Exploring the Benefits and Limitations of Using Naturally Occurring Data in Health Research

  • Nikki Kiyimba
  • Jessica Nina Lester
  • Michelle O’Reilly


The purpose of this chapter is to encourage the reader to consider the benefits and limitations of using naturally occurring data in their own health research. The chapter thus provides examples of research in this area to demonstrate the advantages that collecting naturally occurring data can have for informing practice. These examples are balanced by a critical discussion outlining the possible limitations and challenges of using data of this kind.


Naturally occurring data Health research Benefits Limitations Advantages 


  1. Danziger, K. (1994). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hyde, K. (2000). Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research, 3(2), 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research). In H. Spencery-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 316–341). New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  6. O’Reilly, M., & Kiyimba, N. (2015). Advanced qualitative research: A guide to contemporary theoretical debates. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. O’Reilly, M., Parker, N., & Hutchby, I. (2011). Ongoing processes of managing consent: The empirical ethics of using video-recording in clinical practice and research. Clinical Ethics, 6, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ormston, R., Spencer, L., Barnard, M., & Snape, D. (2014). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton-Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 1–26). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Potter, J. (2002). Two kinds of natural. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Speer, S., & Hutchby, I. (2003). From ethics to analytics: Aspects of participants’ orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology, 37(2), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stokoe, E. (2014). The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikki Kiyimba
    • 1
  • Jessica Nina Lester
    • 2
  • Michelle O’Reilly
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of ChesterChesterUK
  2. 2.School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.The Greenwood Institute of Child HealthUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations