Data sharing in qualitative research

In this paper, we'd like to consider the scientific and ethical imperative behind data sharing in qualitative research. The rationale for quantitative research is well established.1 When from are published other groups of researchers—and public more broadly—can check (and reuse) data.2 Where errors detected, they can either be corrected, or if necessary, results retracted; studies also combined generate precise estimates effects novel interventions. Qualitative researchers, however, seemingly somewhat reticent than their counterparts about freely work.3 Don't believe us, availability statement at end any study. Why don't researchers make available? If case so compelling research, same arguments apply work? People won't participate Misuse Once shared publicly, accessed, combined, reanalysed, shared. This done by often without need understand specifics context which were generated. Traditionally, have restricted control as how used, a guard against misuse. argument made that potentially could used purposes not consistent with values intentions those who took part therefore, guarantee participants contributed will cannot provided when giving consent.3 Participants identifiable You're using ‘my’ I want you final may reluctant share because (misplaced) sense ownership. goes richness complexity it reported understood single publication. Consequently, retained researcher across multiple publications; do justice tradition reporting analyses sets7 provides motivation authors hang on to—and share—data long possible. Again, an data. Making raw publicly available means scrutinise challenge findings been published. All should start position study set will, wherever possible, available. posited why shared, our opinion, stand up scrutiny. There exceptions rule, course; but down individual thinking ‘How we these FAIR.’ there reasons isn't FAIR, must provide robust considered justification. Research institutions, universities, policy makers funding agencies all important role establishing policies procedures embed value methodologies. Learning development Ethics Committees Institutional Review Boards) empower people ask intending funders explicit require work fund journal editors peer reviewers ensure explain justify sharing. declare no conflict interest. Professor Richard Gray Editor-in-Chief Nursing Reports Theme Lead Healthy People, Families Communities La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Dr Jack Nunn Public Involvement Strategic No