This article investigates data reuse or the secondary analysis of qualitative data, specifically video records of practice in education, which are used to study the complex cognitive, social, and logistical issues involved in teaching and learning processes. It examines reuse through the lens of the invisibilities experienced by educational researchers who perform secondary analysis on video records of practice. Drawing on 22 in-depth interviews with educational researchers, we examine how they conceptualize secondary analysis of qualitative video data and cope with invisibilities in the data. For example, knowing the original research question was not sufficient: reusers needed to understand more about the intentionality of the data producer. They also sought more information on the reflexivity of the original researcher and how this influenced data production. Additionally, reusers discussed the creation of evidence from the video during secondary analysis as teaching and learning themselves entail invisible processes.
AnderssonESørvikGO (2013) Reality lost? Re-use of qualitative data in classroom video studies. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research14(3). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-14.3.1941.
2.
BaeckerRMFonoDWolfP (2007) Toward a video collaboratory. In: GoldmanRPeaRBarronB, et al. (eds) Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 461–478.
3.
BassHUsiskinZBurrillG, et al. (eds) (2002) Studying Classroom Teaching as a Medium for Professional Development Proceedings of a U.S.-Japan Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10289.html (accessed 19 March 2015).
4.
BellCADobbelaerMJKletteK, et al. (2019) Qualities of classroom observation systems. School Effectiveness and School Improvement30(1): 3–29.
5.
BergerR (2015) Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research15(2): 219–234. DOI: 10.1177/1468794112468475.
6.
BirnholtzJPBietzM (2003) Data at work: supporting sharing in science and engineering. In: GROUP ‘03 Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Sanibel Island, FL, 2003, pp. 339–348. ACM. DOI: 10.1145/958160.958215.
7.
BishopL (2007) A reflexive account of reusing qualitative data: beyond primary/secondary dualism. Sociological Research Online. SAGE PublicationsSage UK: London, England. DOI: 10.5153/sro.1553.
8.
BishopL (2009) Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data. Australian Journal of Social Issues44(3): 255–272. DOI: 10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00145.x.
9.
BishopLKuula-LuumiA (2017) Revisiting qualitative data reuse: a decade on. SAGE Open7(1): 2158244016685136. DOI: 10.1177/2158244016685136.
10.
Blikstad-BalasM (2017) Key challenges of using video when investigating social practices in education: contextualization, magnification, and representation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education40(5): s511–s523.
11.
BroomACheshireLEmmisonM (2009) Qualitative researchers’ understandings of their practice and the implications for data archiving and sharing. Sociology43(6): 1163–1180. DOI: 10.1177/0038038509345704.
12.
BurleighJCPetersonHW (1967) Videotapes in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal68(1): 35–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/460406.
13.
CassellC (2005) Creating the interviewer: identity work in the management research process. Qualitative Research5(2): 167–179. DOI: 10.1177/1468794105050833.
CortiLFieldingN (2016) Opportunities from the digital revolution: implications for researching, publishing, and consuming qualitative research. SAGE Open6(4): 215824401667891. DOI: 10.1177/2158244016678912.
16.
de RijckeSBeaulieuA (2014) Networked neuroscience: brain scans and visual knowing at the intersection of atlases and databases. In: CoopmanCVertesiJLynchMetal. (eds) Representation in Scientific Practice Revisited. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 131–152.
17.
DerrySJ (2007) Guidelines for Video Research in Education: Recommendations from an Expert Panel. Chicago, IL: Data Research and Development Center. Available at: https://drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research-guidelines.pdf (accessed 16 December 2020).
18.
DerrySJPeaRDBarronB, et al. (2010) Conducting video research in the learning sciences: guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences19(1): 3–53. DOI: 10.1080/10508400903452884.
19.
EdwardsPNMayernikMSBatchellerAL, et al. (2011) Science friction: data, metadata, and collaboration. Social Studies of Science41(5): 667–690. DOI: 10.1177/0306312711413314.
20.
FanielIMJacobsenTE (2010) Reusing scientific data: how earthquake engineering researchers assess the reusability of colleagues’ data. Computer Supported Cooperative Work19(3–4): 355–375. DOI: 10.1007/s10606-010-9117-8.
21.
FanielIMKriesbergAYakelE (2012) Data reuse and sensemaking among novice social scientists. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology49(1): 1–10. DOI: 10.1002/meet.14504901068.
22.
FieldingNGFieldingJL (2000) Resistance and adaptation to criminal identity: using secondary analysis to evaluate classic studies of crime and deviance. Sociology34(4): 671–689. DOI: 10.1177/S0038038500000419.
23.
FrankRDChenZCrawfordE, et al. (2017) Trust in qualitative data repositories. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology54(1): 102–111. DOI: 10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401012.
24.
FrankRDTylerARBGaultA, et al. (2018) Privacy concerns in qualitative video data reuse. International Journal of Digital Curation13(1): 47–72. DOI: 10.2218/ijdc.v13i1.492.
25.
GoldmanRPeaRBarronB, et al. (eds) (2007) Video Research in the Learning Sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
HadfieldMHawK (2012) Video: modalities and methodologies. International Journal of Research & Method in Education35(3): 311–324. DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2012.717434.
27.
HeatonJ (1998) Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Research Update 22. Available at: https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU22.html (accessed 8 July 2020).
28.
HeatonJ (2008) Secondary analysis of qualitative data: an overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung 33(3)(125), Focus: Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data / Sekundäranalyse qualitative Daten: 33–45.
29.
HiebertJStiglerJJacobsJK, et al. (2005) Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis27(2): 111–132. DOI: 10.3102/01623737027002111.
30.
HoeppeG (2019) Medium, calculation, play: on digital images in scientific practice. Social Studies of Science49(5): 758–784. DOI: 10.1177/0306312719871356.
31.
HolstiOR (1969) Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
JonesKAlexanderSMBennettN, et al. (2018) Qualitative Data Sharing and Re-Use for Socio-Environmental Systems Research: A Synthesis of Opportunities, Challenges, Resources and Approaches. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13016/M2WH2DG59.
KorkiakangasTK (2014) Challenges in archiving and sharing video data: considering moral, pragmatic, and substantial arguments. Journal of Research Practice10(1): Article M3. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/reader/268476352
38.
KwekDKogutG (2015) Knowledge of Prior Work and Soundness of Project: A Review of the Research on Secondary Analysis of Research Data. Technical Report, Office of Education Research. Singapore: National Institute of Education.
39.
LatourBWoolgarS (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40.
Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project (2011) Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education14(1): 25–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9140-1.
LuffPHeathC (2012) Some ‘technical challenges’ of video analysis: social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective. Qualitative Research12(3): 255–279. DOI: 10.1177/1468794112436655
43.
LynchM (1985) Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347044 (accessed 17 October 2015).
44.
MauthnerNSParryOBackett-MilburnK (1998) The data are out there, or are they? Implications for archiving and revisiting qualitative data:Sociology. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1177/0038038598032004006.
45.
MétrauxA (1991) Reaching the invisible: a case study of experimental work in microbiology (1880–1900). In: StraussALMainesDR (eds) Social Organisation and Social Process. Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss. New York: Gruyter, Walter de, & Co., 249–260.
O’ConnorHGoodwinJ (2010) Utilizing data from a lost sociological project: experiences, insights, promises. Qualitative Research10(3): 283–298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110362875
PatelMBallA (2008) Challenges and issues relating to the use of representation information for the digital curation of crystallography and engineering data. International Journal of Digital Curation3(1): 76–88. DOI: 10.2218/ijdc.v3i1.43.
50.
RubinHRubinI (2005) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 2nd edn.Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
StiglerJWGonzalesPKawanakaT, et al. (1999) Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an Exploratory Research Paoject on Eighth-grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. (Research and Development Report No. 99–074). The TIMSS US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999074.pdf (accessed 16 December 2020).
54.
SuzukaKFrankRCrawfordE, et al. (2018) Video re-use in mathematics teacher education. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, D.C, 26March2018, pp. 329–336. Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/182544/ (accessed 7 May 2020).
55.
TumaR (2019) Vernacular video analysis: communicative construction of evidence in police work. Society Register3(1): 137–162. DOI: 10.14746/sr.2019.3.1.08
56.
VertesiJ (2015) Seeing Like a Rover. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57.
WallisJCRolandoEBorgmanCL (2013) If we share data, will anyone use them? Data sharing and reuse in the long tail of science and technology. Nunes AmaralLA (ed.) PLoS ONE8(7): e67332. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067332.
58.
YoonA (2014a) End users’ trust in data repositories: definition and influences on trust development. Archival Science14(1): 17–34. DOI: 10.1007/s10502-013-9207-8.
59.
YoonA (2014b) Making a square fit into a circle: researchers’ experiences reusing qualitative data. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology51(1): 1–4. DOI: 10.1002/meet.2014.14505101140
60.
ZimmermanAS (2008) New knowledge from old data: the role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data. Science, Technology & Human Values33(5): 631–652. DOI: 10.1177/0162243907306704.
