Questions of context and reflexivity have been central to recent debates about the archiving and re-use of qualitative data but these questions have been understood in different ways. In this paper, we suggest that our experiences of attempting to analyse, interpret, write-up and, more recently, archive the (prospective and retrospective) biographical data we have collected over the decade 1996–2006, can shed useful light on these questions. First, we consider the lack of analytical closure involved in QL research, the habit of constant re-contextualisation and the complex understandings of time we formed as a consequence, arguing that, whilst qualitative data may be historically embedded and subjective, it can never be understood as being ‘out of time’ or ‘beyond the reach’ of the same or other researchers. In the QL context, the researcher becomes a subject of the research and, as such, a form of researcher's reflexivity is required that recognises movement and contingency in all aspects of analysis, interpretation and representation. Then we outline how the understanding of time that emerged over the period of our research: - biographical, historical and research time – provided us with a useful conceptual framework for re-contextualising our study in the form of an archive.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdkinsL. (2002). Revisions: Gender and Sexuality in Late Modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
2.
BishopL. (2005). ‘Is Secondary Analysis Second Best? A case study of reusing qualitative data’. Paper given to CRESC Methods Workshop, University of Manchester, September 23.
BishopL. (2005). ‘Protecting Respondents and Enabling Data Sharing: Reply to Parry and Mauthner’, Sociology, Vol. 39 (2): pp. 333–336.
5.
BishopL. (2006). In this volume.
6.
BornatJ. (2003). ‘A Second Take: Revisiting Interviews with a Different Purpose’, Oral History, Spring, pp. 47–53.
7.
BornatJ. (2005). ‘Recycling the Evidence: Different Approaches to the Reanalysis of Gerontological data’. Forum: Qualitative Research [On-line Journal], 6)1) Art. 42. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-42-e.htm [Accessed: August 4, 2006].
8.
BornatJ. (2006). ‘Secondary Analysis of One's Own and Others' Data’. Paper given at: ‘Practice and Ethics in Qualitative Longitudinal Research’ ESRC seminar – 20 January, University of Leeds
9.
GoodwinJ.O'ConnorH. (2005). ‘Exploring complex transition: Looking back at the ‘Golden Age’ of school to work’, Sociology, 39 (2): pp. 197–200.
10.
GilliesV.EdwardsR. (2005). ‘Secondary Analysis in Exploring Family and Social Change: Addressing the Issue of Context’ [30 paragraphs], Forum: Qualitative Social Research [online journal], 6 (1), Art. 44. Available at: https://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/1-05/05-1-44-e.htm [Accessed: August 19 2006].
11.
ElliottJ.HollandJ.ThomsonR. (forthcoming 2007). ‘Qualitative and Quantitative Longitudinal Research’, in BickmanL.BrannenJ.AlasuutariP. (eds) Handbook of Social Research Methods. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage.
12.
HammersleyM. (1997). ‘Qualitative Data Archiving: Some Reflections on its Prospects and Problems’, Sociology, 31 (1): pp. 131–142.
HendersonS.McGrellisS.SharpeS. (2004). ‘Capitalising on Both Sides: Experiences in a Longitudinal Research Project’. in EdwardsR. (ed) Social Capital in the Field: Researchers Tales, Working Paper 10, Families and Social Capital ESRC Research Group, London South Bank University.
15.
HendersonS.HollandJ.McGrellisS.SharpeS.ThomsonR. (forthcoming 2006). Inventing Adulthoods. A Biographical Approach to Youth Transitions. London: Sage Publications.
KemperR.RoyceA. P. (eds) (2002). Chronicling Cultures: Long-Term Field Research in Anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira.
18.
MauthnerN.ParryO.Backett-MilburnK. (1998). ‘The Data are Out There, or Are They? Implications for Archiving and Revisiting Qualitative Data’, Sociology32 (4): pp. 733–745.
19.
McLeodJ. (2003). ‘Why We Interview Now – Reflexivity and Perspective in a Longitudinal Study,’International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6 (3): pp. 223–232
20.
MooreN. (2005). ‘(Re)using Qualitative Data?’CRESC Working Paper Series (forthcoming) Paper given to CRESC Methods Workshop, University of Manchester, September 23.
21.
Moore, (2006). Comment at QUADS workshop on context, London South Bank University, May 12.
22.
NealeB.FlowerdewJ. (2003). ‘Time, Texture and Childhood: The Contours of Longitudinal Qualitative Research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 6 (3), July-Sept, pp. 189–199.
23.
ParryO.MauthnerN. (2004). ‘Whose Data are They Anyway? Practical, Legal and Ethical Issues in Archiving Qualitative Research Data’. Sociology, 38, (1): pp. 139–152.
24.
ParryO.MauthnerN. (2005) ‘Back to Basics: Who Re-Uses Qualitative Data and Why?’. Sociology, 39 (2): pp. 337–342.
25.
PinkS. (2004). Home Truths: Gender, Domestic Objects and the Home. Oxford: Berg.
26.
SaldanaJ. (2003). Longitudinal Qualitative Research: Analyzing Change Through Time. Walnut Creek, Lanham, New York, Oxford: Altamira Press.
27.
SavageM. (2005). ‘Understanding Popular Identities in Post-War Britain: The Case of Social Class’. Paper given to CRESC Methods Workshop, University of Manchester, September 23.
28.
StanleyL. (1992). The Auto/Biographical I: Theory and Practice of Feminist Auto/Biography. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
29.
ThompsonP. (2000 December). ‘Re-Using Qualitative Research Data: A Personal Account’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal], 1 (3) Available at: https://qualitative–research.net/fqs-eng.htm [August 4, 2006].
30.
ThomsonR. (2004). ‘Tradition and innovation: Case histories of changing gender identities’, unpublished PhD thesis, London South Bank University.
31.
ThomsonR.PlumridgeL.HollandJ. (2003). (eds) International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 6 (3) Special Issue July – September.
32.
ThomsonR.HollandJ. (2003). ‘Hindsight, Foresight and Insight: The Challenges of Longitudinal Qualitative Research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, '6 (3): pp. 233–244.
33.
VickerstaffS. (2003). ‘Apprenticeship in the “golden age”: Were youth transitions really smooth and unproblematic back then?’, Work, Employment and Society, 17 (2): 269–287.
34.
WalkerR.LeiseringL. (1998). ‘New Tools: Towards a Dynamic Science of Modern Society’, in LeiseringL.WalkerR. (eds) The Dynamics of Modern Society: Poverty, Policy and Welfare. Bristol: Policy Press.