As part of the international open science movement, the openness of research data has emerged as a goal both to enable transparency and reproducibility of research and to support the reuse of datasets (Pampel & Dallmeier‑Tiessen, 2014). Research organizations, funders, and publishers promote the opening of research data in various ways, and a wide range of guidelines and services are available for this purpose. Despite requirements and guidelines for openness, research data are still opened only to a limited extent, and several challenges remain (Chauvette et al., 2019; Mozersky et al., 2022; Shero et al., 2025). Open research data are also reused relatively little in research (Gend & Zuiderwijk, 2022), leaving the potential of open data underexploited. There are differences between disciplines and data types in this respect. While in some fields the practices for opening and reusing data are already established, certain types of data are considered more challenging, and no established models or expertise for opening them have developed. The research culture in education science is often filled with concerns regarding the sharing of data, such as protecting your research work and participants, even though there are solutions for these concerns, at least for quantitative data (Logan et al. 2021). For example, fear of incorrectly deidentifying data or accidentally including private information is one identified barrier to data sharing in the fields of education and psychological research (Shero et al., 2025). In qualitative research, various epistemological, methodological, legal, and ethical aspects pose challenges for opening research data (Chauvette et al., 2019). Qualitative datasets are therefore seldom shared openly, but the pressure to open them has nevertheless increased (Mozersky et al., 2022).  Opening data collected from human participants involves ethical challenges. Both participants and researchers may consider the data confidential for various reasons. Researchers are often left to deal with the ethical challenges of openness on their own. Especially in these changing times of poly-crisis, it is important that research data can be effectively reused while at the same time ensuring the safety of researchers and research participants.

This study provides insights into the barriers to openness of data through the experiences and perspectives of researchers and those working in research support services. It also brings the viewpoint of research participants into this discussion. This study reviews data sharing barriers identified in earlier research and examines them particularly from the perspective of social sciences and qualitative research. In addition, the study draws on empirical data from interviews with researchers and data support specialists (n = 11). The data are analysed using content analysis.

Openness cannot be implemented in the same way for all datasets or all studies, for example, due to the sensitivity of the data, so opening data requires researchers to have expertise to find appropriate solutions on a case by case basis. The requirements to share data can evoke fears and uncertainties among researchers, relating both to their own research work and the protection of research participants (Durán del Fierro et al., 2024; Shero et al., 2025). In part, the barriers to data sharing are embedded more deeply in academic culture and the social structures of research (Durán del Fierro et al., 2024). Despite increasing recognition of the barriers and development needs in data sharing, the viewpoint of researchers and their experiences have not yet been sufficiently explored. The culture of data sharing cannot be mandated from above; rather, it emerges through dialogue, shared values, and trust based negotiations (Durán del Fierro et al., 2024). This study examines the barriers to opening and reusing research data particularly from the perspective of social sciences, such as educational research. It is important that the opening and reuse of data in these disciplines are supported in ways that respect both researchers and participants. The study focuses to the experiences of researchers and seeks ways to involve participants in the conversation as well. The findings present a multi-voiced narrative that offers a deeper understanding of the challenges related to opening research data.

Chauvette, A., Schick-Makaroff, K., & Molzahn, A. E. (2019). Open Data in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406918823863. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918823863 Durán del Fierro, F., Littlejohn, A., & Kennedy, E. (2024). Sociotechnical Imaginaries of Sharing and Emerging Postdigital Meaning-Making Practices in the Astronomy Community. Postdigit Sci Educ 6, 844–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-024-00473-5 Gend, T., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2022). Open research data: A case study into institutional and infrastructural arrangements to stimulate open research data sharing and reuse. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(3), 782-797. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221101200 Logan, J. A. R., Hart, S. A., & Schatschneider, C. (2021). Data Sharing in Education Science. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211006475. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211006475 Mozersky, J., Friedrich, A. B., & DuBois, J. M. (2022). A Content Analysis of 100 Qualitative Health Research Articles to Examine Researcher-Participant Relationships and Implications for Data Sharing. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, Article 16094069221105074. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221105074 Pampel, H., & Dallmeier-Tiessen, S. (2014). Open Research Data: From Vision to Practice. Teoksessa S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Toim.), Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing (s. 213–224). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_14 Shero, Jeffrey. A., Swanz, A. E., Hanson, A. L., Hart, S. A., & Logan, J. A. R. (2025). Data Deidentification for Data Sharing in Education and Psychological Research: Importance, Barriers, and Techniques. AERA Open, 11, 23328584251352814. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584251352814