Should we share qualitative data? Epistemological and practical insights from conversation analysis

References

• Albert, S., & Hofstetter, E. (in prep). Data management 1: Privacy, security and access.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. (2011). Six kinds of applied conversation analysis. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis (pp. 1–14). Palgrave Advances in Linguistics.Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Antonio, M. G., Schick-Makaroff, K., Doron, L. S., White, L., Molzahn, A., & Molzahn, A. (2019). Qualitative data management and analysis within a data repository. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 42(8), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945919881706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg, H. V. D. (2008). Reanalyzing qualitative interviews from different angles: The risk of decontextualization and other problems of sharing qualitative data. Historical Social Research, 33(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.1.499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. (1999a). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. (1999b). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 572–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, L. (2007). A reflexive account of reusing qualitative data: Beyond primary/secondary dualism. Sociological Research Online, 12(3), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, L. (2009). Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00145.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, L., & Kuula-Luumi, A. (2017). Revisiting qualitative data reuse: A decade on. SAGE Open 7 1 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016685136
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauvette, A., Schick-makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open data in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Method, 18, 1–6 doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863.
   Google Scholar
• Corti, L., Day, A., & Backhouse, G. (2000). Confidentiality and informed consent: Issues for consideration in the preservation of and preservation of access to qualitative data archives. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1 3 . http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00cortietal-e.htm
   Google Scholar
• Corti, L., Fielding, N., & Bishop, L. (2016). Editorial for special edition, digital representations: Re-using and publishing digital qualitative data. Sage Open 6 4 , 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016678911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work. interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DuBois, J. M., Strait, M., & Walsh, H. (2018). Is it time to share qualitative research data? Qualitative Psychology, 5(3), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000076
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingstone, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839318101100202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, S. (2019). Arguing, obeying and defying: A rhetorical perspective on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2010). Can we reuse qualitative data via secondary analysis. notes on terminological and substantive issues. Sociological Research Online, 15(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2076
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, L. J., Hughes, A., Hulen, E., & Schwartz, A. L. (2016). Implementing qualitative data management plans to ensure ethical standards in multi-partner centers. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(2), 191198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616636233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heaton, J. (2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 33(3), 33–45 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20762299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Brown, S. D. (2001). Teacher stress and the management of accountability. Human Relations, 54(6), 691–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701546001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of Gen Intern Med, 22(10), 1429–1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0279-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins, M. (1993). Is anonymity possible? Writing about refugees in the United States. In C. B. Brettell (Ed.), When they read what we write: The politics of ethnography (pp. 121–129). Bergin & Garvey.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, K., Hughes, J., & Tarrant, A. (2020). Re-approaching interview data through qualitative secondary analysis: Interviews with internet gamblers. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(5), 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humă, B., & Joyce, J. B. (frth). ‘One size doesn’t fit all’. Lessons from Interaction Analysis on Tailoring Open Science Practices to Qualitative Research.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin, S. (2013). Qualitative secondary data analysis: Ethics, epistemology and context. Progress in Development Studies, 13(4), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993413490479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–442. https://doi.org/10.2307/800595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jepson, M., Salisbury, C., Ridd, M. J., Metcalfe, C., Garside, L., & Barnes, R. (2017). The ‘One in a million’ study: Creating a database of UK primary consultations. British Journal of General Practice, 67(658), e345–e351. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X690521
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuula, A. (2011). Methodological and ethical dilemmas of archiving qualitative data. IASSIST Quarterly, 34(3–4), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq455
   Google Scholar
• Law, M. (2005). Reduce, reuse, recycle: Issues in the secondary use of research data. IASSIST Quarterly, 29(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq599
   Google Scholar
• Liddicoat, A. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. E. (1982). Technical Work and Critical Inquiry: Investigations in a Scientific Laboratory. Social Studies of Science, 12(4), 499–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F030631282012004002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, M. (2002). From naturally occurring data to naturally organized ordinary activities: Comment on Speer. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040801
   Google Scholar
• Mair, M., Brooker, P., Dutton, W., & Sormani, P. (2020). Just what are we doing when we’re describing AI? Harvey Sacks, the commentator machine, and the descriptive politics of the new artificial intelligence. Qualitative Research, 21(3), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120975988
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauthner, N. S., Parry, O., & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). The data are out there, or are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data. Sociology, 32(4), 733–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038598032004006
   Google Scholar
• Mauthner, N. S., & Parry, O. (2009). Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences: On whose philosophical terms? Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00147.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, D., & Clayman, S. E. (1991). The diversity of ethnomethodology. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 385–418. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.002125
   Google Scholar
• Meredith, J., & Stokoe, E. (2014). Repair: Comparing Facebook ‘chat’ with spoken interaction. Discourse & Communication, 8(2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313510815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014). Ethics in action: Anonymisation as a participant’s concern and a participant’s practice. Human Studies, 37(2), 179–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-013-9286-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2018). The multimodal interactional organization of tasing: Practices of tasting cheese in gourmet shops. Discourse Studies, 20(6), 743–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618793439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, N. (2007). (Re) using qualitative data? Sociological Research Online, 12(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mozersky, J., Walsh, H., Parsons, M., McIntosh, T., Baldwin, K., & DuBois, J. M. (2020a). Are we ready to share qualitative research data? Knowledge and preparedness among qualitative researchers, IRB members, and data repository curators. The International Association for Social Science Information Service and Technology Quarterly, 8(43), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq952
   Google Scholar
• Mozersky, J., Parsons, M., Walsh, H., Baldwin, K., McIntosh, T., & DuBois, J. M. (2020b). Research participant views regarding qualitative data sharing. Ethics and Human Research, 42(2), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500044
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parry, O., & Mauthner, N. S. (2004). Whose data are they anyway? Practical legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data. Sociology, 38(1), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038504039366
   Google Scholar
• Parry, R., Pino, M., Faull, C., & Feathers, L. (2016). Acceptability and design of video- based research on healthcare communication: Evidence and recommendations. Patient Education and Counselling, 99(8), 1271–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.03.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, J. (2002). Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040901
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp045oa
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In: J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: the complexity of the craft. 2nd ed. (pp. 555–570). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Pownall, M., Talbot, C. V., Henschel, A., Lautarescu, A., Lloyd, K. E., Hartmann, H., Darda, K. M., Tang, K. T. Y., Carmichael-Murphy, P., & Siegel, J. A. (2021). Navigating open science as early career feminist researchers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 45(4), 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211029255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Psathas, G. (1990). Introduction: Methodological issues and recent developments in the study of naturally occurring interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction Competence (pp. 1–30). International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Psathas, G. (1994). Conversation analysis: The study of talk-in-interaction. Qualitative Research Methods). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Real Complaints (2021). Information for Participants. Accessed 18.April.21. https://www.realcomplaints.org/research
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on Methodology. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Vol. 1 and 2. edited by. G. Jefferson.Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 191–227). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.American. Journal of Sociology, 102 1 , 161–216. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2782190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reply to wetherell. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 413–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1999b). “Schegloff’s texts” as “billig’s data”: A critical reply. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1999c). Naivety vs. sophistication or discipline vs. self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse & Society, 10(4), 577–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010004008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2011). Conversation Analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Siegel, J. A., & LaMarre, A. (2019). Navigating “publish or perish” as qualitative researchers. Nature Behavioural and Social Sciences Accessed 10 06 2022. https://socialsciences.nature.com/posts/54648-navigating-publish-or-perish-as-qualitative-researchers
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks and Conversation Analysis. PolityPress.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A. (2002a). Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, 4(4), 511–525 doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040040601.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A. (2002b). Transcending the ‘natural’/’contrived’ distinction: A rejoinder to ten have, Lynch and potter. Discourse Studies, 5(5), 543–548 doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040041001.
   Google Scholar
• Speer, S. A., & Hutchby, I. (2003). From ethics to analytics. aspects of participants’orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology, 37(2), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038503037002006
   Google Scholar
• Stokoe, E. (2014). The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions.Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• ten Have, P. (2002). Ontology or methodology? Comments on Speer’s ‘natural’ and‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse Studies, 4(4), 527–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445602004004028
   Google Scholar
• ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, A. C., Kohrt, B. A., Matthews, L. T., Betancourt, T. S., Lee, J. K., Papachristos, A. V., Weiser, S. D., & Dworkin, S. L. (2016). Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Science & Medicine, 169, 191–198 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) (2021). Open research. Available from:https://www.ukri.org/about-us/policies-standards-and-data/good-research-resource-hub/open-research/ [Accessed 15th April 2021]
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Comments on context and conversation. In N. Fairclough, G. Cortese, & P. Ardizzone (Eds.), Discourse and contemporary social change (pp. 290–295). Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, G. (2017). Visual representations of Acoustic data: A survey and suggestions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(4), 363–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1375802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and poststructuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, R. (2015). Conversation and aphasia: Advances in analysis and intervention. Aphasiology, 29(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2014.974138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, B., Dowell, J., Humphris, G., Themessl-Huber, M., Rushmer, R., Ricketts, I., Boyle, P., & Sullivan, F. (2010). Developing a longitudinal database of routinely recorded primary care consultations linked to service use and outcome data. Social Science & Medicine, 70(3), 473–478 doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hammersley, M. (2014). On the ethics of interviewing for discourse analysis. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 529–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113495039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar