Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Qualitative data sharing and synthesis for sustainability science

Abstract

Socio–environmental synthesis as a research approach contributes to broader sustainability policy and practice by reusing data from disparate disciplines in innovative ways. Synthesizing diverse data sources and types of evidence can help to better conceptualize, investigate and address increasingly complex socio–environmental problems. However, sharing qualitative data for re-use remains uncommon when compared to sharing quantitative data. We argue that qualitative data present untapped opportunities for sustainability science, and discuss practical pathways to facilitate and realize the benefits from sharing and reusing qualitative data. However, these opportunities and benefits are also hindered by practical, ethical and epistemological challenges. To address these challenges and accelerate qualitative data sharing, we outline enabling conditions and suggest actions for researchers, institutions, funders, data repository managers and publishers.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Qualitative data sharing for re-use.

image courtesy of Sofia Jain-Schlaepfer, www.wiseart.net.

References

  1. 1.

    Palmer, M. A. et al. Ecological science and sustainability for the 21st century. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3, 4–11 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hampton, S. E. et al. Big data and the future of ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 156–162 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Romulo, C. L. et al. Global state and potential scope of investments in watershed services for large cities. Nat. Commun. 9, 4375 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Siegel, K. J. et al. Sovereign states in the Caribbean have lower social-ecological vulnerability to coral bleaching than overseas territories. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20182365 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rodrigo, A. et al. Science incubators: synthesis centers and their role in the research ecosystem. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001468 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Palmer, M. A., Kramer, J. G., Boyd, J. & Hawthorne, D. Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19, 111–122 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Goodwin, J. & Horowitz, R. Introduction: the methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qual. Sociol. 25, 33–47 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hicks, C. C. et al. Engage key social concepts for sustainability: social indicators, both mature and emerging, are underused. Science 352, 38–40 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bennett, N. J. et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 205, 93–108 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Moon, K. et al. Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 294–302 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Narayan, D. Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? (Oxford Univ. Press, World Bank, 2000).

  12. 12.

    Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K. & Petesch, P. Voices of the Poor: Crying out for Change (Oxford Univ. Press, World Bank, 2000).

  13. 13.

    Narayan, D. & Petesch, P. (eds) Voices of the Poor: From Many Lands (Oxford Univ. Press, World Bank, 2002).

  14. 14.

    Moon, K., Brewer, T. D., Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., Adams, V. M. & Blackman, D. A. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecol. Soc. 21, 17 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cox, M. A basic guide for empirical environmental social science. Ecol. Soc. 20, 63 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kukutai, T. & Taylor, J. (eds) Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda Vol. 38 (ANU Press, 2016).

  17. 17.

    Hess, C. & Ostrom, E. in Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (eds Hess, C. & Ostrom, E.) 3–26 (MIT Press, 2011).

  18. 18.

    Osmond, B. et al. Changing the way we think about global change research: scaling up in experimental ecosystem science. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 393–407 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Riedlinger, D. & Berkes, F. Contributions of traditional knowledge to understanding climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Rec. 37, 315–328 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cook, C. N. & Hockings, M. Opportunities for improving the rigor of management effectiveness evaluations in protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 4, 372–382 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fielding, N. G. Triangulation and mixed methods designs: data integration with new research technologies. J. Mixed Methods Res. 6, 124–136 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Peek, L., Fothergill, A., Pardee, J. W. & Weber, L. Studying displacement: new networks, lessons learned. Sociol. Inq. 84, 354–359 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    McClenachan, L. Documenting loss of large trophy fish from the Florida Keys with historical photographs. Conserv. Biol. 23, 636–643 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Poteete, A. & Ostrom, E. Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: strategies for building large-N databases based on qualitative research. In 101st Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association W05I-27, 1–53 (American Political Science Association, 2005); http://hdl.handle.net/10535/5890

  25. 25.

    Magliocca, N. R. et al. Closing global knowledge gaps: producing generalized knowledge from case studies of social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 1–14 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E. Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecol. Soc. 11, 37 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Charnley, S. et al. Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environ. Sci. Policy 73, 80–88 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Game, E. T. et al. Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy. Nat. Sustain. 1, 452–454 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bennett, N. J. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 30, 582–592 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wyborn, C. & Bixler, R. P. Collaboration and nested environmental governance: scale dependence, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 123, 58–67 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cash, D. W. et al. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 11, 8 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ban, N. C. et al. Social and ecological effectiveness of large marine protected areas. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 82–91 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lindkvist, E., Basurto, X. & Schlüter, M. Micro-level explanations for emergent patterns of self-governance arrangements in small-scale fisheries—a modeling approach. PloS ONE 12, e0175532 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–671 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Biedenweg, K., Harguth, H. & Stiles, K. The science and politics of human well-being: a case study in cocreating indicators for Puget Sound restoration. Ecol. Soc. 22, 11 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hartter, J., Ryan, S. J., MacKenzie, C. A., Parker, J. N. & Strasser, C. A. Spatially explicit data: stewardship and ethical challenges in science. PLoS Biol. 11, e1001634 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Fernández-Llamazares, Á. & Cabeza, M. Rediscovering the potential of indigenous storytelling for conservation practice. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12398 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. & Spierenburg, M. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Maxwell, J. A. in Epistemologies for Qualitative Research (eds Soini, H., Kronqvist, E.-L. & Huber, G. L.) 10–27 (Center for Qualitative Psychology, 2011).

  40. 40.

    Hammersley, M. Qualitative data archiving: some reflections on its prospects and problems. Sociology 31, 131–142 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. The Landscape of Qualitative Research (Sage, 2008).

  42. 42.

    Nightingale, A. J. Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation research. Area 48, 41–47 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Mahajan, S. L. et al. Systems thinking for planning and evaluating conservation interventions. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e44 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Reyes, V. Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: naming places, naming people, and sharing data. Ethnography 19, 204–226 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Broom, A., Cheshire, L. & Emmison, M. Qualitative researchers’ understandings of their practice and the implications for data archiving and sharing. Sociology 43, 1163–1180 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Barnett-Page, E. & Thomas, J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 9, 59 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Hartsock, N. in The Socialist Feminist Project: A Contemporary Reader in Theory and Politics (ed. Holmstrom, N.) 350–359 (Monthly Review Press, 2002).

  48. 48.

    Lupia, A. & Elman, C. Openness in political science: data access and research transparency. PS Political Sci. Politics 47, 19–42 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    DuBois, J. M., Strais, M. & Walsh, H. Is it time to share qualitative research data? Qual. Psych. 5, 380–393 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Bishop, L. Ethical sharing and re-use of qualitative data. Austral. J. Soc. Issues 44, 255–272 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Turner, D. Archiving qualitative data: will secondary analysis become the norm? Quirkos (24 November 2016); https://go.nature.com/32U7hH7

  52. 52.

    Statement of Principles and Practices for Arctic Data Management (International Arctic Science Committee, 2013); https://go.nature.com/32KBpEG

  53. 53.

    Bishop, L. & Kuula-Luumi, A. Revisiting qualitative data re-Use: a decade on. SAGE Open 7, 1–15 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Hoyle, L. et al. A qualitative data model for DDI Data Documentation Initiative Working Paper No. 5 (Data Documentation Alliance, 2013); https://go.nature.com/2MJGFmw

  55. 55.

    Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Schofield, P. N. et al. Post-publication sharing of data and tools. Nature 461, 171–173 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    National Research Council On the Full and Open Exchange of Scientific Data (The National Academies Press, 1995); https://go.nature.com/32MBY0I

  58. 58.

    Jones, K. et al. Qualitative Data Sharing and Re-use for Socio-environmental Systems Research: A Synthesis of Opportunities, Challenges, Resources and Approaches SESYNC White Paper (SESYNC, 2018); https://doi.org/10.13016/M2WH2DG59

  59. 59.

    Savtchenko, A. et al. Terra and Aqua MODIS products available from NASA GES DAAC. Adv. Space Res. 34, 710–714 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Elman, C. & Kapiszewski, D. Data access and research transparency in the qualitative tradition. PS Political Sci. Politics 47, 43–47 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Collins, F. S., Morgan, M. & Patrinos, A. The Human Genome Project: lessons from large-scale biology. Science 300, 286–290 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Mannheimer, S., Pienta, A., Kirilova, D., Elman, C. & Wutich, A. Qualitative data sharing: data repositories and academic libraries as key partners in addressing challenges. Am. Behav. Sci. 63, 643–664 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Miguel, E. et al. Promoting transparency in social science research. Science 343, 30–31 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Lynch, C. How do your data grow? Nature 455, 28–29 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Karcher, S., Kirilova, D. & Weber, N. Beyond the matrix: repository services for qualitative data. IFLA J. 42, 292–302 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Kidwell, M. C. et al. Badges to acknowledge open practices: a simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002456 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. The Landscape of Qualitative Research (SAGE, 2008).

  68. 68.

    Corti, L. Recent development in archiving social research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 15, 281–290 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Boulton, D. & Hammersley, M. in Data collection and Analysis 2nd edn (eds Sapsford, R. & Jupp, V.) Ch. 10 (SAGE Research Methods, 2006).

  70. 70.

    Moon, K. & Blackman, D. A guide to understanding social science research for natural scientists. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1167–1177 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.M.A., K.J., R.D.H., N.M. and H.R. were supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875. S.M.A. was also supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. S.K. and N.W. were supported, in part, by an Alfred P. Sloan Grant (2018-11217). J.A.S. was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (BCS-1042888; BCS-0746528; BCS-1413999) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NNX13AB72G).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.M.A. and K.J. designed and performed the research, led the collaborative work and the writing of the manuscript. All other authors contributed to the research, analysis and writing based upon their specific expertise, and they are listed alphabetically in the author list following N.J.B.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Steven M. Alexander or Kristal Jones.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alexander, S.M., Jones, K., Bennett, N.J. et al. Qualitative data sharing and synthesis for sustainability science. Nat Sustain 3, 81–88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0434-8

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing