Stay Ahead with the Power of Upskilling - Invest in Yourself! 
Secondary Data: After the research problem in marketing has been identified and selected, the next step is to gather the requisite data. At this stage, there is much temptation among the researchers to organize a field survey to collect the data. While a field survey may be necessary for data collection, it should be resorted to only when al other sources of data collection have been exhausted. As some authors have rightly said: “A good operating rule is to consider a survey akin to a surgery – to be used only after all other possibilities have been exhausted”
Secondary Data: Any data which have been gathered earlier for some other purpose are secondary data in the hands of the marketing researcher. In contrast, those data which are collected at first hand either by the researcher or by someone else especially for the purpose of the study are known as primary data. Thus, primary data collected by one person may become the secondary data for another. For example, the demographic statistics collected every ten years are the primary data with the Register General of India, but the same statistics used by anyone else would be secondary data with that individual. There are certain distinct advantages, as also the limitations, of using secondary data. As a researcher, one should be fully aware of the advantages and limitations.
Why Do Secondary Analysis?: It has been contended that the approach can be used to generate new knowledge, new hypotheses, or support for existing theories; that it reduces the burden placed on respondents by negating the need to recruit further subjects; and that it allows wider use of data from rare or inaccessible respondents. In addition, it has been suggested that secondary analysis is a more convenient approach for particular researchers, notably students. It should also be noted that use of the approach does not necessarily preclude the possibility of collecting primary data. This may, for example, be required to obtain additional data or to pursue in a more controlled way the findings emerging from the initial analysis. There may also be a need to consult the primary researchers in order to investigate the circumstances of the original data generation and processing.
Before highlighting some of the key practical and ethical issues, which have been discussed in the literature, there are two fundamental methodological issues to be considered.
Tenable: The first is whether secondary analysis of qualitative studies is tenable, given that it is often thought to involve an inter subjective relationship between the researcher and the researched. In response, it may be argued that even where primary data is gathered via interviews or observation in qualitative studies, there may be more than one researcher involved. Hence within the research team the data still has to be contextualised and interpreted by those who were not present. A more radical response is to argue that the design, conduct and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative research are always contingent upon the contextualisation and interpretation of subjects’ situation and responses. Thus, secondary analysis is no more problematic than other forms of empirical inquiry, all of which, at some stage, depend on the researcher’s ability to form critical insights based on inter-subjective understanding.
Origin: The second issue concerns the problem of where primary analysis stops and secondary analysis starts. Qualitative research is an iterative process and grounded theory in particular requires that questions undergo a process of formulation and refinement over time. For primary researchers re-using their own data it may be difficult to determine whether the research is part of the original enquiry or sufficiently new and distinct from it to qualify as secondary analysis. For independent analysts re-using other researchers’ data there are also related professional issues about the degree of overlap between their respective works. There is no easy solution to these problems except to say that greater awareness of secondary analysis might enable researchers to more appropriately recognise and define their work as such.
