Hi Jorge Ruiz , I would like to add something to the relevant issue you are discussing. Indeed, I agree with the general point you are making: sharing the moment of investigation is fundamental.

Anyway, I would like to argue that, more or less explicitly and/or more or less systematized within a proper paradigmatic framework, every qualitative research, and therefore any qualitative findings, is positioned (or should at least be positioned) in a historical, social, and cultural context.

Epistemologically speaking, this means that the "temporal validity" of qualitative data in social research depends more on the, let us say, persistency of certain conditions and processes than on the time itself, merely conceptualized as passing days, weeks, years, and so on.

Take as an excellent and paradigmatic example researches coming from the interdisciplinary field of memory studies, within which - sometimes - it is more relevant, rather than the time in which something was created as relevant data for social researchers, the time in which an analysis is applied and performed.

Or, to reflect upon your own example, you might say that "attitudes toward immigrant in a certain context" are valid until a certain context (cultural? collective' social?) still structures in the same way. Or, on the other hand, you might say that "attitudes toward immigrants in a certain context" you have found are strongly part of some historical events or political discussions within which you have obtained your data. In any case, anyway, the "temporal validity" of your data is still ongoing since, even if something changes, you might use them as further data for research establishing - for example - how in a certain context and in a certain time, certain groups of people developed their attitudes toward immigrants.

Jorge Ruiz Within a year

Dear Jorge,

I have never found You are asking in any methodological literature too. Is it the same for the other researchers?

You have primary and secondary data. You can collect your primary data and use it many years later but you must indicate your date of data collection because there may be some changes after your fieldwork. For secondary data, some literature are classics, they are forever relevant to the topic of your research. For instance, the work of Malinowski's Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) is always relevant in ethnography.

Thank you very much for the answers. I think there is a lack of criteria to establish the temporal validity or actuality of the data in social research (other sciences have it easier because they do not address issues affected by the passage of time). For example, if I investigate attitudes towards immigrants in a certain context, when can I say that some data correspond to the past and others are "current" or "present"? Given this lack, I find it very interesting to take the criterion of transparency regarding the moment of the investigation when offering the results of the investigations. But it could also be interesting to try to establish a criterion for the temporary validity of the data that is provided or analyzed.

Hi Jorge Ruiz , I would like to add something to the relevant issue you are discussing. Indeed, I agree with the general point you are making: sharing the moment of investigation is fundamental.

Anyway, I would like to argue that, more or less explicitly and/or more or less systematized within a proper paradigmatic framework, every qualitative research, and therefore any qualitative findings, is positioned (or should at least be positioned) in a historical, social, and cultural context.

Epistemologically speaking, this means that the "temporal validity" of qualitative data in social research depends more on the, let us say, persistency of certain conditions and processes than on the time itself, merely conceptualized as passing days, weeks, years, and so on.

Take as an excellent and paradigmatic example researches coming from the interdisciplinary field of memory studies, within which - sometimes - it is more relevant, rather than the time in which something was created as relevant data for social researchers, the time in which an analysis is applied and performed.

Or, to reflect upon your own example, you might say that "attitudes toward immigrant in a certain context" are valid until a certain context (cultural? collective' social?) still structures in the same way. Or, on the other hand, you might say that "attitudes toward immigrants in a certain context" you have found are strongly part of some historical events or political discussions within which you have obtained your data. In any case, anyway, the "temporal validity" of your data is still ongoing since, even if something changes, you might use them as further data for research establishing - for example - how in a certain context and in a certain time, certain groups of people developed their attitudes toward immigrants.

I think you have gotten very good response above. But id wish to expand the questions and ask if temporal validity is only limited to qualitative research. I think temporal validate will be determined by the matter under investigation and what may be considered 'stale findings'. Any research must be time bound and contextual. however, the voice of a qualitative respondent does not lose meaning in time if the problem and context still persists. a rule of thumb should be the yardstick

I will also add If the issues under studies still exist, your data to some extent are still relevant. Arguably, these types of investigations are complexes by nature and require a conceptual and theoretical framework to assist with methodologies, data collections and analysis. For instance, attitudes towards immigrants studies can utilize political economy from a historical materialist approach to account for change in time and space. Thus facilitating the use of predated primary data which can be compared with the current as well as secondary data to validate findings.

i must add that, " (other sciences have it easier because they do not address issues affected by the passage of time)" is totally inaccurate. whether it is biology, economics, even physics et al are affected by the passage of time. very little falls under, the earth is round and such that do not change.

since your question is about the data itself (and not the findings), i would not recommend using data collected in the past to a study conducted with today's subjects-- so probably no more than 1 year, and 1-2 for quantitative.

can u give more info or examples?

I think it totally depends on the research question you are working on and the type of data you are using. For example if the researcher is working on cross-sectional data i.e. any number of individual at a given time , in that scenario the data is still workable and can be used. However, if the researcher is using Time-series analysis then the researcher might be focusing on showing the change in the research outcomes over certain time period. In this situation the more older the data is more it will be difficult to implement due to the gape. Similarly it may vary for panel data. I recommend you must look for such things.

Try looking at Aveyard or Grey "doing research in the real world"

The responses here are instrumental and I believe that they have offered you a great deal of answers. Meanwhile, it is still important to note that, irrespective of the type of data collected (qualitative or quantitative) in a social research, such a data is subjected to certain level of validity and can always be referred to, in a historical study if the phenomenon no longer exist. In this regards, one will be attempted to say that archival resources and local Discourse analysis , which are always available in local media houses are pertinent to validating qualitative data, even if social change takes place.

Simple, all data gained through qualitative social research methods are current UNTIL a new data set is presented that either supports the previous data or nullifies it. We can not simply say that data gathered through qualitative social research methods in the year 2000 would be invalid (not current) in ten years time (2010) simply because we assume that certain factors would have changed because the social world is not static. Operationalization and measurement of data gathered will determine its validity and current state over a period of time.

Thanks Collins! I think something very similar about this. I just wanted to check if it is a criterion shared by colleagues and if there was any reference that I had forgotten

i'm not sure that is true--when i was in school bs ms and phd , we were always told the "latest" research was the best and that is what we should use for references-5 yrs old; - anything 10 yrs was too old and more than 10 should be used as just that-- "ten yrs. ago..."

I would link your question on data to 'study findings' and further surmise that if the subject landscape has not drastically changed over the time period, it would be safe to say that relevance is maintained.

Collins Okeke no data is not useful forever if no new research contradicts it-we're talking here about qualitative results, not the rotation of the earth. as an e.g. a study on why married couples divorce of 50 yrs ago even 10 years ago is not useful for today's married couples who divorce.

Hi Mary-Helen,

Well, if there are no new studies and research findings as to why married couples divorce in 2020 but there are existing studies and research data that points to why couples divorce in the 70s and 80s. Do we assume and generalize without hard facts as to why couples divorce in 2020?

A researcher looking for reasons why couples divorce in 2020 will definitely start from the available data of the 70s, and see if she can come up with new answers as to divorce among married couples in 2020, then compare both to find similarities and differences.

I think an important aspect of this question is the accelerated change that we are experiencing in our societies. Accelerated social changes make data obsolete as soon as the research is done, even more four or five years later when the analysis and the process of writing and publishing the results in journals have been completed. That is why we need a consideration the "actuality" of qualitative data beyond its immediate reference to the present situation.