Content area
Abstract
Secondary analysis has enjoyed a rich tradition within the positivist paradigm. However, this tradition is not without disputes concerning definition, use, and application of such reanalyses; some of which remain unresolved. Similar activities are absent in the constructivist paradigm, where conversation is now emerging on secondary analysis of qualitative data. This study presents the first conceptual discussion and classification schema with case illustrations establishing the foundation for the dialogue, interdisciplinary and among paradigms, to proceed on secondary analysis. Informed from the quantitative experience, clear definition of terms are presented and dimensions inherent to any secondary analysis are identified. The resulting multiparadigmatic classification schema and eight models of secondary analysis are explained with illustrative cases from both paradigms. The study serves as a guide for informing conscientious scrutiny in planning of any secondary analysis while encouraging the novel mixing of models and techniques for improving on the limitations of any particular model. The schema, models, and discussion also support the continual development of secondary analysis of qualitative data. The key paradigmatic issues which emerge are synthesized into a multiparadigmatic guide to secondary analysis identifying the rationales, limitations, and areas of future research. This newly developed perspective of secondary analysis may contribute to the larger picture of the research act by ultimately improving the quality of primary research, regardless of paradigm.
