Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences: On whose philosophical terms?

Natasha S. Mauthner, Odette Parry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Over the past decade, an academic debate has developed surrounding qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences, and has been characterised as one between supporters and opponents of this movement. We reframe the debate by suggesting that so-called 'opponents' are not resistant to the principle of data preservation and sharing, but ambivalent about how this principle is being put into practice. Specifically, qualitative researchers are uneasy about the foundational assumptions underpinning current data preservation and sharing policies and practices. Efforts to address these concerns argue that the inclusion of the 'contexts' of data generation, preservation and reuse will adequately resolve the epistemological concerns held by the qualitative research community. However, these 'solutions' reproduce foundational assumptions by treating 'context' as ontologically separate from, rather than constitutive of, data. The future of qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences is dependent on shedding its implicit unitary foundational model of qualitative research, and embracing 'epistemic pluralism' and the diversity of philosophical perspectives representing the qualitative researcher community.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)289-305
Number of pages17
JournalAustralian Journal of Social Issues
Volume44
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

social science
qualitative research
pluralism
community
inclusion

Cite this

Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences : On whose philosophical terms? / Mauthner, Natasha S.; Parry, Odette.

In: Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2009, p. 289-305.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4b645e5601ae4c25b03ef5cf8b90616d,
title = "Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences: On whose philosophical terms?",
abstract = "Over the past decade, an academic debate has developed surrounding qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences, and has been characterised as one between supporters and opponents of this movement. We reframe the debate by suggesting that so-called 'opponents' are not resistant to the principle of data preservation and sharing, but ambivalent about how this principle is being put into practice. Specifically, qualitative researchers are uneasy about the foundational assumptions underpinning current data preservation and sharing policies and practices. Efforts to address these concerns argue that the inclusion of the 'contexts' of data generation, preservation and reuse will adequately resolve the epistemological concerns held by the qualitative research community. However, these 'solutions' reproduce foundational assumptions by treating 'context' as ontologically separate from, rather than constitutive of, data. The future of qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences is dependent on shedding its implicit unitary foundational model of qualitative research, and embracing 'epistemic pluralism' and the diversity of philosophical perspectives representing the qualitative researcher community.",
author = "Mauthner, {Natasha S.} and Odette Parry",
year = "2009",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "289--305",
journal = "Australian Journal of Social Issues",
issn = "0157-6321",
publisher = "Australian Council of Social Service",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences

T2 - On whose philosophical terms?

AU - Mauthner, Natasha S.

AU - Parry, Odette

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Over the past decade, an academic debate has developed surrounding qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences, and has been characterised as one between supporters and opponents of this movement. We reframe the debate by suggesting that so-called 'opponents' are not resistant to the principle of data preservation and sharing, but ambivalent about how this principle is being put into practice. Specifically, qualitative researchers are uneasy about the foundational assumptions underpinning current data preservation and sharing policies and practices. Efforts to address these concerns argue that the inclusion of the 'contexts' of data generation, preservation and reuse will adequately resolve the epistemological concerns held by the qualitative research community. However, these 'solutions' reproduce foundational assumptions by treating 'context' as ontologically separate from, rather than constitutive of, data. The future of qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences is dependent on shedding its implicit unitary foundational model of qualitative research, and embracing 'epistemic pluralism' and the diversity of philosophical perspectives representing the qualitative researcher community.

AB - Over the past decade, an academic debate has developed surrounding qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences, and has been characterised as one between supporters and opponents of this movement. We reframe the debate by suggesting that so-called 'opponents' are not resistant to the principle of data preservation and sharing, but ambivalent about how this principle is being put into practice. Specifically, qualitative researchers are uneasy about the foundational assumptions underpinning current data preservation and sharing policies and practices. Efforts to address these concerns argue that the inclusion of the 'contexts' of data generation, preservation and reuse will adequately resolve the epistemological concerns held by the qualitative research community. However, these 'solutions' reproduce foundational assumptions by treating 'context' as ontologically separate from, rather than constitutive of, data. The future of qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences is dependent on shedding its implicit unitary foundational model of qualitative research, and embracing 'epistemic pluralism' and the diversity of philosophical perspectives representing the qualitative researcher community.

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 289

EP - 305

JO - Australian Journal of Social Issues

JF - Australian Journal of Social Issues

SN - 0157-6321

IS - 3

ER -