Researcher separating consent records, transcripts and a code-key envelope
Unique faceless editorial photograph created for this research workflow.
01 / PRIVACY QUESTION

Separate records by role

Keep consent documentation, raw audio, working transcripts, pseudonymized analysis copies and the re-identification key distinct. Each has a different access purpose.

Identify sensitive documents, exclusions, versions and the people who require access in academic teams

Practical scenario

A study has consent forms, original recordings, verbatim transcripts, redacted working copies and a participant-code key. Putting all five into one encrypted folder simplifies storage, but it also gives every folder user the material needed to reconnect statements with people.

02 / WORKFLOW CONTROL

Minimize the archive

Retain only what the approved protocol, consent terms, institution and funder require. Convenience is not a reason to keep extra identifiers.

  1. 01Inventory each record type and name its research purpose.
  2. 02Assign the smallest approved role group to each record type.
  3. 03Place the re-identification key in a separately administered location.
  4. 04Set a review date for recordings, drafts, exports and retained transcripts.
  5. 05Test that an authorized researcher can retrieve the correct version without opening restricted identity records.
03 / DECISION RECORD

Leave evidence another custodian can follow

Keep a data map that names the record class, custodian, approved role group, location, retention basis and next review date. The map should describe the control without repeating participant names or codes.

Pause and review when

  • The archive contains raw audio that the approved plan no longer requires.
  • The code key and transcripts share the same access group.
  • Working drafts cannot be distinguished from the retained version.
04 / TECHNICAL BOUNDARY

Encryption does not decide permitted research use

Does not replace provider permissions, guaranteed backup, password recovery or enterprise identity management. Pseudonymized data can remain sensitive, especially when indirect identifiers or a usable code key exist. Technical protection must sit inside the approved research workflow rather than replace it.

Document the decisionRecord the data state, approved roles, participant code convention, storage location, recovery owner and review date without copying identifiers into the log.
05 / COMMON QUESTIONS

Questions to resolve before acting

Should consent forms sit beside transcripts?

Usually they serve different purposes and expose different information. Follow the approved study plan, but treat separate custody and permissions as the safer default.

Is one encrypted folder enough?

Encryption is valuable, but one permission boundary can still expose every record at once. Separate records whose users, purpose or retention period differ.

PRIMARY REFERENCES

Sources for this decision

Links are selected for the question on this page, not to meet a link quota. They do not imply endorsement. Institutional, IRB, consent, legal and funder requirements control the actual study; this independent resource does not make an IRB or regulatory determination.