ABSTRACT
Secondary, archival, cohort, and integrative (meta) analyses are becoming popular because (a) they are far less costly in expense, time, and possibly effort than experiment and survey; (b) they can rely on multiple sources of data for comparison, triangulation, and corroboration; (c) the data they use transcend temporal restrictions and geopolitical confines; (d) they provide us flexibility in implementation; and (e) they offer us opportunities for in-depth as well as extensive analysis. Common to all historical and qualitative research, they also have glaring deficiencies in data accuracy, completeness, reliability, and validity that would in best circumstances remain dubious to the research community. However, if due care is exercised (i.e., checking into a variety of data sources about their reputation, track records, and reliability), they can be implemented with no apology to anyone.
