, it may discourage a secondary analysis. Complexity of a dataset and time taken to familiarize with specific variables in a qualitative dataset, are some of the barriers to such analyses5. Another barrier is the primary researchers’ legal and ethical obligation to keep such data confidential. Qualitative data may be characterised by the content of sensitive or private information. This is especially true about data obtained from interviews in which the interviewees entrust the primary researcher with sensitive or private information about them or their lives. The primary researcher has the obligation to protect the information, and maintain confidentiality as agreed upon before data collection. The main problem in secondary analysis is approaching such kind of researchers to analyse their data a second time. It could be an example of an ethical dilemma. The original researcher may want to share his or her data, but the confidential information that will be accessed by the secondary analysts may lead to a breach of contract between the primary researcher and the research participants. The primary researcher is also under ethical obligations to protect the interviewee. This may however, be solved by anonymization, especially in cases of people’s biographies, or private life situations. Another effect arises though; the quality of the qualitative data for purposes of secondary analysis may be lost in cases of anonymization of subjects6. A general term could be given to the above barrier considering other reasons why secondary analysts cannot access certain qualitative data. It could be termed; lack of access to relevant qualitative data. A secondary analyst may have identified a source of qualitative data based on his or her aims of an analysis. The identified data however, may not be available due to the following reasons: The need for special agreements with re-users, the need for consent agreements with interviewees, and terms and conditions that restrict access78. Primary researchers also fear criticism and exposure and so; they shy away from giving out their own data for secondary analysis. Giving away one’s own data means accepting challenges to the original results and its methods. Primary researcher do not take this well since they consider such an analysis as an exposure of weaknesses of their study, rather than proof of analytic faults or inaccuracy. They view such an analysis as a comparison of their work with other similar theoretical approaches, leading to a diminished value of their work. Providing secondary analysts with one’s own work would also mean losing exclusive authority to interpretation. The primary researchers also fear the uncertainty of what the analysts will do with their data, therefore, some of them do not give access9. Primary researchers may also argue that, it s not easy to process the data for secondary analysis. This is very discouraging to secondary analysts who sometimes consider the effort to get such data to be of no use. Primary researchers give a lot of reasons for not providing access to their data. They consider data processing for a secondary analysis. For example, some of them say that their interview data have either not been transcribed or fully transcribed. Some note that because of the anonymity of the data, it is not sufficient for giving out10. Medjedović notes that this is proof of a research practice without standard guidelines. It means there are no standard guidelines to making qualitative research data anonymous, and this leads to the use of various approaches in making such data anonymous. The approaches make it difficult for the researchers, both primary and secondary analysts, to organize the data for secondary analysis. This illustrates an example of the problem of familiarity to the data, and complexity. Some of the information can be replaced by pseudonyms making it hard for participants to be identified. Some may be erased, and in some cases, the identifying information changed. Such kind of information is not easy to process for a second time analysis, and may provide inaccurate information11. Law also argues that secondary analysis indirectly discourages funding and original research. This is especially when data is used at the expense of the original researcher, and no acknowledgement is done. Sometimes original researchers look for funds from organizations to be able to complete their research because data collection is very expensive. The use of such data at a later date at the expense of the original researcher is discouraging enough. The data may also require additional documentation and work. If this is also done at the original worker’s expense; it creates a potential for harm, and nothing to benefit the primary researcher12. The practice of secondary analysis on qualitative data is considered to be a diluting practice on good science. This is because it provides an easy, less costly, and faster way to obtain data, than the original way of developing a study design, collecting data, recruiting participants, and analysis of data. Most people would opt for the easier way leading to a reduced number of original datasets. The potential for independent evaluations is also reduced. Such a perception on secondary analysis discourages the practice13. Secondary analysis of qualitative data has not advanced as much as quantitative analysis. Quantitative analysis has well established data archives that easily provide information for analysis. Data is also stored in high technology electronic form making computer analysis easier and more advanced. This is unlike secondary analysis involving qualitative data, which is still a new concept. Most of the qualitative data are still recorded in non-electronic forms, meaning the researcher has to consult the original files, and transcripts of qualitative interviews, which are in old fashioned forms14. Secondary analysis makes use of documentary analysis, and this is similar to observational research. This makes another potential barrier, for it limits the interaction between the researcher and the subject being investigated. Secondary analysis does not allow first-hand experience of an event. It may be possible to find the participants of the primary study, but this is restricted by issues such as the time difference, access, and location15. Secondary analysis may also not provide specific detail and context that may be investigating. Documentary materials have different formats which are classified according to the level of detail and the intended audience. These formats limit the kind of detail and context of work that a researcher maybe looking for, which may only be obtained through primary research16. The perception about secondary analysis’ achievability is also another barrier. It is considered a dependent practice on another researcher’s work; the secondary analyst benefits leaving the primary researcher with very little or no benefit. This is indicated so because; the primary researcher has to go through the creative process of finding out a data collection and execution design, which sometimes involves innovative techniques. The secondary researcher will benefit from this new idea without any effort, and this is not considered ethically right17. Why Researchers Would Pursue This Approach Researchers use secondary analysis because of several advantages. These are as discussed below. Secondary analysis enables access to good quality data with very little resources and time. The researcher needs not to carry out the actual data collection which is time consuming and needs a lot of resources. Foregoing this process also means that the secondary analysts do not have to go through some of the tiresome processes involved in primary data coding, classification and analysis18. Researchers also use this approach because they get high quality data, and the breadth of data available. Very few researchers have the resources to collect data about a specific group of people or a sample of participants, from a larger region, for example; all nations in the world, every State in U.S, and so on. This is made possible by reviewing various primary research studies from the specific regions1920. The secondary analysts do not have to repeat the process of collecting the same type of data from the same type of sample population or participants in different areas. In the U.S for example, the federal government provides readily available data through its national surveys. Some of the datasets can also be used for other types of studies, for example, the longitudinal design studies that examine the trends of certain issues. In qualitative research, this could focus on the trend of behaviours, preferences, and attitudes. This is because, similar questions or type of surveys are used to gather information. This can be used to identify trends in the results2122. The data used in secondary analysis is also high quality because of high professionalism and expertise involved in the process of primary data collection and analysis. In most cases, relevant expertise is involved, for example, a research involving corporation’s performance. This will most likely be obtained from business and corporation consultants with high quality education and experience in respective fields. The same applies to those involving national political power, and so on. Another example is evident in the datasets collected by the federal government. These are normally collected by specialists in that specific task, with years of experience in that specific field23. There are times when getting primary data from participants is burdensome. Take an example of studying elderly people, those who have been over-researched, and those who are ill. These are the various kinds of vulnerable population, and an increased focus on them, for example, repeated interviews, surveys and other forms of primary data collection may be bothersome and burdensome. It may also be difficult to access these kinds of populations. Additionally, the response rate may also be diminishing. These are reasons enough to look for secondary qualitative data and analyse. Secondary analysis provides information that fits the researchers’ requirements without having to go through the above described burdensome processes. Researchers also go for secondary analysis for efficiency reasons. Secondary analysis means more time is allocated for other research processes like sampling, design, and research questions among others, other than more time spent on recruiting participants, finding participants, and developing new designs to fit research purpose. There are effective ways of sampling due to availability of high amount, and variety of data in various databases24. Secondary analysis provides the potential for improving qualitative research status. As indicated earlier, secondary research analysis is a new concept in qualitative research. Researchers may pursue this approach to improve the data storage methods that will make future research easy. For example, storage of information in archives can have improved electronic versions of interviews, and other qualitative data sources. Secondary analysis provides information with historical value, and for comparative research uses. It provides baseline information for future projects, and expanding evidence base for funders and data commissioners25. Bibliography Becker S, A Bryman, and H Ferguson, Understanding Research for Social Policy and Social Work: Themes, Methods and Approaches. The Policy Press, Bristol, UK, 2012, p. 190. Boslaugh S, Data Analysis in Secondary Data Sources for Public Health: A Practical Guide, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 3. Bryman A, Social Research Methods, 4th Ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford UK, 2012. Harrison L, and J Martin, ‘Employing Historical and Archival Resources in Political Research’ in Harrison L, Political Research: An Introduction, Routledge, London, 2013. Law M, ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Issues in the Secondary Use of Research Data’, IASSIST Quarterly Spring, 2005. Retrieved on 11th December 2013 from: http://www.iassistdata.org/downloads/iqvol291law.pdf Long-Sutehall T, M Sque and J Addington-Hall, ‘Secondary Analysis Of Qualitative Data: A Valuable Method For Exploring Sensitive Issues With An Elusive Population?’ Journal of Research in Nursing. Vol.16, No. 4, pp.335–344, 2010. Retrieved on 11th December 2013 from: http://www.wlv.ac.uk/pdf/Secondary%20analysis%20JRN3815531.pdf Medjedović I, ‘Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Interview Data: Objections and Experiences. Results of a German Feasibility Study’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Vol. 12, No. 3, 2011, Art. 10. Retrieved 11th December 2013 from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1742/3241 Prior L, ‘Documents’ in Prior L, Using Documents and Records in Social Research, SAGE Publications, 2011, p. 345. Seale C, Researching Society and Culture, SAGE, London, 2012. Read More