Qualitative secondary analysis in austere times: a reply to Coltart, Henwood and Shirani

Abstract

In their article, published in FQS, as well as in HSR 38 (2013) 4, Coltart, Henwood and Shirani raise a number of issues regarding the effective and ethical conduct of qualitative secondary analysis. In doing so they seek to exemplify general points about secondary analytic practice and ethics with reference to the UK Timescapes research programme in which they were involved as primary researchers and we were involved as secondary analysts. They position our work in ways we find unrecognisable, and potentially misleading. We briefly re-describe aspects of our work, and our key arguments, with reference to the timing of secondary analysis, knowledge claims and the contextual embeddedness of qualitative data.