Open-Science Guidance for Qualitative Research: An Empirically Validated Approach for De-Identifying Sensitive Narrative Data

Abstract

The open-science movement seeks to make research more transparent and accessible. To that end, researchers are increasingly expected to share de-identified data with other scholars for review, reanalysis, and reuse. In psychology, open-science practices have been explored primarily within the context of quantitative data, but demands to share qualitative data are becoming more prevalent. Narrative data are far more challenging to de-identify fully, and because qualitative methods are often used in studies with marginalized, minoritized, and/or traumatized populations, data sharing may pose substantial risks for participants if their information can be later reidentified. To date, there has been little guidance in the literature on how to de-identify qualitative data. To address this gap, we developed a methodological framework for remediating sensitive narrative data. This multiphase process is modeled on common qualitative-coding strategies. The first phase includes consultations with diverse stakeholders and sources to understand reidentifiability risks and data-sharing concerns. The second phase outlines an iterative process for recognizing potentially identifiable information and constructing individualized remediation strategies through group review and consensus. The third phase includes multiple strategies for assessing the validity of the de-identification analyses (i.e., whether the remediated transcripts adequately protect participants’ privacy). We applied this framework to a set of 32 qualitative interviews with sexual-assault survivors. We provide case examples of how blurring and redaction techniques can be used to protect names, dates, locations, trauma histories, help-seeking experiences, and other information about dyadic interactions.

Physical Education Teachers’ Experiences in Fitness Testing

“…This can be documented by a clear coding schema that identifies the codes and patterns identified in analyses. Finally, a data audit before analysis ensures dependability (Campbell et al, 2023).…”

On the Dearth of Retractions in Social Work: A Preliminary Analysis of Ten Leading Journals

“…JN has been a reviewer and editorial board member for numerous behavioral health and social service journals.5 Given the notable increase in retractions over the past several decades, one would expect to find some obvious examples within social workeven if the overall base rate is relatively low.6 Sourcing journals and their archives can be a useful means of knowledge generation (examples are described inMorgenshtern & Schmid, 2024); but choosing journals on the basis of their impact factor was eschewed due to the inherent limitations of the approach (seeBrembs et al, 2013;Dunleavy, 2022aDunleavy, , 2022c). 7 This is also done to partially address the limitation, rightly noted byHaddaway and Gusenbauer (2020), that searches using Google Scholar lack transparency and reproducibility.8 This is immediately falsified by a quick search of the literature (e.g., Mogro-Wilson, 2021 in the Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work).9 The benefits, challenges, and general complexities of sharing data from qualitative studies is discussed inCampbell et al (2023),Chauvette et al (2019),Dubois et al (2018Dubois et al ( , 2023. These issues will increasingly need to be faced.…”