![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blog.westminster.ac.uk\/researchoffice\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/35\/2021\/03\/scott-graham-5fNmWej4tAA-unsplash-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The event\u00a0Towards open research;<\/em>\u00a0challenges<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>and benefits of publishing raw qualitative data<\/em>, organised by the Health Innovation and Wellbeing research community,\u00a0in collaboration with the Health Innovation Ecosystem,\u00a0aimed to present the concept of \u2018open raw data\u2019 and its benefits, but also explore the concerns and challenges qualitative researchers are facing when publishing their qualitative data.\u00a0This event was initiated by\u00a0Dr. Anna Cheshire, Psychology Research Fellow, after she and others faced these and other challenges.<\/p>\n We heard from\u00a0Dr.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Holly Ranger,<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Research and Data Management Officer<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>at<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>UoW<\/strong>,\u00a0who explained the difference between\u00a0research data<\/u><\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0personal data<\/u><\/em>, and contextualised open access as an ethical research principle which enables equitable access, increases research integrity and reproducibility, as well as preventing the spread of false information (such as in the case of an article in Lancet claiming that\u00a0hydroxychloroquine\u00a0helps prevent and treat COVID-19). Ranger pointed out that the University\u2019s policies follow funders\u2019 requirements, which encourage researchers to make their research data \u2018as open as possible and as restricted as necessary\u2019, paying special attention to consent and anonymisation.\u00a0You can view slides from this presentation here.<\/p>\n Dr.\u00a0Dana\u00a0Rosenfeld,\u00a0Senior Research Fellow at\u00a0UoW\u2019s\u00a0Health Innovation Ecosystem<\/strong>, who specialises in medical sociology, social gerontology, and qualitative methods, identified several areas of concern related to current expectations that qualitative researchers make their data publicly available. She discussed the difficulties of anonymising data to a degree that would make it unidentifiable when presented in full, especially as many qualitative researchers study groups that are\u00a0tightly\u00a0connected and whose members might easily identify research participants when reading full interview transcripts or complete field note data. Dana also considered the utility of data collected by other people, as much of the interaction that generated the data is not documented in the final transcript or set of field notes.<\/p>\n Finally,\u00a0Dr.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Bernadette Bartlam, Honorary Senior Research Fellow at<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>Keele<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>University<\/strong>, talked about why giving access\u00a0to data\u00a0matters, as well as\u00a0the challenges and\u00a0solutions of data sharing.\u00a0Bartlam started by presenting the three main drivers for\u00a0publishing raw data: research integrity, ethical imperatives and maximum impact, reiterating some of the points mentioned by Ranger.\u00a0Research integrity<\/u>, according to\u00a0the UKRI,\u00a0is reflected in honesty, rigor, transparency, open\u00a0communication, care, respect and accountability;\u00a0ethical standards<\/u>\u00a0<\/u>in research<\/u>\u00a0are maintained through consideration of avoidance of harm, informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity; while the\u00a0maximum impact<\/u>\u00a0is reflected in research rigor and trustworthiness, extending conversations, building collaborations, building on existing\u00a0resources\u00a0and longitudinal data.\u00a0By maintaining the three drivers,\u00a0we aim to create a research culture based on openness and transparency.<\/p>\n Considering the\u00a0ways of building on and publishing raw data, Bartlam\u00a0pointed out\u00a0different challenges that researchers are\u00a0facing:\u00a0autonomy (which is seen in the empowerment\u00a0of participants, sometimes leading to\u00a0them being\u00a0co-researchers), confidentiality, anonymity, and\u00a0processes.\u00a0All of\u00a0these need to be considered to\u00a0avoid possible harm<\/u>,\u00a0which can present itself in the form of emotional distress to participants,\u00a0stunning the research with protective mechanisms, set out by both the participants and the researchers, and\u00a0by sensitive topics in general. As\u00a0a solution\u00a0to these, Bartlam suggests\u00a0considering\u00a0informed consent<\/u>\u00a0\u2013 providing information about the research,\u00a0ensuring\u00a0that participants fully understand\u00a0the information, ensuring\u00a0that participation is voluntary,\u00a0and finally, giving participants the freedom to\u00a0withdraw at any time without adverse consequences.\u00a0Furthermore, great importance should be put on\u00a0confidentiality and anonymity<\/u>:\u00a0the way information is stored and accessed,\u00a0protecting participants\u2019 identity,\u00a0and the way the information will be used.<\/p>\n We ended by highlighting\u00a0it\u00a0may not be appropriate for all types of raw qualitative data to be made\u00a0open,\u00a0but it\u00a0is important for researchers to think about\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>their\u00a0qualitative data\u00a0should\u00a0be made open\u00a0and\u00a0how<\/em>\u00a0this can be achieved whilst ensuring\u00a0depth of data,\u00a0anonymity and participant consent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The event\u00a0Towards open research;\u00a0challenges\u00a0and benefits of publishing raw qualitative data, organised by the Health Innovation and Wellbeing research community,\u00a0in collaboration with the Health Innovation Ecosystem,\u00a0aimed to present the concept of \u2018open raw data\u2019 and its benefits, but also explore the concerns and challenges qualitative researchers are facing when publishing their qualitative data.\u00a0This event was initiated … <\/p>\n