Dilemma 2: how can I ensure re-users fully understand and appreciate the particular context of my study?

Most researchers agree that the context of a study is very important in qualitative research – much more so than in quantitative research. It has been asserted that qualitative data are ‘inextricably bound to the unique conditions of their production’ (Mauthner et.al. 1998). In other words, familiarity with the original context – both substantive and methodological - in which the data were generated is recognised as essential to their significance and interpretation. This indeed is one of the issues that convinces some that re-use is undesirable, since it is argued that context is not something that can be archived (Mauthner et.al. 1998).

On the other side are those, such as ESDS Qualidata, who argue that it is essential to make context not only archivable but also, where feasible, standardisable – at least in terms of searchable metadata attached to individual records. They see context as much broader than this, however; indeed, they encourage depositors to provide any and all materials relevant to their study (Bishop 2005a).

This Guide is not the place to rehearse or summarise these debates. Although this section is aimed at illustrating how dilemmas of context might be positively addressed, we do not wish to be seen as actively advocating the re-use of qualitative data in a partisan way. We accept, for example, that there the problems implicit in the idea of ‘providing’ context as if it were a static set of factors that could be straightforwardly described. In what follows we try to highlight the complexity of context, whilst at the same time trying to achieve a balance in how much information can practicably be documented for re-users given the dangers of information overload.

Next-->