In this paper, I explore two ethical questions that arise in reusing qualitative data. First, how should secondary researchers respond when they uncover research practices of primary researchers that appear to be ethical breaches? Second, does data sharing alter researchers' moral relationships with their participants? I begin by reviewing a contemporary debate in qualitative research ethics. In this debate, the general view embraces ethical frameworks that place specific situations and context at centre stage, and relegate broad ethical theories to the background. As a comparison, I present a synopsis of a very similar debate in bioethics between particularist and universalist ethical frameworks. I employ several case studies in an attempt to demonstrate the value of universalist moral frameworks for moral reasoning while still sustaining a keen awareness of and sensitivity to specifics of situation and context. My claim is that ethical debates about reusing qualitative data (and perhaps for social research more generally) can be best served by not limiting the focus of ethical concerns to particulars, situations, or even principles, but by engaging equally deeply with universalist moral theories.
ArrasJohn (2010) ‘Theory and Bioethics’, Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Palo Alto).
2.
ArrasJohn D. (2007) ‘The way we reason now: Reflective equilibrium in bioethics’, in SteinbockB. (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BeauchampT.L. and ChildressJ. E. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics5th edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BeauchampT.L. (2004) ‘Does Ethical Theory Have a Future in Bioethics?’, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32 (2) 209–17.
5.
US Department of Health and Human Services (1978) The Belmont Report: Ethical guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
6.
BishopL. (2009) ‘Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44 (3) 255–72.
7.
BornatJ. (2003) ‘A second take: Revisiting interviews with a different purpose’, Oral History, 31 (1) 47–53.
8.
BornatJ.RaghuramP., and HenryL. (2012) ‘Revisiting the Archives: A Case Study from the History of Geriatric Medicine’, Sociological Research Online, 17 (2) 11.
9.
BroomA.CheshireL., and EmmisonM. (2009) ‘Qualitative researchers understandings of their practice and the implications for data archiving and sharing’, Sociology, 43 (6).
10.
CarusiA. and JirotkaM. (2009) ‘From data archive to ethical labyrinth,’Qualitative Research, 9 (3) 285–298.
11.
ClarkAndrew (2012) ‘Visual ethics in a contemporary landscape’, in PinkSarah (ed.) Advances in Visual Methodology. London: Sage.
12.
DancyJ. (2006) Ethics Without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DenzinN. and LincolnY. (2008) The Landscape of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
15.
DonaganA. (1977) ‘Informed consent in therapy and experimentation’, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2, 307–29.
16.
DoucetA. and MauthnerN. (2012) ‘Knowing responsibly: Ethics, feminist epistemologies and methodologies’, in MillerTina (eds.) Ethics in Qualitative Research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
EdwardsR. and MauthnerM. (2012) ‘Ethics and feminist research: Theory and practice’, in MillerTina (eds.) Ethics in Qualitative Research. 2nd edn.London: Sage.
19.
EvansT. and ThaneP. (2006) ‘Secondary Analysis of Dennis Marsden Mothers Alone’, Methodological Innovations Online, 1 (2) 78–82.
GilliesV. and EdwardsR. (2012) ‘Working with archived classic family and community studies: Illuminating past and present conventions around acceptable research practice’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15 (4) 321–30.
23.
GilliganC. (1983) In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
HammersleyM. (2009) ‘Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation’, Intl Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12 (3) 211–25.
25.
HammersleyM. (2010), ‘Can We Re-Use Qualitative Data Via Secondary Analysis? Notes on Some Terminological and Substantive Issues’, Sociological Research Online, 15 (1) 5.
26.
HeldV. (2006) The Ethics of Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
HollwayW. and JeffersonT. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently. London: Sage.
28.
HomanRoger (1991) The Ethics of Social Research. London: Longman.
29.
HumphreysL (1975) Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine.
30.
JonsenA. and ToulminS. (1988) The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31.
KantI. (2012) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
KhanlouN. and PeterE. (2005) ‘Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review’, Social science & medicine, 60 (10) 2333.
33.
KimmelA. J. (1988) Ethics and Values in Applied Social Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
KitchenerK.S. and KitchenerR.F. (2009) ‘Social science research ethics: Historical and philosophical issues’, in MertensDonna M. and GinsbergPauline E. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Research Ethics. Los Angeles: Sage.
35.
KittayE. F., (2011) ‘The Ethics of Care, Dependence, and Disability,’Ratio Juris, 24 (1) 49–58. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1772422.
36.
KuulaA. (2010) ‘Methodological and ethical dilemmas of archiving qualitative data’, IQ IASSIST Quarterly34 (3 & 4) 35 (1 & 2) 12–17.
37.
MarsdenDennis (1969) Mothers alone: Poverty and the fatherless family. London: Penguin Press.
38.
MauthnerN. (2012) ‘“Accounting for our part in the tangled webs we weave”: Ethical and moral issues in data sharing’, in MillerT. (eds.) Ethics in Qualitative Research (2nd edn.). London: Sage.
39.
MilgramS. (1974) Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.
40.
MillerT. (eds.) (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research (2nd edn.) London: Sage.
41.
MooreN. (2012) ‘The politics and ethics of naming: Questioning anonymisation in (archival) research’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15 (4) 331–40.
42.
NealeB. (2013) ‘Adding time into the mix: Stakeholder ethics in qualitative longitudinal research’, Methodological Innovation Online, 8(2).
43.
NealeB. and BishopL. (2012) ‘The Timescapes archive: A stakeholder approach to archiving qualitative, longitudinal data’, Qualitative Research, 12 (1) 53–65.
44.
ParryO. and MauthnerN. (2004) ‘Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving qualitative research data’, Sociology, 38 (1) 139–52.
45.
RawlsJohn (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
RansomePaul. (2013) Ethics and Values in Social Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
47.
SavageMike (2011) ‘Reply by Mike Savage to Ray Pahl’, The Sociological Review, 59 (1) 176–81.
48.
SevenhuijsenS. (2002) ‘A third way? Moralities, ethics, and families: An approach through the ethic of care’, in CarlingADuncanS., and EdwardsR. (eds.) Analysing Families: Morality and Rationality in Policy and Practice. London: Routledge.
49.
SimonsH. and UsherR. (2000) Situated Ethics in Educational Research. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
50.
SingerPeter (1999) Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
ThomsonJ. A. K. (1955) The Ethics of Aristotle. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
52.
Van den HoonaardW. C. (ed.) (2002) Walking the Tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
53.
WilesR.CharlesV.CrowG. and HeathS. (2006) ‘Researching Researchers: Lessons for research ethics’, Qualitative Research, 6(3) 283–299.
54.
WilesR.ProsserJ.BagnoliA.ClarkA.DaviesK.HollandS, and RenoldE. (2008) ‘Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research’, NCRM Review Paper 011, Oct.
55.
WilesR. (2013) What Are Qualitative Research Ethics?London: Sage.