Essentials of Thinking Ethically in Qualitative Research

Will C van den Hoonaard, Deborah K van den Hoonaard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315429151
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Recherche et méthodologie en psychologie

Ethical dimensions of qualitative research are constantly emerging and shifting. This volume identifies relevant ethical principles that can guide novice researchers through the research process with the necessary wisdom and insight to shape a project in sound, meaningful, and thoughtful ways. Well known for their work in this area, the van den Hoonaards outline the domains on which ethics most often impinge. They address key ethical issues arising in different qualitative traditions and contexts. The volume concludes with guidance on how to navigate formal ethics reviews. Many key examples and other resources help the student engage the complicated literature on this topic.

Chapter One

Introduction

Qualitative research was born in the shadow of anthropology. As early as the nineteenth century, Western anthropologists conceived of the idea of studying cultures holistically, albeit with the early belief that such studies should have a positivist basis. With the enthusiastic discovery of non-Western cultures, ethical reflection and practices took a backseat; it might be more accurate to say that early anthropologists did not entertain careful ethical thought that should have pervaded all of their work in exotic locations (or from an armchair). As Murray Wax (1980: 272) points out, the accounts of such well-known anthropologists as Margaret Mead and Bronislaw Malinowski (in Samoa and Trobriand Islands, respectively) provide us with the image of the “solitary anthropologist” living “intimately within a community of ‘Stone Age’ people.” “The anthropologist,” Wax claims, “learns and participates in an exotic way of life and then returns to report to colleagues and the literate public.”

Over time, anthropology, with the help of sociology, gave way to the study of communities and groups and realized the need to prioritize the perspectives of these studied social entities. A high degree of “exoticism” pervaded many of these early studies, which reinforced the idea of “othering” cultures. Today, qualitative researchers challenge the whole concept of “othering” because it runs counter to doing interpretive and inductive research.

By the early 1950s, this approach had already dictated the sociological impetus to study contemporary urban Western cultures, such as those of funeral directors (Habenstein, 1954), gangs (Whyte, 1955), prisons, mental asylums, factories, small towns, schools, and so on (Wax, 1980: 272).

In the course of time, other disciplines adopted this approach, giving rise to a large array of qualitative techniques, each one uniquely expressing the tenor of each discipline: narrative research, discourse analysis, participant observation, case studies, ethnography, photo elicitation, and so on (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994: 3). Now it is common to find researchers in psychology, nursing, education, and social work who engage in qualitative research. What all of these approaches share is the search for meanings that research participants exemplify through their words and deeds. It is an inductive approach that, ideally speaking, takes its cues from the world of the people who are being studied. In many respects, this approach differs widely from those early anthropological approaches driven by the belief that there is an objective reality that scientists can uncover, describe, and analyze. A very different scholarly world indeed.

No less divergent have been the contemporary ethical stances towards the study of communities, groups, and cultures, whether in the field or as expressed through text. These stances represent a whole range of subtle hues, depending on the discipline, the researcher (including the researcher’s own culture), the researched setting, the nature of groups that are being studied, and the strategies of research. The “growing recognition that we cannot represent others in any other terms but our own” (Van Maanen, 1988: 12) underscores a heightened need to engage in an ethical conversation within ourselves lest we mistake our understanding of others as infallible or “objective.”

It will be nigh impossible, except for a few broad principles, to outline specifically the definite ethical parameters that undergird all qualitative research. When one is more familiar with the ethical canons of either quantitative or biomedical research, it is easy to be apprehensive when being confronted with the ethical peculiarities of qualitative research. Qualitative researchers do not claim to be exempt from the importance of ethics in research. Although some general ethics principles do apply, a qualitative researcher’s approach often involves different issues and solutions calling upon other kinds of ethical principles that are particularly relevant in their case. For example, a qualitative researcher usually embraces whole groups or communities as part of her¹ study, rather than individuals on a one-to-one basis. As another example, it is hard to pin down the precise nature or goals of one’s research—an aspect that has an impact on how she explains the research to others.

At the heart of thinking ethically is the need to grasp the nature of qualitative research. Following Herbert G. Blumer (1969), qualitative researchers understand society as an “obdurate reality” because as Gary A. Fine (1993) exclaims, society is secured in secrets, often beyond the pale of the casual observer. We thus need a method that probes issues more deeply. These uncertainties make our grasp of society fluid, but they also lead every conscientious researcher to move beneath the initial surface (appearance) of society.

As such, the qualitative researcher places great value on modifying her research plan along the way as she deepens her understanding of the setting. Often, there are surprising, unexpected, and unpredictable sources of data of a serendipitous nature. New horizons open to the researcher. It is quite impossible to predict or anticipate the ethical dimensions that may arise in the course of such changes. Hence, one needs to cultivate one’s inner ethical poise, which can carry her through the challenges of doing qualitative research in the ever-changing social context or situation. One stands to benefit from knowing the experiences of other researchers who have taken a similar path of research. Indeed, one purpose of The Essentials of Thinking Ethically is to bring readers’ attention to a number of their studies.

Ethics in research does not take place in a vacuum. Ethics is about relationships. Before considering how particular research strategies involve ethics, we need to explore ethics as expressed through the four main prisms of qualitative research: namely, the researcher, relations with research participants, data gathering, and the dissemination of research findings. Each prism calls for specific ethical obligations and rights. We also need to provide a broad discussion of confidentiality. This discussion involves sizing up its shape, much like one takes into account the morphology of the ground. This last discussion concludes the first part of this book.

Summary

Born in the bosom of anthropology as “fieldwork,” qualitative research rose and evolved through a variety of disciplines, including sociology, social work, education, and health research. All have their own distinctive features, but they all share the idea of inductive research. In contrast, however, to the earlier anthropological research, today’s research does not claim to be objective and challenges the whole idea of “othering.” Once researchers reject “othering,” a new ethical conversation needs to be started. Moreover, the need to modify one’s research plans as the research moves forward forces researchers to become agents of their own ethical practice. A textbook such as ours relies on the experiences of researchers as they have come face-to-face with ethical issues; for better or worse, the textbook cannot rely completely on national ethics guidelines or codes because they mainly use a biomedical frame of reference. The unique feature of the book primarily consists of its reliance on the ethics experience of qualitative researchers, buttressed by research-ethics codes.

Chapter Two

Ethical Prisms

This chapter explains the general and particular characteristics of qualitative research that require special approaches to ethical reflection. There are, however, many distractions that can cloud this reflection: the researcher’s own cultural background, the appearance of doing “proper” research, lack of time to gather and analyze data, unexpected encounters in the social setting, and disciplinary and institutional pressures, to name a few. While this book articulates the germane ethical principles of respecting human dignity, respecting persons, and being concerned for welfare and justice, there are also a number of distinctive ways that the ethical journey differs in qualitative research. This journey touches the researcher, relations with research participants, data gathering, and dissemination of research findings.

An examination of national ethics codes pertaining to research reveals no shortage of clearly established ethical principles. In England, for example, Rachel Aldred (2008: 889) reminds us that six core principles should govern social research, namely “(1) integrity and quality; (2) full disclosure about the research to research staff and subjects; (3) confidentiality and anonymity; (4) voluntary participation by participants; (5) avoidance of harm of participants and; (6) avoiding or disclosing conflicts of interest.” Elizabeth Murray and Robert Dingwall (2002: 339) reaffirm some of these ethical principles in research when they emphasize the importance of non-maleficence (researchers should avoid harming participants), beneficence (research on human subjects should produce some positive and identifiable benefit rather than simply be carried out for its own sake), autonomy or self-determination (the values and decisions of research participants should be respected), and justice (people who are equal in relevant respects should be treated equally). A researcher can find similar principles in the Belmont Report (National Commission, 1979), which is used as the basis for ethical guidelines in the United States.

Our task, however, is to apply and correlate these principles to the demands and needs of qualitative research/-ers. The astute reader will have already noted that the ideologies of individualism, individual autonomy, and self-determination have come alive in these general principles. Essentials of Thinking Ethically hopes to offer a negotiated settlement between these generic, individualistically based principles and the nature of qualitative research that underscores, without any hesitation, the social basis of research.

Kathleen Blee and Ashley Currier (2011: 404) offer sage advice when it comes to seeing ethics in terms of “disallowed actions.” The researcher sets limits on what he can take down as data. Identifying, for example, a coal miner’s sexual orientation might bring real danger to that person. While these “negative, preemptive orientations” to ethics forestall a situation that could be “brimming with harm” and are good in “sidestepping ethical calamities,” they also allow the researcher to think more deeply about the relationship between positive and negative findings, between seeking out people who wish to take front stage versus those who desire to remain in the shadows. These ethical conundrums are also scholarly as one comes to terms with the purpose and nature of one’s own research.

The Researcher

The researcher endeavors to be honest in his relationships with colleagues; admits to errors, missteps, and mistakes; and confesses the pressures of scholarship he is experiencing. He is trustworthy; takes time to do research, analysis, and writing; and values integrity when doing the analysis. This ethical inner poise can be difficult to maintain as competitive outlooks, the pressures of time, and prepublication secrecy might incline one to surrender that ethical poise. What is more problematic, from a moral perspective, are the mixed motivations that are intrinsic to research. A number of experienced researchers have pondered this particular problem. Can “honesty” be the best policy when our motives for doing the research are fraught with reasons that we do not discuss with participants (Wax, 1980: 277)? Is our self-presentation to participants really us (Fine, 1993)? And is the researcher’s moral accounting based on self-serving, pragmatic considerations? Does not the researcher ask himself whether this or that behavior helps his research (Bosk, 2001: 203)? Are our friendships natural or are they directed towards a particular goal in research?

Relations with Research Participants

In terms of relations with research participants, the researcher must consider such highly fluctuating ethical dimensions as voluntary participation, anonymity, and confidentiality. These can be ambiguous dimensions. Thinking about power and recognizing actual or potential inequality are yet other ingredients of thinking ethically. Because qualitative research may take a long time, it is not unusual that relations with research participants change over time, creating ethical dimensions hitherto unthought-of. After a researcher has induced professional interactions with research participants, such interactions can become personal, sometimes highly personal, as the researcher becomes more and more integrated into the social setting. Even after the research is over, a researcher will fluctuate in his beliefs regarding whether or not he should maintain these natural relationships of friendship. Moreover, relations with research participants of higher social standing can induce unexpected ethical dilemmas that are different than with members of marginal groups. In the case of researching elites, there are veils of secrecy that the researcher must traverse, and he must decide what secrets should be opened up for publication. The stakes of confidentiality are high (Odendahl and Shaw, 2001), and in the case of researching marginal groups, there is a tendency to side with them, and sometimes to become their advocate, which changes the ethical nature of the relationship.

Power in human relationships seems inevitable. The crux of a feminist approach to ethical research resides in the relationship of power between the researcher and research participant. Tina Miller and Linda Bell (2002: 54) highlight the imbalance of power in the case of violent relationships in the lives of research participants (which become apparent when a researcher interviews partners of violent men). But when it comes down to the relationships between the researcher and the participant, the feminist approach seeks reciprocity between the two, in addition to empowering the participant (Miller and Bell, 2002: 65).

Only when there are attempts to (re)negotiate the power imbalance between the researcher and the research participant will the nature and force of consent be known and recognized. Research participants may find themselves consenting to more than they had originally agreed (Miller and Bell, 2002: 54). For example, the researcher might anticipate their reading their own transcripts—an onerous job, involving many hours of extra work.

To undertake research antagonistic to our own ethical poise can raise grave concerns. Do we maintain that poise or do we suspend our moral judgments (Wax, 1980: 277)? Both are possible. There is no social phenomenon that some researcher does not carry antipathies towards. When one considers the fact that everyone works within a social structure, it follows that one must imagine a moral hierarchy: a street felon works within the structure of a gang, and that gang operates within a larger social matrix. It is indeed a poor form of research to imagine that a research participant functions only in terms of himself and that he works outside a social web of relations. The notion that we are all intermeshed in a social structure should allow us to undertake research antagonistic to our moral sensibilities because the locus is not the individual but the social structure. Whether one researches wealthy or poor people, “deviants” or “normals,” the qualitative researcher understands that an individual’s location and attributes can only make sense when larger social forces, that is, social structure, are taken into account.

The idea of harm is very prevalent when it comes to doing any kind of research. As Lisa McIntyre avers in The Practical Skeptic (2002: 50), there is potential for harm in any sort of research that involves human subjects, but aside from the most evident example of harm (e.g., physical), it may not be easy to determine such harm, whether by what we do, what we do not do, or what we neglect to do. An interview, for example, fraught with deeply emotional elements, can mirror a sense of a highly connected relationship that offers the research participant the opportunity to tell her side of a story that family or friends have ignored or misunderstood. Lisa Tillmann-Healy (2003: 745) says that such a connection with research participants can elicit “fears and concerns,” but one can “listen closely and respond compassionately.” In the end, the researcher can “use such exchanges to refine the study and direct its implications.” Even in the instance of Laud Humphreys’ The Tearoom Trade (1970), a study much criticized for the surreptitious and deceptive methods by which he gained his data about impersonal sexual activity, one could argue that, in the end, his research led to a greater awareness of the existence of homosexuality and contributed to more enlightened policies that decriminalized homosexuality (McIntyre, 2002: 51). Just as the researcher should not rush to the conclusion that his research contains no harm, neither should he dismiss the po...