IASSIST Quarterly Vol 24 No. 2


14 IASSIST Quarterly Summer 2000

The Finnish Social Science Data Archive
(FSD) is a national resource centre for
social science research and teaching. It
started operating as a separate unit within
the University of Tampere in the
beginning of 1999. As in other data
archives, the main task of the FSD is to
increase the use of existing social science
data by disseminating it. The main
functions include acquiring, storing and disseminating data
for secondary research. In the beginning, the FSD will
concentrate on storing numerical data but in the future
information services will also cover qualitative data.

This paper gives background information on the reasons
why data archive information services in Finland will also
cover qualitative data. To make this understandable I shall
first give a short history of qualitative research methods in
Finland and their position here. After that I take a look at
perspectives and problems in the reuse of qualitative data in
Finland. Since I am a sociologist, the focus is on social
sciences and the approach is characterised by my own
discipline.

Qualitative social research in Finland
In the beginning of the last century it was typical in social
sciences to use many kinds of data. Official statistics,
newspaper articles, and stories told by the people who were
being studied as well, could form the basis of analyses. A
remarkable example of combining data is one of our classic
studies carried out by Heikki Waris in the 1930’s. First he
collected and analysed statistics and figures on living
conditions of the working class in Helsinki - the capital of
Finland. In the second phase of his research, he actually
walked into the area inhabited by workers and observed
and interviewed the people there so that he would be able
to understand how these working class people really lived
(Waris 1932).

This celebrated study, using both quantitative and
qualitative data, did not, however, become any particular
lodestar for the methodology of social sciences during the
decades that followed. Taking a look at the methodological
literature of the 1950’s and the 1960’s it is quite clear that
statistical methods were in the mainstream though
qualitative methods had their small share, too. For
sociology’s part, however, it can be claimed that almost all

the traditions of qualitative research were
broken during those decades (Leskinen
1995). Social scientists were fascinated
by survey-methods which eventually
became, at least in Finland, the scientific
method in social sciences from the late
1940’s to the early 1970’s.

The 1970’s marked a turning point in
social sciences in Finland. Survey methods were criticised
for being ideologically obscure. It was claimed that using
concepts like ‘universe’ or ‘analysing unit’ just brought to
mind an idea of an individual as the subject of his/her
actions. And that certainly was not the idea of society in the
political and economic theory of Karl Marx. In the 1970’s,
it was Marxism that laid the foundation or canon for what
constituted being a researcher in an acceptable way in
Finland. In those days, Marxism marked the boundaries
between theoretical research and positivism. The use of
survey methods was reckoned as not being theoretical but
positivist (Töttö 1997). This did not mean that survey
methods would have been totally banned and vanished. The
majority of empirical studies in sociology were still based
on quantitative data. But they were not in the forefront.
Ironically, one could say that, when writing an article in the
Finnish journal Sociology after mid 1970’s, you would not
have put a single table in it without a careful deliberation.

The 1970’s was an era of particularly philosophical and
theoretical studies in social sciences. And this certainly
made the gap yawn between theory and practice or the
empirical world. This discrepancy was one of the main
reasons for a turn towards using qualitative methods in the
late 1970’s (Leskinen 1995). Being extremely
philosophical and theoretical, social sciences were not
capable of producing any methods or instruments for
empirical research. Though Marxism left its traces in the
first empirical and qualitative studies in sociology, the
increasing use of qualitative data and methods was an
alternative both to theoretical Marxism and positivism.

When qualitative research methods made their
breakthrough, the everyday world was seen as problematic
and interesting, and a series of studies were carried out on
the way people really lived. Among the most popular study
objects were suburbs in big cities and people who were the
first generation residents there. We have in Finland a

Making Qualitative Research Material
Reusable: Case in Finland

by Arja Kuula*



IASSIST Quarterly Summer 2000 15

couple of remarkable examples of studies concentrating on
the transformation of gender roles of women and men
especially, when the mode of production changed in
families after moving to cities from agrarian areas. It was
shown how important work and everyday living conditions
were when men constructed their masculine identity and
what happened when the foundations of that identity were
changed after moving to cities (Kortteinen 1982).

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s researchers using
qualitative approach all seemed to face challenges which
looked as if they were personal and unique. Besides in-
depth interviews on everyday life, in the social sciences we
had examples of semiotic studies of culture, anthropology,
psychoanalytic studies using qualitative data and
participative strategies. But there was no specific paradigm
of qualitative research - unless the naturalistic or realistic
attitude towards data is thought as one. Everyone had to
find his or her own solutions to methodological problems.
Usually, the data were gathered through interviews, and the
problem of data distortion when interviewing was solved
by triangulating them by other sources of data or using
humanistic methods. By this I mean that researchers spent a
lot of time with the people who were studied. Becoming
almost a friend with them was thought to guarantee the
truthfulness of the data. Friends do not betray or pretend, as
we know...

Process of establishment
The late 1970’s were in many ways a very successful
period which saw the establishment of using qualitative
methods in social sciences in Finland. It can be summarised
into three different stages of discussion, or discourse, which
can be found in other countries, too (Kvale 1989, Eskola &
Suoranta 1998).   The first one - which still continues in
some countries - was the legitimisation discourse which
concentrated on questions like “Are there research
questions that allow or even demand using qualitative
methods?” - or  “Can research based on qualitative data be
scientific at all?” This discourse died down at least 15 years
ago. Social scientists no longer quarrel about this.
Qualitative and quantitative data and methods are seen
equally valuable and important in the studies on social life.

The second discourse is a bit more complicated and it is
still going on. Since it concerns the nature of research
findings in social sciences it can be said to belong to
philosophy of science. This discussion or battle, which
followed soon after the first studies, focused on data as a
text to be analysed and not as unproblematic information
about the world under inspection. To put it simply, it can be
described as a battle between relativism and objectivism, or
perhaps as a battle between researchers who concentrate on
culture and those who concentrate on structure. The third
way to put it is to say that it is a discussion between social
constructionism and realism. Constructionists are accused
of concentrating on texts instead of important and real

societal questions. Those who consider interviews as a
source of information on the world being studied - i.e.
realists - are accused of being unproblematic romanticists.

The third stage in this establishment process has been going
on for years too.  This discourse concentrates on the
foundations of qualitative methods of analysis. This debate
is going on mainly among researchers using qualitative
methods. In this discourse researchers do not concentrate
on questions like “is qualitative research science at all?”
etc. It is more important is to improve the conduct of
studies.  That means developing and elaborating
background theories, analysing principles, techniques etc.

Today, qualitative methods have a remarkably established
position in the Finnish social sciences. For instance, if you
come to study social sciences at the University of Tampere,
the home of the FSD, you have to take a compulsory course
not only in quantitative methods but also one in qualitative
methods. In the academic year 2000-2001, first year
students will have an introduction course on such areas as
theory of rhetoric, narratology, action research, discourse
analysis, conversation analysis and ethnography. In
doctoral studies of sociology, the majority of the method
courses concentrate on qualitative methods. Taking a look
at all the method courses available you may even say that
in social sciences qualitative methods constitute the
mainstream in Finland.

This peculiar state of methodological affairs in Finland is
one important reason why the Finnish Social Science Data
Archive also focuses on information services for qualitative
research. The FSD is planning to develop, together with
other actors, a nation-wide net resource to support method
teaching in social sciences as a practical example of
adapting to the situation. It will facilitate, especially, the
use of quantitative methods and research materials in
academic teaching, but it will also contain material on
teaching and using qualitative methods. Already we have a
couple of excellent examples of combining quantitative and
qualitative methods in doctoral theses, and more are on the
way. We suppose that combining methods will become
much more common in the future and that this will also
mean changes in the demands for social science data
archives.

Perspectives and problems of archiving qualitative data
in Finland
In spite of having an established position in qualitative
research and also a broad and continuously broadening
spectrum of Finnish method books, we do not have any
traditions of sharing, reusing, let alone archiving qualitative
data. When thinking of the amount of research that has
already been carried out and of the research projects which
are going on these days in Finland, there is a huge waste of
qualitative research resources. We have not done any
surveys or interviews on questions of sharing and reusing



16 IASSIST Quarterly Summer 2000

qualitative data, but, judging by informal conversations,
there is no doubt that researchers find it not only interesting
but also very important.

The application of qualitative research methods defines our
official strategy at the Finnish Social Science Data Archive:
to promote reuse and documentation of qualitative data.
The Archive plans to develop and maintain a database, of
available qualitative data, which can be reused. It seems
that there are quite a few practical problems though.  First
of all, until recently we did not have any official fixed
storage facilities for qualitative data in Finland.  This
means that researchers have stored their data  (if they still
have their data) in their offices, or perhaps at home, maybe
in the attic of their house; or maybe they have ended up
taking it to their summer cottage where there seems to be
space enough for things not needed anymore. Luckily we
are living in the era of cd-players so the old tapes are not
anymore in danger of being recorded over by contemporary
pop music. Our own archive - the FSD - is meant for
storing numerical and electronic data and there is not room
for papers, cassettes, videotapes or anything which would
need a lot of space.

Besides not having storage facilities, we do not have
common principles of collecting, organising, indexing and
documenting qualitative data; or to be more precise,
principles vary according to university, discipline, research
project, or sometimes even according to the researcher.
That does not mean that researchers would not be strict and
careful when doing research. We just have many different
ways of being thorough and careful. For instance,
researchers have their personal ways of indexing recorded
videotapes. One of our duties is to develop, set, and
propagate principles of collecting, documenting and
organising qualitative data so that the data can be used by
other researchers afterwards.  When establishing
documentation principles of qualitative data, we have to
consider applying common principles to storing of
qualitative data in universities, or specially designated
archives, under the guidance of the National Archive, to
alleviate researchers of the responsibility for finding a
location for research material which is not used anymore.

When discussing possible archiving in the future, one
problem which most of the researchers mention is the
question of confidentiality and informed consent. This is
perhaps one of the most important questions irrespective of
the country in question. In connection with interviews,
Finnish researchers do not usually use written informed
consent which would be signed by the persons under study,
but they often do promise not to disseminate the data, and
that is as binding as a written contract. Questions of
confidentiality and informed consent need also common
principles; even though, there will always be some kinds of
qualitative data which are not possible to reuse due to their
delicate nature. The policies and principles of

confidentiality will be settled in co-operation with
university researchers and with several authorities
responsible for these issues. These consultations will be the
basis for setting rules of access and undertaking conditions
of reuse of qualitative research material. We need to have
common principles - perhaps as recommendations - of
collecting, processing, organising and documenting
qualitative data in a way that would enable a reuse of the
data. To succeed in this we need also to co-operate with the
main research funding organisations.

In the future we hope to be the advising partner in
negotiations over the undertakings for conditions of reuse
of qualitative material, even though the responsibility for
the decision of granting access to the data lies with the
principal investigators who have the kind of data which can
be reused. The FSD will document but not store qualitative
data unless it is in electronic form and without problems in
view of matters related with confidentiality. It is our duty,
however, to make recommendations for depositing or
storing policies in the university departments. As a data
archive we think it is a matter of course to catalogue also
qualitative data which can be reused and inform about it
through the internet and perhaps other media, too -
regardless of where the data is actually stored.

Finnish researchers are interested in the reuse of qualitative
data, although the idea of organising and documenting their
own data for reuse by someone else is not very  interesting
and tempting to them. Without common principles of
collecting and documenting qualitative data, it might be
that at times the burden of resources needed to make old
material available for others outweighs the benefits of
potential re-use. We can certainly start by trying to get
some of the most significant qualitative material created in
the past couple of decades; but realistically, the real
potential of collecting qualitative data which would be
available for others, lies in the current and future research
projects. If we succeed in our work, there will be common
principles for indexing and documenting qualitative
material as well as guidelines for phrasing the introductory
sections of interviews so that other researchers could use
them, too. For the process of documenting and cataloguing
qualitative data, we plan to be able to use some of the
information elements which are already used in the new
data documentation standards. In addition, we may have to
develop some new information elements and elaborate
some of the existing ones to meet the special requirements
of qualitative data. It would be excellent if the objective of
documentation of qualitative data would be achieved
through co-operation between different archives.

In the future - perhaps even now – the Internet can be seen
as a media for moving and exchanging both qualitative and
quantitative material. A lot of qualitative material is already
in machine-readable form. Knowing the possibilities of
image scanning and digitising technologies, one can only



IASSIST Quarterly Summer 2000 17

imagine the future prospects and possibilities of archiving
qualitative data. This vision and its actualisation can only
contribute to the main task of data archives: enhancing
sensible use of all research resources.

References:
Eskola, Jari and Suoranta, Juha: Johdatus laadulliseen
tutkimukseen. Introduction to qualitative research.
Vastapaino, Tampere 1998.

Kortteinen, Matti: Lähiö - tutkimus elämäntapojen
muutoksesta. Suburb - a study on the change of lifestyle.
Otava, Helsinki 1982.

Kvale, Steinar: Introduction. In Kvale, Steinar (ed.): Issues
of Validity in qualitative research. Studentlitteratur, Lund
1989, pp 7-12.

Leskinen, Jaakko: Lyhyt katsaus suomalaiseen
metodologiseen kirjallisuuteen. A short overview of
Finnish methodological literature. In Leskinen, Jaakko
(ed.): Laadullisen tutkimuksen risteysasemalla. In the
cross-roads of qualitative research.
Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus, Helsinki 1995.

Waris, Heikki: Työläisyhdyskunnan syntyminen Helsingin
Pitkänsillan pohjoispuolelle. Birth of a workers’
community. Suomen Historiallinen Seura, Helsinki 1932.

Töttö, Pertti: Pirullinen positivismi. Kysymyksiä
laadulliselle tutkimukselle. Diabolical positivism.
Questions for qualitative research. Kampus Kustannus 41.
Jyväskylä 1997.

* Paper presented at the IASSIST Conference, June 9,
2000, Northwestern University, Evanston, Chigago.

Arja Kuula is a Research Officer at the Finnish Social
Science Data Archive. She has worked as a researcher at
the Work Research Centre and at the Department of
Sociology and Social Psychology at the University of
Tampere. She has published articles and a book on
methodological issues and the role of a researcher in
research and development projects. Her areas of interest are
qualitative data, research culture and methods. Her doctoral
thesis in sociology deals with methodological issues of
action research.