Skip to main content

Sharing Research Data (1985) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Justifications for and Obstacles to Data Sharing
Pages 123-147

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 123...
... The complexity of Be issues is attested to by con~oversies over data release and reanalysis described in the popular press and the Terry Elizabeth Hedrick, a social psychologist specializing in program evaluation, is a group director with the U.S. General Accounting Office.
From page 124...
... JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DATA SHARING Justifications for data sharing are based on demonstrated or anticipated benefits for specific parties. To a large degree, the beneficiaries of data sharing are the scientific community, data requesters, and society; to a lesser degree and under some circumstances, primary researchers and research participants may also realize gains.
From page 125...
... These benefits include the verification and refinement of original findings and the refutation of them. Secondary analysts may reanalyze data by following the original researcher's methods, thus checking the accuracy of the reported results, or by using competing analytic techniques or sets of assumptions, thus testing the robustness of the original conclusions to alternative approaches.
From page 126...
... , a secondary analysis of Bayer and Astin's (1975) data on faculty salaries, was concerned with problems of nonadditivity and irrelevant variance in Me predictors and challenged the conclusion that the data supported a finding of a sex differential in the academic reward system.
From page 127...
... Public confidence in the worth of research might also be improved. Finally, as Fienberg's experience with JASA illustrates, this is one circumstance in which primary researchers may also profit from the sharing of data.
From page 128...
... In this respect, evaluative data sets collected by pnvate research firms under government contract are one of He most underused sources of information. Contract research funs necessarily must direct their analytic efforts to address specific questions posed by the sponsor agency; time and resource constraints are likely to prevent analysts from branching out and exploring additional questions when the sponsor considers these questions subsidiary and outside the original scope of work.
From page 129...
... creatively merged his own data on school attendance rates with information on reading test scores to examine the contribution of school attendance to achievement-test performance. Again, data requesters, the scientific cornrnunity, and society are the major beneficiaries of this type of data sharing.
From page 130...
... Hedrick Data shanng, if it can be extended across disciplinary lines- a large if— has the potential to benefit almost all parties. Sharing data may encourage cross-disciplinary work, permitting questions to be viewed from diverse viewpoints, and it may broaden the perspectives of researchers, including primary researchers, by exposing them to new viewponts, methodologies, and analytic techniques.
From page 131...
... Both the scientific community and society would benefit from any reductions in errors resulting from an openaccess policy. Development of Knowledge About Analytic Techniques and Research Designs Secondary analysis is a fruitful activity for the production of information on analytic techniques and research designs.
From page 132...
... OBSTACLES TO DATA SHARING The variety of obstacles to data sharing range from clearly illegitimate refusals for data access by primary researchers who fear criticism to legitimate refusals based on national security considerations. In between are many gray areas in which the legitimacy of refusing access is not easily resolved or in which resources and effort are needed before data sharing can become possible.
From page 133...
... Primary researchers and research participants are by definition members of these groups and, therefore, they also receive benefits. However, as the following discussion of obstacles indicates, primary researchers and research participants bear the brunt of the costs and risks attendant to data sharing, much more so than other parties.
From page 134...
... The Public Cryptography Study Group, a committee of scholars formed by the American Council of Education at the request of the Defense Department's National Security Agency (NSA) , recently devised a review system aimed at limiting publication of computer research on cryptography (Public Cryptography Study Group, 19811.
From page 135...
... Guidelines for data sharing must be flexible enough to encompass these types of special problems. The costs of data sharing are potentially heavy for research participants and, in some circumstances, prohibitively heavy for primary researchers.
From page 136...
... A second risk attendant to releasing data is Mat secondary analysts may use the data for proposes that differ significantly from the original investigator's stated purpose when obtaining consent from research participants. Many scientists have argued that secondary analysis presents difficult ethical problems in that it is not possible to obtain informed consent for unanticipated uses of data (Merges, 1973; Ware, 1974; Ruebhausen and Brim, 1966~.
From page 137...
... The argument by federal managers responsible for evaluation is that the opponents of the results of an evaluation will exploit the opportunity to attack even when faced with a good product. Few incentives are perceived to exist for confirming the results of the original researchers; instead, secondary analysis may be viewed as an opportunity to make a reputation by refuting the work of others.
From page 138...
... Even though data collected with public funds are assumed to be public property, federal agencies do not always obtain and archive federally fended data sets. If a data set has been left in the control of the original researchers, there is no guarantee that it will skill exist at the time of the access request.
From page 139...
... Because scientific "management" appears to opt for an adversary rather than cooperative mode of responding to discovery of errors, much of the value may be lost which secondary analysis has for verifying the validity of past work. When a secondary analyst has sufficient information to replicate the original analysis and obtains different results, the solution to the communication problem may lie in simply offering the primary analyst (and funding agency)
From page 140...
... Release of data before a primary researcher has had a reasonable opportunity to capitalize on those efforts would be an enormous disservice to researchers and would discourage future data collection. In many cases, the concerns of primary researchers for recognition will not be an obstacle to data release since data requesters will have learned of the data set's existence from the published work of the original researcher.
From page 141...
... Guidelines on sharing data must be sensitive to protecting the investments of primary researchers, yet when data have immediate relevance to public policy, the interests of the public in having the best information possible available for use in the decision-making process may be judged to outweigh costs to primary researchers. The case for access is even stronger when the collection of the data was supported by public funds.
From page 142...
... Administrative Inconvenience and Cost Lastly, there are administrative and cost burdens associated win data sharing that must be balanced against the benefits of access. These burdens largely fall on primary researchers.
From page 143...
... Other justifications for not sharing data, such as time and resource burdens on primary researchers, are embedded in the discussions of obstacles to data shar~ng.
From page 144...
... and Reis, J 1980 The student, evaluative data, and secondary analysis.
From page 145...
... Klitgaard, R 1974 Preliminary analysis of achievement test scores in Alum Rock voucher and nonvoucher schools.
From page 146...
... 1978 Secondly analysis: using multiple analytic approaches with Head Start and Title I data.
From page 147...
... 1978 The first year of the education voucher demonstration: a secondary analysis of student achievement test scores. Evaluation Quarterly 2(2)


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.