2024/01/28 by Annayah Miranda Beatrice Prosser, Ralph Bagnall, Nina Higson‐Sweeney · 1 voice · 10 citations
Medicine · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection #Compliance (psychology) #Computer science #Computer security #Data Analysis and Archiving #Data Protection Act 1998 #Data science #Data sharing #Engineering ethics #Epistemology #Ethics in Clinical Research #Harm #Internet privacy #Medicine #Open data #Political science #Psychology #Public relations #Qualitative research #Raw data #Reflexivity #Research ethics #Rigour #Social psychology #Social science #Sociology #World Wide Web
paper · pdf · doi:10.1177/13591053231225903
published in Journal of Health Psychology 29(7), 653-658 (SAGE Publishing)
openalex publication_date 2024/01/28 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Many journals are moving towards a 'Mandatory Inclusion of Raw Data' (MIRD) model of data sharing, where it is expected that raw data be publicly accessible at article submission. While open data sharing is beneficial for some research topics and methodologies within health psychology, in other cases it may be ethically and epistemologically questionable. Here, we outline several questions that qualitative researchers might consider surrounding the ethics of open data sharing. Overall, we argue that universal open raw data mandates cannot adequately represent the diversity of qualitative research, and that MIRD may harm rigorous and ethical research practice within health psychology and beyond. Researchers should instead find ways to demonstrate rigour thorough engagement with questions surrounding data sharing. We propose that all researchers utilise the increasingly common 'data availability statement' to demonstrate reflexive engagement with issues of ethics, epistemology and participant protection when considering whether to open data.