Are the data amenable to secondary analysis?
This will depend on the ‘fit’ between the purpose of the analysis and the nature and quality of the original data. Scope for additional in-depth analysis will vary depending on the nature of the data; for example, while tightly structured interviews tend to limit the range of responses, designs using semi-structured schedules may produce more rich and varied data. A check for the extent of missing data relevant to the secondary analysis but irrelevant to the original study may also be required; for example, where semi-structured interviews involved the discretionary use of probes. More generally, the quality of original data will also need to be assessed.
Position of the secondary analyst: Was the analyst part of the original research team?
This will influence the decision over whether to undertake secondary analysis and, if so, the procedures to be followed. Secondary analysts require access to the original data, including tapes and field notes, in order to re-examine the data with the new focus in mind. This is likely to be easier if they were part of the original research team. If not, then ideally they should also be able to consult with the primary researchers in order to assess the quality of the original work and to contextualise the material (rather than rely on field notes alone). Further consultation may also be helpful in terms of crosschecking the results of the secondary analysis. Finally, whether conducting secondary analysis in an independent capacity or not, some form of contractual agreement between the secondary analyst and the primary researchers, data archive managers, and colleagues involved in the primary research but not in the secondary analysis may have to be negotiated.
