Basic principles

You usually cannot assess how well protected your research data are just by looking at the dataset itself. You must always place your data in a technical and social context. That is, data are stored in IT environments of varying security levels and handled by people with different levels of understanding of and varying attitudes toward what is an acceptable level of privacy and data protection.

Technical safeguards

These are measures to protect participant privacy by regulating the collection, handling, storage, and sharing of research data. While technical safeguards are not a method of pseudonymisation, they are crucial for mitigating risks from the environment data exist in. Some examples are encryption, access logging, secure computing environments, multi-factor authentication, access controls, and regular backups.

Organisational safeguards

These may be to train researchers in handling personal data, information security, and data protection laws such as GDPR. They can also involve establishing clear data protection policies and routines, for example by describing how to handle personal data within a research project in a data management plan. The routines can include limiting access rights, regularly reviewing access permissions (for example when staff leave), and conducting risk assessments to identify and evaluate potential risks for personal data, for instance by adopting incident response plans to quickly and effectively address data breaches that affect personal data.

Local guidelines

To ensure that you follow best practices in technical and organisational safeguards, it is important to be aware of the conditions at your institution. Check what safeguards are available – such as internal training, secure IT environments, encryption tools, storage solutions, and help from your research data support service.

A major factor that affects the risk of re-identification is the relationship between your target population and the sample you are studying.

Sampling method

One aspect is the sampling method of a research study. All studies have a population that they want to learn more about. Sometimes, all individuals in the population are part of the study, but more commonly, the study deals with a sample of the population. There are three main sampling methods:

A large population generally reduces the probability of re-identifying individuals within a sample. When more individuals share common traits, it is more difficult to identify a particular individual in the sample. However, if you are studying a population with specific attributes, for example a rare profession, some information about the research participants is already known. This increases the re-identification risk compared to if you were studying a larger population with less or no known information about the research participants. In Sweden, variables like gender, age, education, and location are often openly accessible in public data sources. By matching those variables with observations in the data, it can be fairly easy to identify an individual. You should be aware of what variables the data contain, and if there are any openly accessible additional data sources that can be linked to the participants.

If the population you are studying is, for example, members of the city council in Gothenburg in 2024, we already have a fair but of knowledge about the study participants. We can quite easily link information in the research data to other openly accessible data sources and connect responses in the material to individuals. However, if you are instead interested in a population containing all persons between the ages of 18 and 85 in Sweden, we know considerably less about the potential study participants. The is decreases the re-identification of individuals in the research data. Even if it is possible to identify an individual in the sample, it is more difficult to find out who is part of the sample and to connect responses to an individual.

Study design

Study design is another factor that affects the re-identification risk. These are some common study designs and their associated risks:

The most significant risk factor that you assess and manage as a researcher is the content of your research data. This includes types of identifiers in the data and how sensitive the information is. It may not be obvious which type of variables or which combination of information poses a risk for re-identification, or which types of information may be sensitive. To make a risk assessment of the data you work with, you will need to take a wider perspective and include factors beyond the actual dataset.

Identify unique observations and outliers

It is not uncommon for datasets to contain observations with unique or uncommon combinations of attributes. An observation is unique if it stands out from the studied population. An outlier is an extreme observation that is set apart from the rest of the data. These unique observations and outliers have a higher risk of re-identification because they stand out.

Examples include: 

• a rare profession or job role 
• living in a small community 
• very high or low income 
• very low or high age 
• Very low or high BMI 
• rare medical conditions 
• a family with many children 
• a rare political view or hobby 
• an ethnic origin that is uncommon in Sweden

A common method for identifying unique observations is to combine various indirect identifiers in your data to view the distribution between groups. In quantitative data, a simple histogram showing the distribution of, for example, gender, age, and municipality, can quickly visualise whether any individuals stand out. Another method is by visualising two variables in a scatterplot to reveal whether a young person in a sample has an unusually high income for their age bracket (see below).

 

The age of a dataset matters to the re-identification risk. The older the dataset, the harder it tends to be to identify an individual from the sample, as information like age, education, address, occupation, or income changes over time. Note that if your data are so old that the research participants are deceased, GDPR no longer applies.

However, be aware that older datasets may be part of ongoing longitudinal or panel studies. It is not uncommon for this type of sub-studies or panel waves to have a code key or participant IDs that can re-identify individuals in a current dataset.

Another important but perhaps less obvious safeguard is to consider how easily your pseudonymised data could be linked to other available data sources. In short, linkability means that information about an individual in your pseudonymised data can be linked to another data source where the individual’s identity is not protected. The more additional data sources exist about the studied population, the greater the risk of re-identification. Access to additional data is key to further evaluations about safeguards or other statistical methods for pseudonymisation.

Accessible additional data sources may include: 

• unpseudonymised original versions of your dataset 
• data from official registers 
• information that can be found through digital search engines 
• information in social media 
• people's personal knowledge.

Pseudonymising or anonymising data inevitably results in some loss of information, which can affect the usefulness of the data to you as a researcher, as well as to potential secondary users. The ideal is to make minimal changes to the data to make them pseudonymised or anonymised, for example by removing direct identifiers and/or re-coding indirect identifiers, but this is not always easy – especially with qualitative data or free-text responses.

When the information loss would be too great, it may be more effective to focus on technical and organisational safeguards to protect the privacy of the research participants. By restricting access to the dataset, limiting how it is stored, shared, and for what purposes it may be used, or by defining in what form it may be used and published, you can prevent many privacy risks. However, this may become an administrative burden to you as a researcher, as well as to secondary users who want to reuse the dataset.

Quantitative data are often easier to pseudonymise. Some examples are by recoding numerical variables such as age into broad ranges or recoding geographical variables such as municipality to county – this can be done without losing too much information, while still protecting the privacy of the research participants. Qualitative data or data from free-text responses require more nuanced judgement and are harder to anonymise without significant information loss.  

As a researcher, you must weigh participant privacy against the utility of the data – both for your own research and for future potential reuse.

You should always document the measures you take to protect research data. One way is by using a standard template to document what risk-mitigating strategies and data transformations you have been applied. The Finnish Social Science Data Archive (FSD) has created a useful anonymisation plan template.

Good documentation is essential not just for future reference, but also in the event of a privacy or data protection incident or audit. Being able to demonstrate your decisions and actions can be crucial if legal issues should arise.