SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF

QUALITATIVE DATA: A REVIEW OF THE

LITERATURE

REF: R000222918

Janet Heaton
Research Fellow
Social Policy Research Unit
University of York

August 2000

• Heslington • York • YO10 5 DD

 SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF
QUALITATIVE DATA: A REVIEW OF THE
LITERATURE

ESRC 1752 JH 8.00

Janet Heaton
Research Fellow
Social Policy Research Unit
University of York

REF: R000222918

• Heslington • York • YO10 5 DD

 CONTENTS

Page

1. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS 1

2. FULL REPORT OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

AND RESULTS 4

Background 4
Objectives 4
Methods 5
Results 6
Activities 19
Outputs 19
Impacts 20
Future research priorities 20

3. REFERENCES 21

4. APPENDIX: ‘SECONDARY ANALYSES OF QUALITATIVE

DATA: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY’ 26

ii
 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS

Secondary analysis (SA) is a term used to describe various analytical practices which use pre-
existing data to investigate new research questions or to re-examine primary study questions
for purposes of corroboration. While the SA of quantitative data is an established and well
documented methodology, re-use of qualitative data remains under-developed.

This study had three main aims:

• to describe the nature and use of SA of qualitative data sets in the international health
and social care literature;
• to critically appraise these studies, examining the epistemological, methodological and
ethical issues arising from the use of SA in this area of research;
• to consider the overall quality and impact of the studies and implications for future
development of the methodology.

The nature and use of qualitative secondary analysis

Fifty-five studies were identified which were self-defined as SA (N=36) or which fitted the
above definition (N=19). The vast majority of studies (N=49) were published in the 1990s
and were by authors based in North America (N=47). Only seven studies originated from the
UK. A large proportion of the studies (N=48) were authored by at least one person who was
involved with the primary research from which the data were derived. Thus, researchers
were tending to re-use their own data, sometimes sharing it informally with others, rather
than drawing on independently collected and archived data sets.

Appraisal of these studies has revealed six types of SA being undertaken:

Supra analysis: transcends the focus of the primary study

from which the data were derived, examining new empirical,
theoretical or methodological questions.
Amplified analysis: combines data from two or more primary
studies for purposes of comparison or enlarging sample.
Supplementary analysis: a more in-depth investigation of an
emergent issue or aspect of the data which was not addressed in
the primary study.
Complementary analysis: the SA is supported by additional
primary research or, alternatively, a primary study which
includes an element of SA.

1
 Alternative analysis: data are re-analysed using new methods
and/or perspectives for purposes of corroboration based on the
principle of triangulation.
Repeat analysis: data are re-analysed using a similar
analytical framework in order to verify the findings of the
primary research.

Issues arising from the appraisal of studies

Qualitative SA was found to differ from its quantitative counterpart in that it places emphasis
on the re-use of data sets to investigate new research questions (rather than the re-
investigation of primary study questions for purposes of corroboration). This may reflect the
different epistemological foundations of research using qualitative and quantitative methods;
thus, the latter methods are mainly used in the more positivistic social, natural and biomedical
sciences where greater emphasis is placed on the need to corroborate findings through re-
analysis or re-studies.

The finding that qualitative SA was generally conducted by researchers who were involved in
the primary studies from which the data were derived not only further distinguishes the SA of
qualitative data from that of quantitative data but also raises issues about the relationship of
the analyst to the data. Is the analyst who has direct knowledge and/or experience of the
context of the data collection in a better position to conduct a SA? While this may be an
advantage, levels of involvement in primary research do vary. In addition, it may be possible
for secondary analysts using archived data to consult with the primary researchers.
Moreover, all analysts, whether or not they were ‘there’ at data collection, produce (primary
and secondary) analyses which are socially contingent.

Poor reporting of the conduct of the studies meant that it was not possible to assess their
overall quality. Many failed to report on key issues, including the selection of the data set(s)
and sub-sample(s), whether informed consent was sought from informants, how the ‘fit’ of
the data and the focus of the SA was ascertained, how the rigour of the analysis was
established, and the possible limitations of the methodology. Where there was evidence that
researchers had made efforts to establish the rigour of their analyses, it was not clear from the
reports how the techniques employed, most of which are used in primary research, were
transferred and applied in the context of SA. However, there was evidence of methods, such
as grounded theory, being adapted specifically for use in this context.

Only two studies reported seeking informed consent from the informants whose data was
used for the SA. As the majority of studies failed to discuss the topic, it is not clear if consent
2
was simply presumed or if it was sought but not reported. This finding raises the issue of
whether informed consent should be obtained in all secondary analyses and, if so, how. A
related concern is whether the sharing of data violates prior agreements concerning the
confidentiality of the information. The evidence from this review suggests that it may be
inappropriate to generalise about the need to obtain informed consent for secondary analyses,
as this is likely to vary according to the characteristics of the secondary study.

Implications for future development of the methodology

The following implications for the future development of the methodology were identified:
• There is a need to better define the use of SA in reports and in electronic databases.
• There is a need more fully to document the ways in which SA was accomplished in
reports of secondary studies.
• The possibility of qualitative researchers extending their primary work through the SA
of auto-data or through informal data sharing should be acknowledged and facilitated.
• Social science professional guidelines on the procurement of informed consent and
preservation of confidentiality need to be revised so that they consider these issues
more specifically in the context of secondary research.
• Further research is required:
- on the use of SA of qualitative data in other subject areas;
- on researchers’ attitudes toward the use of archived qualitative data;
- to establish what constitutes a worthy qualitative data set for archiving and re-use;
- on ‘how to do’ SA of qualitative data;
- on the public understanding of social science research and, in particular, lay views
on the re-use of data. This includes the circumstances in which informed
consent should be sought for secondary research, as well as the meaning of
confidentiality and appropriateness of related techniques for anonymising
data.

3
 FULL REPORT OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
AND RESULTS

BACKGROUND
Secondary analysis (SA) is a term used to describe various analytical practices which make
use of pre-existing data either to investigate new research questions or to re-examine primary
study questions for purposes of corroboration.(1-13) Data used in this context are thereby
transformed into ‘secondary data’. This data, which can be quantitative or qualitative or a
mixture of the two, may have been collected in the context of a research study (hereafter
referred to as ‘data sets’) or for other purposes (referred to as ‘naturalistic’ data, such as
diaries and administrative records). Although meta-analysis and literature reviews involve
the use of raw and/or published data from existing studies, these methodologies can be
distinguished from SA in that they are concerned with synthesising research findings, rather
than examining new research questions or verifying results from individual studies.(4, 12)

This study is concerned with the SA of qualitative data sets. Unlike the SA of quantitative
data, which is an established and well documented methodology,(1, 3, 6, 7) the re-use of
qualitative data sets remains under-developed. Although the potential for re-using this type
of data was recognised as long ago as 1962,(14) SA has been mainly confined to statistical
data from large scale social surveys and other sources. However, recent developments in the
UK have both galvanised interest in the SA of qualitative data sets and made the
methodology a more realistic proposition. In particular, the establishment of Qualidata by the
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in 1994 and the adoption of policies
promoting qualitative data archiving and re-use by the ESRC and other research funding
organisations has created the conditions of possibility for increased sharing of qualitative
data. There is therefore a need to examine existing efforts to pioneer the SA of qualitative
data sets and to consider how the methodology might best be developed in the future. This
review builds on the emerging literature on this topic, which has begun to outline the
rudiments of the methodology and its potential uses,(10-12) as well as the different forms it can
take.(4, 5)

OBJECTIVES
The review had three main objectives:
• to describe the nature and use of SA of qualitative data sets in the international health
and social care literature;
• to critically appraise these studies, in particular examining the epistemological,
methodological and ethical issues arising from the use of SA in this area of research;

4
• to consider the overall quality and impact of the studies and the implications for future
development of the methodology.

The focus on the international health and social care literature was chosen for two main
reasons. First, it was already known that this was an area where SA of qualitative data had
been developed.(4) Secondly, the range of methods utilised, and the sensitive nature of some
of the topics covered in this area, made it ideal for exploring the theoretical, technical and
ethical issues arising from the re-use of qualitative data sets. All the objectives were
addressed, although the poor reporting of the methods used in the studies limited the
assessment of the quality of this work and related issues, such as the possible influence of
newly developed computer software for analysing qualitative data. The recency of many of
the studies also restricted the extent to which their impact could be considered.

METHODS
A number of resources were searched (electronically and manually) to identify secondary
analyses of qualitative data: electronic databases (including BIDS Social Science Citation
Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, and Sociological Abstracts); e-journals; electronic
search engines; publishers’ electronic bibliographies; key journals; study references; and key
author citations. Appeals for information were also issued via the British Sociological
Association Network magazine, conference flyers, electronic discussion lists (QUALRS-L
and ARCHIVE-QUALITATIVE-DATA), and personal contacts.

As the electronic databases did not keyword ‘secondary analysis of qualitative data’ a number
of synonymous terms, such as ‘secondary interview data’ and ‘secondary-analysis with
qualitative-studies’, were derived from the studies initially identified. These were used
systematically to search study titles and abstracts for examples of relevant studies. Abstracts
identified by these means were read and the studies obtained if they:
• employed SA of qualitative data sets (as defined above, p.3);
• were in the area of health and social care;
• were published in English.

Once obtained, the studies were checked for relevance and appraised. In some cases authors
were approached to clarify whether or not they defined the study as an example of SA.
Details of each of the studies were entered into a spreadsheet (QuattroPro). An annotated
bibliography was also compiled using a reference management software package (EndNote)
(see appendix).

5
While the review was wide-ranging, it cannot claim to be exhaustive, mainly because of
problems with the definition of SA. As we will see, the review includes several studies
which, although not self-defined as SA, nevertheless exemplify characteristics of the
methodology. This finding confirms Thorne’s(12) observation that secondary analyses are not
always readily defined as such.

RESULTS
The results of the review are presented under three main headings corresponding to the
objectives of the study.

Extent and nature of use of secondary analysis

A total of 55 studies which were self-defined as SA (N=36) or which fitted the definition
(N=19) were identified by the review. Other terms authors employed to describe the latter
studies included: ‘post hoc analysis’, ‘reanalysis’ and ‘retrospective latent content analysis’.
The vast majority of studies (N=49) were published in the 1990s and were by authors based
in North America (N=47). Only seven studies originated from the UK. While allowing that
these findings may reflect the geographical coverage of some of the resources searched and
the limitations of the search strategies adopted (which excluded studies not published in
English), they nevertheless suggest that the methodology is more developed in North
America than elsewhere.

Studies were classified into one of three groups depending on the relationship of the author(s)
to the data. The largest group of studies (N=32) were by ‘non-independent’ authors -
analysts who had been involved in the primary research and were therefore re-using their own
previously collected data (hereafter referred to as ‘auto-data’). In the second group of 16
‘semi-independent’ studies one or more - but not all - of the authors had been involved in the
primary study. Thus, 48 out of the 55 studies were authored by at least one person who was
involved with the primary research. Of the remaining studies, six were classified as
‘independent’ secondary analyses as the author(s) had not been involved with the primary
research, and one study used both auto - and independent data sets.

The majority of studies (N=40) were secondary analyses of a single data set. Twelve studies
drew on two data sets and three utilised more than two data sets in total. While secondary
face-to-face interview data were utilised in 46 studies, qualitative data derived from
observational work, focus groups, surveys, telephone interviews, vignettes, documents,
autobiographies and published ethnographies were also drawn upon. In half the secondary
analyses a subset of the data from the primary study was selected for re-use; the other half

6
utilised the full data set. A small number of studies (N=5) also involved the collection of
additional primary or secondary (naturalistic) data.

7
Previous overviews of the methodology have drawn attention to various possible types of SA
of qualitative data.(4, 5, 11) Building on this work, the studies identified in this first extensive
empirical review of secondary analyses were examined for variations in their approach. The
studies were found to vary on five main dimensions:
• function - whether or not the SA was designed to investigate new research questions or
to re-investigate a primary study question for purposes of corroboration;
• focus - how the question(s) addressed by studies investigating new research questions
differed from those addressed in the primary research;
• source(s) of data - whether one or more secondary data sets were used and whether any
primary research was also conducted alongside the SA;
• methods/perspectives - whether these were similar to or different from the approach
employed in the primary research;
• origins of secondary data - the extent to which studies relied on auto-data and/or data
from other sources.

Based on this information, six varieties of SA were discerned: supra analysis, amplified
analysis, supplementary analysis, complementary analysis, alternative analysis and repeat
analysis. While some of these types of SA are similar to those previously identified, others
are new. Hence, this typology refines and extends previous models of classification,
providing knowledge of the range of approaches to the SA of qualitative data in the area of
health and social care research.

Following an adumbration of the typology in Table 1, each of the types are fully described
below together with some illustrative examples of relevant studies.

Table 1: Typology of secondary analysis of qualitative data

Supra analysis Transcends the focus of the primary study from which the data were
derived, examining new empirical, theoretical or methodological
questions.

Amplified analysis Combines data from two or more studies for purposes of comparison or
enlarging sample.

Supplementary analysis A more in-depth investigation of an emergent issue or aspect of the data
which was not addressed in the primary study.

Complementary The SA is supported by additional primary research; or a primary study

analysis which includes an element of SA.

Alternative analysis Data is re-analysed using new methods and/or perspectives for purposes
of corroboration based on the principle of triangulation.

8
Repeat analysis Data is re-analysed using a similar analytical framework in order to
check the findings of the primary research.

9
It is important to note that these are ideal types and hence individual studies may not always
exhibit all the characteristics of a given type and, indeed, may share attributes of different
types. Accordingly, studies have been classified as exemplifying a particular type (or types)
of SA on the basis of their principal characteristics. A summary of the number and key
characteristics of the different varieties of SA are set out in tabular form in Table 2 at the end
of this section.

Supra analysis
‘Supra analyses’ transcend or go beyond the terms of the primary or ‘parent’ study from
which the data were derived. Such studies involve the investigation of new empirical,
theoretical or methodological questions. An equivalent approach was previously highlighted
(but unnamed) by Heaton(4) and shares some characteristics with a variety of SA called
‘armchair induction’ identified by Thorne,(11) although supra analysis may be conducted by
the same researchers who carried out the primary research and is not necessarily restricted to
theoreticians.

Eight out of the 55 studies developed analyses which transcended the terms of the primary
work, focussing on new aspects of the data and often employing a new theoretical
perspective.(15-22) Although not self-defined as SA, a study by Bloor and McIntosh(15)
usefully exemplifies the characteristics of supra analysis (as well as amplified analysis - see
below). They analysed data from two separate studies of health visiting and therapeutic
communities. The focus of their analysis was clearly not planned at the outset of the study:
‘Of course, the health visiting and therapeutic communities studies were not
undertaken in order to compare professional-client relationships in different types
of service-provision, nor were they undertaken to elaborate a Foucauldian
approach to client resistance. The possibility of writing this chapter only occurred
to us post hoc, when we realised that we both had data bearing upon issues of
power and contest which showed both similarities and dissimilarities in
techniques of client resistance.’ (p.161).

In focussing on forms of surveillance in professional-client relationships and associated

strategies of resistance, the authors go beyond the terms of the original studies and develop a
new, free-standing analysis consistent with supra analysis as it is defined here.

Amplified analysis
This approach draws on two or more existing research data sets in order to examine common
and/or divergent themes across them. It can involve the comparison of different study
populations or the pooling of data on a similar population. This definition incorporates
variations of this approach previously described as ‘amplified sampling’,(11) ‘aggregated

10
analysis’,(23) and ‘pooled case comparison’,(24) which all involve the SA of multiple pre-
existing data sets.
Amplified analysis was the second most common type of SA identified by the review.
Seventeen examples were found.(15, 16, 25-39) Of these, 12 made use of two data sets. All the
amplified analyses were by authors who had been involved with the primary studies, although
additional independent researchers also collaborated with some of these secondary analyses.

Two main groups of amplified analysis were discerned. In the first, researchers who
separately conducted independent primary studies later performed a SA of the data sets to
further explore common issues across the study populations. For example, Yamashito and
Forsyth(39) learned, through meeting at a conference, that they had each conducted studies of
families’ reactions to a relatives’ mental illness in Canada and the USA respectively. This
meeting led to a SA in which they draw on ‘aggregated analysis’(23) to examine similarities
and differences in the two data sets.
In the other group of amplified analyses, researchers made use of two or more data sets from
their own oeuvre. This approach is illustrated by a series of studies by Sally Thorne and
Carole Robinson. They combined the data from their MA projects and published two
secondary studies on health care relationships.(33, 38) Building on this work, they
subsequently obtained funding to do a primary study in 1989.(40) Individually the authors
then produced four secondary analyses of these data sets (co-classified here as examples of
amplified/supplementary analyses). Thus, Thorne used the data to examine mothers’
experiences of chronic illness and the meaning of non-compliance for those with chronic
illness, as well as completing a doctoral thesis involving the analysis of secondary and
primary sources.(35-37) Robinson later drew on part of the same material to examine the
normalisation of life by chronically ill members and their families.(32) Although this last
study is not self-defined as SA, it is set in the context of the aforementioned work and the
theme it explores was analysed separately and retrospectively. These examples of the re-
analysis of data from one’s own oeuvre reflect an incremental approach to research whereby
individual studies evolve progressively, rather than forming a disconnected series of works.

Supplementary analysis
‘Supplementary analysis’ involves a more in-depth focus on an emergent issue or aspect of
the data which was not addressed (or was only partially addressed) by the primary analysis.
Thus, the focus of the SA may shift to a particular theme, or to issues pertaining to a sub-
sample of the primary study population. Supplementary analysis is in these respects related
to Thorne’s ‘retrospective interpretation’ and ‘analytic expansion’ categories (the former
referring specifically to researchers’ re-use of their own data).(12) Other examples of this
variety of SA have been previously described by Heaton(4) and Hinds et al.(5)

11
As the foci of supplementary analyses are compatible with that of the primary study, the two
may be difficult to separate, particularly as researchers are increasingly selectively reporting
the results of primary research in multiple publications rather than in a single, overarching
publication. However, while selective reporting may focus on a particular aspect of the
primary study, it is still produced in the context of the ongoing primary research. By
contrast, supplementary analysis exceeds the analytical remit of the primary study, examining
in more depth a theme or sub set of the data which has emerged as a post hoc matter of
interest and subsequent focus of inquiry.

This approach was found to be by far the most common form of SA of qualitative data,
exemplified by 36 of the 55 studies identified.(29, 32, 33, 35-37, 41-70) In the majority of the
supplementary analyses (N=22) a subset of the data from the primary study was examined.
For example, in one of two secondary analyses of data from their primary study of women
cocaine users, Kearney et al. focussed in more depth on the mothers in this sample.(69) The
remainder of the supplementary analyses (N=14) involved the re-examination of an entire
data set. For instance, following on from one of the authors’ exploratory, descriptive study of
pain management at home by cancer patients, Vallerand and Ferrell’s secondary study on the
concept of control involved the use of the full data set.(68)

Complementary analysis
This form of SA is combined with primary data collection and analysis. Such a study may
rely mainly on secondary data, with primary research conducted in support of the former.
Equivalent examples of this approach were first identified by Hinds et al.(5) Alternatively, the
analysis of secondary data may form a relatively minor part of a primary study. This use of
SA has been defined as ‘cross-validation’ by Thorne.(11) Complementary analysis can
therefore be used to provide additional comparative or collateral evidence using different
sources of data, or to verify the results of the main analysis.

Four out of the five examples of complementary analyses identified were basically secondary
studies which involved some additional primary data collection and analysis.(37, 44, 48, 49) Two
of these studies - neither self-defined as secondary analyses - were by Hutchinson and made
use of data from a study of unprofessional behaviour among hospital-based nurses.(48, 49) In
the first ‘descriptive’ study, the complementary/supplementary analysis focussed on nurses’
self-care strategies. A sub-set of the data was re-used and an additional 20 interviews were
conducted with nurses to augment the data set and to check initial observations. In the
second ‘grounded theory’ study, the complementary/supplementary analysis focussed on how

12
nurses bend the rules for the sake of the patient. Again a sub-set of the data was re-used and
an additional 21 interviews were conducted in order to ‘verify’ the initial observations.

13
Only one example of a primary study incorporating analysis of secondary data sources was
found. Sandelowski and Jones undertook a primary study of couples’ experiences of pre-
natal diagnosis and, in particular, their responses to the acquisition of foreknowledge of fetal
impairment.(71) Additional information from research on parenting medically fragile infants
by another investigative team was also used ‘for purposes of further comparison and
validation’ (p.85).

Alternative analysis
Unlike the preceding four types of SA which are all concerned with the investigation of new
research questions, ‘alternative analysis’ maintains a focus on the question(s) posed in the
primary study but re-investigates these using new methods and/or analytical frameworks.
This approach may therefore produce alternative findings or theoretical insights, or it may
confirm and validate the original findings through triangulation. Alternative analysis has not
been previously identified in overviews of the SA of qualitative data.

Only one example of this form of SA was found.(72) Re-using data from research on
overeating among women who weight-cycle, the study aimed:
‘to analyse further subjects’ interview responses to ensure that no important
information was omitted in the primary analysis, which used a reversal theory
coding system only. The secondary analysis provided a validity check for the
primary coding results and an accuracy check for complete interpretation. Using
methodological triangulation... two methods of viewing the same empirical
content, two coders performed a content analysis of the interview data with no
consideration for reversal theory’ (p.71).

Thus, in this case, the aims of the primary and secondary study were compatible, but the
methods of analysis were different.

Repeat analysis
Like alternative analysis, ‘repeat analysis’ maintains a focus on the primary study question(s)
but instead uses a similar analytical approach with the intention of corroborating the findings
of the original research. Repeat analysis may in principle be conducted either by independent
analysts or by the original researchers in order to verify their findings. This approach
epitomises the spirit of open scientific enquiry which has underpinned the development of the
data sharing movement in the USA.(73, 74)

While this type of SA is generally recognised in theory, no examples of it being applied in

practice to qualitative data were identified by this review. However, an example of a repeat
analysis of this type of data from another area is Lewis’s(75) re-analysis and re-study of
Redfield’s(76) research on life in a Mexican village.
14
 Table 2: Principal characteristics of types of secondary analysis

TYPE & No.* FUNCTION FOCUS SOURCE(S) OF DATA METHODS/ ORIGINS OF

PERSPECTIVES SECONDARY DATA

SUPRA To investigate a new Transcends primary Secondary data set(s) or Discontinuous or Independent data or
ANALYSIS (N=8) research question study (PS) mixed secondary and continuous with PS auto-data
primary data

AMPLIFIED To investigate a new Transcends PS or in- Multiple secondary data sets Continuous or Independent data and/or
ANALYSIS (N=17) research question depth analysis of an discontinuous with PS auto-data
aspect of the PSs

SUPPLEMENTAR To investigate a new In-depth analysis of Secondary data set(s) or Continuous or Auto-data or
Y ANALYSIS research question an aspect of the PS mixed secondary and discontinuous with PS independent data
(N=36) primary data

COMPLEMENTAR To investigate a new In-depth analysis of Mixed secondary and Continuous or Independent or auto-
Y ANALYSIS research question or an aspect of the PS primary data sets discontinuous with PS data
(N=5) validate an ongoing or transcends PS
primary study (PS)

ALTERNATIVE To re-investigate (PS) Same focus Secondary data set Discontinuous with Independent or auto-
ANALYSIS (N=1) question PS data

REPEAT To re-investigate PS Same focus Secondary data set; may be part Continuous with PS Independent or auto-data
ANALYSIS (N=0) question of a wider primary re-study

*The numbers add up to more than 55 because some studies shared the principal characteristics of more than one type.

15
16
Issues arising from the appraisal of studies
Various epistemological, methodological and ethical issues were raised by the critical
appraisal of the studies. These will be discussed under separate headings, although some
issues are clearly inter-related.

Epistemological issues
To date, the concept of SA has mainly been defined in relation to the re-use of quantitative
data. Most commentators agree that it involves the use of pre-existing data either to
investigate new research questions or to re-investigate primary study questions using new
methods or alternative perspectives. However, as we have seen, the secondary analyses
identified by this review have generally been concerned with the former. This may reflect the
different epistemological foundations of research using qualitative and quantitative-based
methods; thus, the latter methods are mainly used in the more positivistic social, natural and
biomedical sciences where greater emphasis is placed on the need to corroborate findings or
replicate studies.

SA is also generally associated with the use of statistical data sets which were originally
collected by others(1, 3, 7, 9) although, as Hyman(6) observes, in the USA researchers did re-use
their own survey data before data archives were established. While no one since Hyman has
considered this possibility in relation to quantitative data, in the emerging literature on the
SA of qualitative data it has been recognised that the methodology can in principle involve
auto-data as well as independently collected data sets.(4, 10-12)

As we have seen, auto-data was used in 48 of the 55 studies identified by the review. In re-
using their own data, researchers potentially overcome one of the main objections to the SA
of qualitative data - the problem of interpreting data originally collected by others.(4,5) While
familiarity with the context of data collection is an advantage, levels of familiarity can vary.
For example, the data may have been collected by a team of researchers with split
responsibilities for the study design, data collection, processing and analysis.(4) Similarly, in
the case of amplified analysis, where two or more data sets from independent secondary
sources are combined and jointly analysed, each researcher concerned will have only partial
knowledge of these data. Secondary analyses may also be co-conducted with researchers
who were not involved in the primary study. In addition, as Mauthner et al. have pointed out,
researchers’ ability to interpret their own data may also decline over time as memories wane;
changes in researchers’ personal situation and new knowledge that they have gained since the
primary study may also influence their re-interpretation of the data.(77)

17
Only seven studies were found to use independent data sources. Of these, just three used
archived material (and two of these used the same data set). Thus, Paget(57) used archived
data from Waitzen’s(78) research and Weaver(21) developed a ‘secondary ethnographic data
analysis’ of Roth’s data derived from his study of tuberculosis sanitoriums.(79) The latter data
set was also used by Weaver and Atkinson to illustrate a book on the use of computer
software to assist qualitative data analysis.(22) Of the remaining studies, one was of
naturalistic data in the form of lay autobiographies.(34) In another case, the author was
‘invited’ by the primary researchers to conduct the SA.(42) And in yet another case the data
appeared to be obtained informally from another research team.(71) Finally, one SA(20) drew
on a published analysis by Zussman,(80) as opposed to the raw data itself.

There are several possible reasons why archived data has not thus far been utilised to a
greater extent. Archives for qualitative data have not been established as long as those for
quantitative data and the availability of data sets, although increasing, is relatively limited at
present. In addition, there may be advantages to sharing data on a more informal basis, as in
some of the amplified analyses identified, whereby the SA is performed by a team of
researchers who can pool their respective knowledge of the primary studies from which the
data were derived. The data concerned are also more easily shared on this basis, as compared
with the relatively restricted access to data deposited in data archives and the associated costs
involved.(81) Unlike quantitative data which tends to be shared electronically and in
processed form, qualitative data sets comprised of tapes and transcripts are often available for
consultation in the archives only, hence it is less convenient to access this material and
develop computer-assisted analyses. Finally, while the development of archives has begun to
provide material for researchers to re-use, nevertheless, the methodology of SA of qualitative
data has remained largely under-theorised, and hence researchers have lacked understanding
of appropriate conceptual and methodological tools.

Methodological issues
In general, the appraisal of the conduct and therefore the quality of the studies was hampered
by a lack of reporting on how these were actually accomplished. One of the best documented
secondary analyses was by Szabo and Strang.(65) Their report provides information on: the
respective funding of the primary and secondary work; the relationship of each of the authors
to the data; how informed consent and ethical approval for the SA was obtained; the
composition of the data set; the use of grounded theory in the analysis; how the SA was
performed; how the data were managed; and how the rigour of the analysis was established.
However, many studies failed to report on key issues pertaining to the conduct of SA,
including the selection of the data set(s) and sub-sample(s), how the ‘fit’ of the data and the

18
focus of the SA was ascertained, how the rigour of the analysis was established, and the
possible limitations of the methodology.
In some studies, there was evidence that researchers had made efforts to establish the rigour
of their analyses. The techniques employed included the establishment of audit trails,
validation of findings using members of the study population, triangulation of data sources,
consultation with the primary investigator(s), and independent coding of data. However, it
was not clear from the reports how these techniques, most of which are used in primary
research, were successfully transferred and applied in the context of SA.

Various methods, including grounded theory, narrative and content analysis, were applied in
the studies. Grounded theory was the most popular approach, used in some form or other by
several studies. In certain cases, this approach had been adapted specifically for use in the
context of SA. Thus, one aspect of grounded theory - theoretical sampling - whereby the
study sample and/or research topics are revised in order to purposively address emergent
themes from the initial analysis, was deemed not possible because of the post hoc nature of
the secondary studies. Hence, an alternative approach was developed, whereby theoretical
sampling was applied within the available sample in order to compare and contrast the
experiences of a given population.(56, 65, 69, 70) In addition, some complementary analyses
effectively overcame the limitations of working with pre-existing data by conducting
additional primary research to purposively address questions related to the focus of the SA.(48,
49)

Ethical issues
Only two studies reported seeking informed consent from the informants whose data was
used for the SA. In one case this was obtained retrospectively(42) and in the other
prospectively.(65) As the vast majority of studies failed to discuss the topic, it is not clear if
consent was simply presumed or if it was sought but not reported. This finding raises the
issue of whether informed consent should be obtained in all secondary analyses and, if so,
how. A related concern is whether the sharing of data violates prior agreements concerning
the confidentiality of the information. Existing professional codes of practice in the social
sciences vary in the attention given to these issues in the context of SA.(82-88) While they
generally endorse data sharing in appropriate forms and stress the importance of obtaining
informed consent, at the same time, it is recognised that there are some situations, such as
covert research, where this requirement is waived. Researchers are, however, required to
consider possible harm to subjects and, according to the American Sociological Association
(ASA),(82) to seek approval of institutional review boards (ethical committees) or relevant
experts.

19
 The evidence from this review suggests that it may be inappropriate to generalise about the
need to obtain informed consent for secondary analyses, as this is likely to vary according to
the characteristics of the study. For example, in the case of supplementary analyses by a lone
researcher using auto-data, the purpose of this secondary study may be sufficiently related to
the primary study to be covered by the terms under which consent was originally obtained;
furthermore, in re-using her own data, the researcher is not breaking confidentiality.
Conversely, it is doubtful whether consent could be presumed in the case of supra analysis
using archived data.

Where informed consent for SA is considered necessary, obtaining this retrospectively may
not be feasible. Research participants’ names may be unavailable because of confidentiality
agreements in the primary study; in addition, subjects may have moved or died since they
were involved in the primary research. Alternatively, consent may be obtained prospectively
by primary researchers who prepare subjects for the possibility that the data may be stored in
archives and/or re-used for other purposes. While this is the more practical option, there are
two main problems with it. The first is anticipating and explaining to informants exactly how
the data may be used in the future. Secondly, even where conditions are imposed on access
to and use of data by others, control over usage of the information cannot be fully guaranteed.

Implications for the development of the methodology

Based on the findings of this review, the following nine key implications for the future
development of the methodology have been identified. These concern the conceptualisation
of SA (i), the reporting of SA (ii), the promotion of SA (iii-iv), and areas where further
research is required (v-ix).

i) There is a need to better define the use of SA in reports and in electronic databases.
This review has confirmed Thorne’s observation that secondary analyses are not always
clearly defined as such.(12) The future classification and sub-classification of studies may be
helped by this review which has shown how the methodology differs from primary analysis
(in the form of selective reporting of research results), literature reviews and meta-analysis, as
well as distinguishing six types of SA of qualitative data.

ii) There is a need more fully to document the ways in which SA was accomplished in
reports of secondary studies.
This includes the basic accounting of how data set(s) and any sub-sample(s) were selected,
whether or not consent was sought and obtained, how the fit of the secondary research
question and the data were ascertained, how the rigour of the analysis was established, and

20
 the limitations of the methodology. Reviewers and journal editors need to encourage authors
to more fully report on the conduct of secondary qualitative studies.

iii) The possibility of qualitative researchers’ extending their primary work through the SA
of auto-data or through informal data sharing should be acknowledged and facilitated.
The main advantages of re-using these sources of data are convenience, researchers’
familiarity with the context of the data collection, and that researchers maintain ownership
and control of the data.

iv) Social science professional guidelines on the procurement of informed consent and
preservation of confidentiality need to be revised so that they consider these issues
more specifically in the context of secondary research.
The guidelines of the ASA are presently the most comprehensive in this respect.(82) In the
UK, Qualidata, in conjunction with the ESRC, have also produced draft guidelines on the
issues of confidentiality and copyright with respect to the collection of data and its possible
re-use.(85-88) These may form a useful basis for updating relevant professional guidelines.

v) Further research is required on the use of SA of qualitative data in other subject areas.
This review has focussed solely on the international health and social care literature. Other
areas of research, such as education and crime, may provide evidence which will modify
and/or clarify some of the conclusions arrived at in this study. Such reviews might also
usefully consider the impact and utility of the methodology in social research, as it is
developed over time and applied more extensively.

vi) Further research is required on researchers’ attitudes toward the use of archived
qualitative data.
The lack of utilisation of this source of data raises issues about whether this is due to the
availability and adequacy of current stock, practical difficulties in accessing and analysing the
material, or principled resistance to the formal sharing of qualitative data.

vii) Further research is required to establish what constitutes a worthy qualitative data set
for archiving and re-use.
This may be informed by related ongoing work to develop criteria for assessing the quality of
qualitative research (led by Professor J Popay and funded by the Health Technology
Assessment programme).

viii) Further research is required on ‘how to do’ SA of qualitative data.

21
 Future consideration of the methodology could usefully examine the respective use of auto -
and independent data sets (from formal and informal sources), as well as the different
approaches to SA outlined in this review. It could also consider techniques for establishing
rigour, and the use of methods such as grounded theory in the context of SA.

ix) Finally, there is a need for future research on the public understanding of social
science research and, in particular, lay views on the re-use of data. This includes the
circumstances in which informed consent should be sought for secondary research, as
well as the meaning of confidentiality and appropriateness of related techniques for
anonymising data.
Such research could usefully explore the claims of Qualidata(89) that:
‘..most people do believe that research is for the public good and that their
contribution will be used in some way to create a better informed society, and
even go some way towards implementing policy changes’ (p.22).

In summary, this review has found that the SA of qualitative data has not yet been developed
extensively but that different approaches have been pioneered which have potential for the
conduct of original research using pre-existing data. In clarifying the conceptualisation of SA
in relation to qualitative data and in highlighting areas for future research, it is hoped that this
review will be instrumental in the future realisation of the potential of the methodology.

ACTIVITIES
The following activities have been undertaken or are arranged:
• ‘Secondary analysis of qualitative data.’ Poster presentation at the Social Policy
Association conference: Futures of Social Policy and Practice? University of Surrey at
Roehampton, 18-20 July, 2000.
• ‘Secondary analysis of qualitative data.’ Poster presentation at the BSA Medical
Sociology and European Society of Health and Medical Sociology joint conference:
Health in Transition: European Perspectives. University of York, 14-17 September
2000.
• ‘The possibility of secondary analysis’ Invited seminar presentation at the
Epidemiology Department and Leicestershire Health Authority, University of Leicester.
November 2000.
• Member of the Qualitative Methods Network, co-ordinated by Professor Jennie Popay,
with proposed links to the Cochrane Methods Group and Campbell Collaboration.

OUTPUTS
• ‘Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An annotated bibliography’. See Appendix.
This will be made available on the web.
22
• Contracted to publish a book based on the review with Sage (due December 2001).

IMPACTS
Appeals for information on the Internet for references to secondary studies also generated
responses from researchers interested in the project, including researchers, students and
archivists in the UK and abroad. Some studies which had not been self-defined as ‘secondary
analyses’ in the publication were referred to me by the authors as possible examples. Other
researchers whom I have contacted about their work have re-considered whether or not their
work is best defined as ‘secondary analysis’. These initial responses suggest that the work,
particularly when published in book form, will hopefully impact on how people conceptualise
and define such studies in the future.

My involvement in the Qualitative Methods Network is primarily because of the implications

of this work for: distinguishing secondary analysis from related methodologies and meta-
analysis in particular; reporting the methods adopted in this form of qualitative research; and
for developing methods for assessing the quality of qualitative work. While the Network is
still in the process of defining its remit and links with other groups, it is likely that this will
have a major international impact on the use of qualitative methods.

FUTURE RESEARCH PRIORITIES

See Results, points 5-9 (p.24-25).

23
REFERENCES

1. Dale, A., Arber, S. and Proctor, M. (1988) Doing Secondary Analysis, London: Unwin
Hyman.

2. Glass, G.V. (1976) ‘Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research’. Educational

Researcher, 5(11): 3-8.

3. Hakim, C. (1982) Secondary Analysis in Social Research: A Guide to Data Sources and
Methods with Examples, London: George Allen Unwin.

4. Heaton, J. (1998) ‘Secondary analysis of qualitative data’. Social Research Update,(22).

5. Hinds, P.S., Vogel, R.J. and Clarke-Steffen, L. (1997) ‘The possibilities and pitfalls of
doing a secondary analysis of a qualitative data set’. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3): 408-
424.

6. Hyman, H.H. (1972) Secondary Analysis of Sample Surveys: Principles, Procedures, and
Potentialities, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

7. Kiecolt, K.J. and Nathan, L.E. (1985) Secondary Analysis of Survey Data, London: Sage.

8. McArt, E.W. and McDougal, L.W. (1985) ‘Secondary data analysis - a new approach to
nursing research’. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, XVII(2): 54-57.

9. Miller, J.D. (1982) ‘Secondary analysis and science education research’. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 19(9): 719-725.

10. Szabo, V. and Strang, V.R. (1997) ‘Secondary analysis of qualitative data’. Advances in
Nursing Science, 20(2): 66-74.

11. Thorne, S. (1994) ‘Secondary analysis in qualitative research: issues and implications’.
In J. M. Morse (ed.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, London: Sage.

12. Thorne, S.E. (1998) ‘Ethical and representational issues in qualitative secondary
analysis’. Qualitative Health Research, 8(4): 547-555.

13. Woods, N.F. (1988) ‘Using existing data sources: primary and secondary analysis’. In
N.F. Woods and M. Catanzaro (eds) Nursing Research: Theory and Practice, St. Louis: The
C.V. Mosby Company.

14. Glaser, B.G. (1962) ‘Secondary analysis: a strategy for the use of knowledge from
research elsewhere’. Social Problems, 10(1): 70-74.

15. Bloor, M. and McIntosh, J. (1990) ‘Surveillance and concealment: a comparison of

techniques of client resistance in therapeutic communities and health visiting’. In S.
Cunningham-Burley and N.P. McKeganey (eds) Readings in Medical Sociology, London:
Tavistock/ Routledge.

24
16. Fendrich, M., Wislar, J.S., Mackesy-Amiti, M.E. and Goldstein, P. (1996)
‘Mechanisms of noncompletion in ethnographic research on drugs: results from a secondary
analysis’. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(1): 23-44.

17. Heaton, J. ‘Hospital discharge and the temporal regulation of bodies’. Time & Society.

18. Jairath, N. (1999) ‘Myocardial infarction patients’ use of metaphors to share meaning
and communicate underlying frames of experience’. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(2):
283-289.

19. Jenny, J. and Logan, J. (1996) ‘Caring and comfort metaphors used by patients in
critical care’. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 28(4): 349-352.

20. Pascalev, A. (1996) ‘Images of death and dying in the intensive care unit’. Journal of
Medical Humanities, 17(4): 219-236.

21. Weaver, A. (1994) ‘Deconstructing dirt and disease: the case of TB’. In M. Bloor and P.
Taraborrell (eds) Qualitative Studies in Health and Medicine, Aldershot: Avebury.

22. Weaver, A. and Atkinson, P. (1994) Microcomputing and Qualitative Data Analysis,
Aldershot: Avebury.

23. Estabrooks, C.A., Field, P.A. and Morse, J.M. (1994) ‘Aggregating qualitative
findings: an approach to theory development’. Qualitative Health Research, 4(4): 503-511.

24. West, J. and Oldfather, P. (1995) ‘Pooled case comparison: an innovation for cross-case
study’. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(4): 452-464.

25. Angst, D.B. and Deatrick, J.A. (1996) ‘Involvement in health care decisions: parents
and children with chronic illness’. Journal of Family Nursing, 2(2): 174-194.

26. Arksey, H. and Sloper, P. (1999) ‘Disputed diagnoses: the cases of RSI and childhood
cancer’. Social Science & Medicine, 49: 483-497.

27. Backett, K.C. and Davison, C. (1995) ‘Lifecourse and lifestyle: the social and cultural
location of health behaviours’. Social Science and Medicine, 40(5): 629-638.

28. Bull, M.J. and Kane, R.L. (1996) ‘Gaps in discharge planning’. The Journal of Applied
Gerontology, 15(4): 486-500.

29. Cohen, M.H. (1995) ‘The triggers of heightened parental uncertainty in chronic, life-
threatening childhood illness’. Qualitative Health Research, 5(1): 63-77.

30. Ferrell, B.R., Grant, M., Dean, G.E., Funk, B. and Ly, J. (1996) ‘‘Bone tired’: the
experience of fatigue and its impact on quality of life’. Oncology Nursing Forum, 23(10):
1539-1547.

31. Kirschbaum, M.S. and Knafl, K. (1996) ‘Major themes in parent-provider relationships:
a comparison of life-threatening and chronic illness experience’. Journal of Family Nursing,
2(2): 195-216.
25
32. Robinson, C.A. (1993) ‘Managing life with a chronic condition: the story of
normalisation’. Qualitative Health Research, 3(1): 6-28.

33. Robinson, C.A. and Thorne, S. (1984) ‘Strengthening family ‘interference’’. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 9: 597-602.

34. Thorne, S.E. (1988) ‘Helpful and unhelpful communications in cancer care: the patient
perspective’. Oncology Nursing Forum, 15(2): 167-172.

35. Thorne, S.E. (1990) ‘Mothers with chronic illness: a predicament of social construction’.
Health Care for Women International, 11: 209-221.

36. Thorne, S.E. (1990) ‘Navigating troubled waters: chronic illness experience in a health
care crisis’ The Union Institute of Advanced Studies, Cincinnati.

37. Thorne, S.E. (1990) ‘Constructive noncompliance in chronic illness’. Holistic Nursing
Practice, 5(1): 62-69.

38. Thorne, S.E. and Robinson, C.A. (1988) ‘Health care relationships: the chronic illness
perspective’. Research in Nursing & Health, 11: 293-300.

39. Yamashita, M. and Forsyth, D.M. (1998) ‘Family coping with mental illness: an
aggregate from two studies, Canada and United States’. Journal of the American Psychiatric
Association, 4(1): 1-8.

40. Thorne, S.E. and Robinson, C.A. (1989) ‘Guarded alliance: health care relationships in
chronic illness’. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 21(3): 153-157.

41. Breckenridge, D.M. (1997) ‘Decisions regarding dialysis treatment modality: a holistic
perspective’. Holistic Nursing Practice, 12(1): 54-61.

42. Clarke-Steffen, L. (1998) ‘The meaning of peak and nadir experiences of pediatric
oncology nurses: secondary analysis’. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 15(1): 25-33.

43. Deatrick, J.A., Knafl, K.A. and Guyer, K. ‘The meaning of caregiving behaviours:
inductive approaches to family theory development’. In S. L. Feetham, S. B. Meister, J. M.
Bell and C. L. Gilliss (eds) The Nursing of Families: Theory/Research/Education/Practice,
Newbury Park: Sage.

44. Docherty, W.J., Lester, M.E. and Leigh, G. (1986) ‘Marriage encounter weekends:
couples who win and couples who lose’. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12(1): 49-
61.

45. Gallo, A.M. and Knafl, K.A. (1998) ‘Parents’ reports of “tricks of the trade” for
managing childhood chronic illness’. Journal of the Society of Paediatric Nurses, 3(3): 93-
102.
46. Gregory, D. and Longman, A. (1992) ‘Mothers’ suffering: sons who died of AIDS’.
Qualitative Health Research, 2(3): 334-357.

26
47. Hall, J.M., Stevens, P.E. and Meleis, A.I. (1992) ‘Developing the construct of role
integration: a narrative analysis of women clerical workers’ daily lives’. Research in Nursing
& Health, 15: 447-457.

48. Hutchinson, S. (1987) ‘Self-care and job stress’. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship,
19(4): 192-196.

49. Hutchinson, S.A. (1990) ‘Responsible subversion: a study of rule-bending among

nurses’. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 4(1): 3-17.

50. Jones, J.B. (1997) ‘Representations of menopause and their health care implications: a
qualitative study’. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 13(1): 58-65.

51. Katz, A. (1997) ‘’Mom, I have something to tell you’ - disclosing HIV infection’.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25: 139-143.

52. Kidd, P., Scharf, T. and Veazie, M. (1996) ‘Linking stress and injury in the farming
environment: a secondary analysis of qualitative data’. Health Education Quarterly, 23(2):
224-237.

53. Knafl, K.A., Ayres, L., Gallo, A.M., Zoeller, L.H. and Breitmayer, B. J. (1995)
‘Learning from stories: parents’ accounts of the pathways to diagnosis’. Pediatric Nursing,
21(5): 411-415.

54. Logan, J. and Jenny, J. (1990) ‘Deriving a new nursing diagnosis through qualitative
research: dysfunctional ventilatory weaning response’. Nursing Diagnosis, 1(1): 37-43.

55. McLaughlin, E. and Ritchie, J. (1994) ‘Legacies of caring: the experiences and
circumstances of ex-carers’. Health & Social Care, 2: 241-253.

56. Messias, D.K.H., Yeager, K.A., Dibble, S.L. and Dodd, M.J. (1997) ‘Patients’
perspectives of fatigue while undergoing chemotherapy’. Oncology Nursing Forum, 24(1):
43-48.

57. Paget, M.A. (1983) ‘On the work of talk: studies in misunderstandings’. In S. Fisher and
A. D. Todd (eds) The Social Organisation of Doctor-Patient Communication, Washington:
The Center for Applied Linguistics.

58. Powers, B.A. (1996) ‘Relationships among older women living in a nursing home’.
Journal of Women & Aging, 8(3-4): 179-198.

59. Princeton, J.C. (1993) ‘Education for executive nurse administrators: a databased
curricular model for doctoral (PhD) programs’. Journal of Nursing Education, 32(2): 59-63.

60. Rehm, R.S. and Catanzaro, M.L. (1998) ‘‘It’s just a fact of life’: family members’
perceptions of parental chronic illness’. Journal of Family Nursing, 4(1): 21-40.
61. Rush, K.L. and Ouellet, L.L. (1997) ‘Mobility aids and the elderly client’. Journal of
Gerontological Nursing, 23(1): 7-15.

27
62. Sandelowski, M. (1994) ‘Channel of desire: fetal ultrasonography in two use-contexts’.
Qualitative Health Research, 4(3): 262-280.

63. Sandelowski, M. (1994) ‘Separate, but less unequal: fetal ultrasonography and the
transformation of expectant mother/fatherhood’. Gender & Society, 8(2): 230-245.

64. Sandelowski, M. and Black, B.P. (1994) ‘The epistemology of expectant parenthood’.
Western Journal of Nursing Research, 16(6): 601-622.

65. Szabo, V. and Strang, V.R. (1999) ‘Experiencing control in caregiving’. Image: Journal
of Nursing Scholarship, 31(1): 71-75.

66. Thorne, S.E., Harris, S.R., Hislop, T.G. and Vestrup, J.A. (1999) ‘The experience of
waiting for diagnosis after an abnormal mammogram’. The Breast Journal, 5(1): 42-51.

67. Tishelman, C. and Sachs, L. (1998) ‘The diagnostic process and the boundaries of
normality’. Qualitative Health Research, 8(1): 48-60.

68. Vallerand, A.H. and Ferrell, B.R. (1995) ‘Issues of control in patients with cancer
pain’. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 17(5): 467-483.

69. Kearney, M.H., Murphy, S. and Rosenbaum, M. (1994) ‘Mothering on crack cocaine:
a grounded theory analysis’. Social Science & Medicine, 38(2): 351-361.

70. Kearney, M.H., Murphy, S. and Rosenbaum, M. (1994) ‘Learning by losing: sex and
fertility on crack cocaine’. Qualitative Health Research, 4(2): 142-162.

71. Sandelowski, M. and Jones, L.C. (1996) ‘Couples’ evaluations of foreknowledge of

fetal impairment’. Clinical Nursing Research, 5(1): 81-96.

72. Popkess-Vawter, S., Brandau, C. and Straub, J. (1998) ‘Triggers of overeating and
related intervention strategies for women who weight cycle’. Applied Nursing Research,
11(2): 69-76.

73. Fienberg, S.E., Martin, M.E. and Staff, M.L. (1985) Sharing Research Data,
Washington DC: National Academy Press.

74. Sieber, J.E. (ed) (1991) Sharing Social Science Data: Advantages and Challenges,
London: Sage.

75. Lewis, O. (1972) Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied, Urbana: The University
of Illinois Press.

76. Redfield, R. (1964) Tepoztlan - A Mexican Village: A Study of Folk Life, Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
77. Mauthner, N.S., Parry, O. and Backett-Milburn, K. (1998) ‘The data are out there, or
are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data’. Sociology, 32(4): 733-
745.

28
78. Waitzkin, H. (1991) The Politics of Medical Encounters: How Patients and Doctors
Deal with Social Problems, London: Yale University Press.

79. Roth, J. (1963) Timetables: Structuring the Passage of Time in Hospital Treatment and
Other Careers, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

80. Zussman, R. (1992) Intensive Care: Medical Ethics and the Medical Profession,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

81. Hammersley, M. (1997) ‘Qualitative data archiving: some reflections on its prospects
and problems’. Sociology, 31(1): 131-142.

82. American Sociological Association (ASA) ‘Ethical Standards’. Available on web

(August 2000) at http://www.asanet.org/members/ecostand.html

83. Social Research Association (SRA) ‘Ethical Guidelines’. Available on web (August
2000) at http://www.the-SRA.org.uk/ethics.htm

84. British Sociological Association (BSA) ‘Statement of Ethical Practice’. Available on

web (August 2000) at http://www.britsoc.org.uk/ethgu2.htm

85. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (1998) ‘Your views upon copyright
and confidentiality’. Draft guidelines available on web (August 2000) at
http://www.escr.ac.uk/ guide.htm

86. ESRC Qualitative Data Archival Resource Centre (QUALIDATA) ‘Guidelines on

confidentiality and informed consent’. Available on web (August 2000) at http://www.essex.
ac.uk/qualidata/forms/confiden.htm

87. ESRC Qualitative Data Archival Resource Centre (QUALIDATA) ‘Guidelines on

copyright’. Available on web (August 2000) at
http://www.essex.ac.uk/qualidata/forms/copyright .htm

88. ESRC Qualitative Data Archival Resource Centre (QUALIDATA) ‘Confidentiality,

consent and copyright in the interviewing of children’. Available on web (August 2000) at
http://www.essex.ac.uk/qualidata/forms/children.htm

89. Corti, L. (1999) ‘Text, sound and videotape: The future of qualitative data in the global
network’. IASSIST Quarterly, 23(2): 18-25.

29