Premium
Qualitative data preservation and sharing in the social sciences: On whose philosophical terms?
Author(s) -
Mauthner Natasha S.,
Parry Odette
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
australian journal of social issues
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.417
H-Index - 30
eISSN - 1839-4655
pISSN - 0157-6321
DOI - 10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00147.x
Subject(s) - cognitive reframing , epistemology , sociology , qualitative research , pluralism (philosophy) , qualitative property , ambivalence , context (archaeology) , normative , unitary state , social science , computer science , political science , social psychology , psychology , law , philosophy , paleontology , machine learning , biology
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.