In debates about the applicability of open research to the arts, humanities and qualitative social sciences, expectations around data sharing have proved particularly contentious. Common objections are ethical (the need to protect participants’ safety and anonymity [1], questions of data ownership and extractivism [2]), epistemological (challenges emerging from the context-dependency of qualitative data [3,4]), and practical (issues of time and labour in qualitative data preparation [5]). New concerns around the (mis)appropriation and exploitation of openly available data by AI agents have also emerged relatively recently [6].
Its advocates, on the other hand, frame open qualitative data as a responsibility to both research and participant communities [7] and a key mechanism of transparency [8], amplifying participant voices and evidencing the rigour of qualitative research. Ongoing debate around these issues, coupled with a lack of awareness among many qualitative researchers of how to access guidance around data sharing, indicates the need for orienting resources aimed at qualitative research communities. It indicates, too, the need for a nuanced and flexible consideration of open data within open research advocacy and evaluation.
Responding to these challenges, work is now underway on the third component of the Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences (MORPHSS) project, Facilitating open research data in the social sciences. As part of this work package, we’re conducting a series of interviews with researchers who conduct or lead mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative) or ethnographic research. Our aim is to explore researchers’ perspectives on and experiences of sharing qualitative data within these two methodological approaches, neither of which has so far been central in considerations of qualitative data sharing.
In order to access a variety of views, we’re speaking to researchers across a range of career stages, disciplines and locations, including both those with experience of sharing qualitative data and those who have considered sharing such data but have ultimately decided against doing so, at least so far. We hope to explore mixed methods and ethnographic researchers’ thoughts on the nature of the ‘data’ or qualitative materials they collect and create and the anticipated role of such data in assessments of a work’s robustness. We aim, too, to learn more about researchers’ decision-making processes in relation to whether and how to share data, as well as the processes by which those who do so prepare their data for sharing.
These insights will be placed in the context of a broader assessment of existing work on debates around qualitative data sharing and best practice in implementing decisions around sharing or restricting data. We aim to develop and collate guidance around qualitative data sharing for researchers in the social sciences, including on situations where data sharing may not be possible or appropriate. Outputs will include a navigational tool to support researchers in their decision-making and practice around data sharing, and a report summarising our findings.
[1] Class, B. et al. (2021). ‘Towards Open Science for the Qualitative Researcher: From a Positivist to an Open Interpretation’, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211034641
[2] Majic, S. (2018). Not there for the taking: DA-RT and policy research. Qualitative & Multi-method Research, 16(2), 14–16. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3524305
[3] Feldman, S. and Shaw, L. (2019). ‘The Epistemological and Ethical Challenges of Archiving and Sharing Qualitative Data’, The American Behavioral Scientist (Beverly Hills), 63(6), 699–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218796084
[4] Mauthner, N. S. et al. (1998). ‘The Data Are out There, or Are They? Implications for Archiving and Revisiting Qualitative Data’. Sociology, 32(4), 733–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038598032004006
[5] Tsai, A.C., et al. (2016). ‘Promises and Pitfalls of Data Sharing in Qualitative Research’. Social Science & Medicine, 169, 191–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.004
[6] Field, S. M. (2025). ‘Open With Care! Consent, Context, and Co-production in Open Qualitative Research.’ Preprint. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6z9c3_v1
[7] Bishop, L. (2009). ‘Ethical Sharing and Reuse of Qualitative Data’, The Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00145.x
[8] Elman, C. and Kapiszewski, D. (2014) ‘Data Access and Research Transparency in the Qualitative Tradition,’ PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096513001777.