You are on page 1of 33

t~OW;T-t" D_ (20F3) (nt'rvd\.h.A-t on --i-v CZl.,'aliid·f.;lit.

Nei hDds tn
Hó¡-lov'IJ Ped (.:,::¿?'n .

qualita-
ypes of
Jument,
ings for
'search.
ssearch
~ ana/y-
le data .

• some-
ditative
se may
;ay, the
iandino
; of the

lay not
erspec-
ich the

or
.hers

pen

os y-
458 PART 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH

i
Does qualitative research need ethics?
I
I

Research ethics for qualitative research might be expected to be pretty much


the same as those for quantitative research. However, qualitative psychologists
often orienta te themselves very differently from their subject matter - people.
Among the most obvious differences is rhe way in which participants in
research are viewed, construed and treared in qualitative research. Laboratory
experirnentation, a prime example of quantitative research, ignores everything
but a few fairly restricted features of the research participant's behaviour (no
rich data collection here), Imporrantly, the laboratory researcher carefully
manipulates the behaviours of those participating in the study. Ir is no coin-
cidence that rhese participants were once known as subjects since the term is
indicarive of the power relationship between researcher and participant - it is
that of a powerful person (rhe researcher) versus a subordinate one (the sub-
iect). Participants in rhis sort of research are effecrively disregarded as whole
persons - they are instead reduced to just a few variables. In rhe typical field
research, questionnaires are distributed to participanrs whose function is to
tick boxes rather than to express the richness and complexity of their thinking.
These may be caricatures of quantitative research but they contain the essence
of truth, The result is a somewhat alienated relationship between the -quan-
titative researcher and their research participants. Qualitative researchers, in
general, seem more interested in their research participanrs as people and seek
to maintain their human dignity as ful! participants in the research.
Not surprisingly, bec:ause of the different way they relate to their research
participants, some qualitative researchers are tempted to regard their quali-
tative research as ethically or morally superior to that of the quantitative
psychologist. As Br inkrnann and Kvale (2005, p. 162) put it: 'The qualitative
boom has been -aeeompanied by a tendeney among qualitative researehers tO
portray qualitative inquiry as inherently ethical, or at least more ethical than
quantitative research.' Closely related to this is the idea of qualitatiue ethiasm
(Hammersley, 1999). This is the tendency of qualitative researchers to regard
458 PART 4 PLANNING ANO WRITING UP QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Does qualitative research need ethics?

Research ethics for qualitative research might be expecred to be pretty much


the same as those for quantitative research. However, qualitative psyehologists
often orientate themselves very dífferently from their subject matter - people.
Among the most obvious differenees is the way in whieh participants in
researeh are viewed, construed and treared in qualitative research. Laboratory
experimentation, a prime example of quantitative researeh, ignores everything
but a few fairly restricted features of the researeh participant's behaviour (no
rieh data collection here). Importantly, the laboratory researcher carefully
manipulates the behaviours of those participating in the study. Ir is no coin-
eidenee that these participanrs were once known as subjects since the term is
indicativo of the power relationship between researeher and parricipanr - it is
that of a powerful person (the researcher) versus a subordinate one (the sub-
iect). ParticÍpants in this sort of researeh are effectÍvely dísregarded as whole
persons - they are instead redueed to just a few variables. In the typiea! field
researeh, questionnaires are distributed to partieipants whose funetion is to
tick boxes rather than to express the richness and complexity of their thinking.
These may be caricatures of quantitative research but they contain the essence
of truth. The result is a somewhat alienated relationship between the -quan-
titative researcher and their research parricipants. Qualitative researchers, in
general, seem more interested in their research participants as people and seek
to maintain their human dignity as fuU participants in the researeh.
Nor surprisingly, because of the differem way they relate to their research
participants, some qualitative researchers are tempted to regard their quali-
tative researeh as ethically or morally superior to that of the quantitative
psychologist. As Brinkmann and Kvale (2005, p. 162) put it: 'The qualitative
boom has been -accornpanied by a tendency among qualirative researchers to
portray qualitative inquiry as inherently ethical, or at least more ethical than
quantitarive research.' Closely related to this is the idea of qualitatiue ethicism
(Harnmersley, 1999). This is the tendency of qualitative researchers to regard
(;HAPTEFi 16 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALlTATlVE RESEARCH 459

their research in primarily ethical terrns almost as if achieving ethical goals was
the purpose of research. The doser re!ationship berween research participants
and researchers in qualitative research mal' be more rewarding on ahuman
leve! but this makes certain ethical issues more pertinent and more problema tic
as we shall see.The relationship berween rhe qualitative researcher and their
participants is distinctive perhaps largely as a consequence of rhe qualira-
tive researcher's search for rich and detailed data. Such data often demands
substantial commitment on the part of participants and a doser, cooperative
and supportive relationship between researcher and participant. Ethical codes
which govern quanritative research are, to some extent, insufficient to deal
with the special characteristics and, hence, requirements of qualitative research.
Psychologists, like many other professions, conduct themselves according to
moral principies known as 'ethics'. The American Psychological Association
probably has the most extensive ethical code but others, such as the British
Psychological Society, have their own versions. The ethical issues for qualitative
researchers can be very different from those facing the quantitative researcher
despite some obvious areas of overlap. While a sirnplistic perspective on ethics
is to regard them as sets or rules or regulations for the activities of psychologi-
cal practitioners and researchers, this is somewhat inadequate. No system of
rules is self-interpreting and so even where we think that we ha ve a good rule
then 'we still need to know when and how to apply the rule' (Brinkmann &
Kvale, 2005, p. 159). Interpretarion regulady faces researchers beca use of the
ty much detail of the research setting and the importance of the research topic, for
iologisrs instance, can significantly affect the application of research ethics. Put another
. people. way, using an old chestnut, ir is a moral principIe that one shouldn't kill but
rants in what if by killing an extreme dictator one could save rnany thousands of lives?
ioratorv What then? Does the principie about not killing still apply or does some other
~rything principie begin to take precedence? Much the same is true for research ethics -
tour (no that is, whether an ethical principle should prevail in a particular situation
:arefulty may depend as much on details about the situation as the nature of the erhical
10 coin- principie itself. For example, the confidenriality of inforrnation supplied ro a
term is researcher by a participant is a universal in ethical guidelines. But what if dur-
Ir - it is ing the course of an inrerview the participant makes threars to kill a neighbour
.he sub- with whom he has a dispute? Should rhis information be confidential? And
s whole suppose the man goes on to kill his neighbour: is the researcher blame!ess and
.al fie!d beyond reproach beca use they maintained confidentiality?
m is to Psychological researchers sometimes identify similar dilemmas in their
iinking. work. Jusr how should they go about resolving them? \X1e 11, the ethical princi-
essence ples of psychologists by and large give the responsibiliry for monitoring ethical
~ quan- standards to the researcher(s) carrying out the research and the psychological
hers, in community in general. This might include (a) the researcher(s) seeking the
nd seek advice and assistance of other psychologists when there are potentially any
ethical issues and (b) the entire psychology community monitoring at an infor-
esearch mal leve! the ethical standards ernployed in the different fields of psychology .
. quali- Ethica! guidelines sometimes make exceptions where the Iaw or a specific
titative organisation allows certain sorts of research activity which otherwise would
.litative seem to be erhically dubious. This clearly is a situation in which rhere is a
hers to conflict between the ethics and the law which some might see as a reason to
al than question the law rather than a reason to disregard the ethics. Ethics are not
thicism simply organisational matters but individual rnatters too , One's personal ethics
regard may mean that one does not do what is otherwise permissible - the researchers
460 PART 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP OUALlTATlVE RESEARCH

FIGURE 16.1 Shaw's (2008) apects of ethics tor research

who employed deception in their research chose to do so, they did not have to
do so. There are areas, of course, where the law is less restrictive than ethical
principies. For example, the law general1y does not punish psychologisrs who
have sex with their adulr clients even though ir is againsr ethical principles,
The ever-widening context in which qualitative psychological research oper-
ates dernands thar researchers are sensitive to a substantial variety of erhical
issues. There has been substantial growth in qualitative research in areas such
as health psychology, clinieal psychology, counselling and psychotherapy,
educarional psychology, work and organisational psychology, and community
psychology (Willig & Stainton-Rogers, 2008). All of these are extrernely sensi-
tive areas of research by their very narure. Consequently, qualitative research-
ers face a complex and demanding ethical environment.
Ethics are important at all stages of qualitative research as indicated in
Figure 16.1. Ir is a misrake to consider ethics as something to be dealt with solely
at the design stage despite the modern rendency to seek ethical approval from
universities and other institurions at this stage (I. Shaw, 2008). Ethics in qua lita-
tive research, especially, cannot be regarded as a hurdle to be dealt with before
data collection begins. The course of qualitative research is nor predictable in
rnany cases which means that vigilance is continually required in order to deal
with the ethical issues which can emerge at any.stage in qualitative research .

..j'
(¡ é:1"!üiqn
.••..
~\,...'y\.:..i\ ...-f-.lttl"-'"
,,,
iT,pnl" r t. nt
\...,¡¡¡
ar,
'h" 1('5 iIliY'" }..
\. •• t.;l.,_" ...J,
l"lC\/L'"
h nU], I'0{1\1
':3/

Ethics are an important aspect of modern psychological and social scientific


research. Current ethical codes can be traced back to the Nuremberg Code
which was developed to govern medical research. Nazi Germany's medical
profession had an '~ppalling record of unnecessary and inhumane medical
experimentatíon on human beings. The most notorious medie among them was
Dr Josef Mengele. He, for example, gave exrrernely high voltages of elecrrical
CHAPTEFlló ETHICS ANO DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH 461

shock to women concentration camp inmates in a srudy of their endurance


levels. At the trial oE so me of these Nazi doctors in 1947, not only did the
judges deliver their verdict but provided principies for the appropriate con-
duct of medical research. Six of these principies were adopted from elsewhere
but four additional ones were contributed by the court. Collectively these are
referred to as the Nuremberg Codeo Many of these principies will be familiar
to anyone with a basic knowledge of psychological ethics. For example:

@ Consent to take part in research should be entirely voluntary and given only
by people with a legal capacity to give consent. The person should ha ve
enough knowledge of the research to give consent in an informed manner.
i!! The participam in the research has the right to bring the research to an end -
but unlike the modern versions of this only if they are mentally or physically
unable to continue to the end of the research.

Other aspects of rhe cade do not seem to have exact modern equivalents in
ethical codeso For example, the Nuremberg Code indicates that an experiment
should provide findings which are for society's good and that unnecessary
studies should be avoided.
Following the N uremberg Code, the American Psychological Association
developed irs set of ethical principies in 1953 which influenced and guided
not have to ethical thinking beyond just psychology and throughout social scientific
han ethical research (Blodgett, Boyer & Turk, 2005). Concern grew about the ethics of
'ogists who psychological research from this time onwards and becarne especially Eocused
·inciples. on the laboratory experimentation which characterised social psychology
zarch oper- in the 1950s to 1970s. While much of this experimentation was of a high
I of ethical intellectual standard and creative and inventive, to be successful it frequently
areas such required that participants were misled or misinformed about the true nature of
hotherapy, the research (Korn, 1997). Deception dates back to 1897 in psychology when
:ommunity Leon Solomons told participants, some of the time untruthfully, that either one
mely sensi- point or rwo points were touching thern in a study of sensory discriminarion.
e research- \XIhat they were told influenced what they perceived. Korn (1997) found that
the use of deception in social psychological research substantially increased
idicared in in the rhree decades followi ng the Second \1(1orld \XIar. Much of the classic
with solely research of social psychologists used deceit in some form and sometirnes the
roval frorn deception was extreme. Deception studies began to attract considerable criti-
in qualita- cism, especially from the late 19605 onwards - the work of Stanley Milgram
vith before (1933-1984) was a particular focus (e.g. Milgrarn, 1974). In his farnous
.dictable in studies he led participants to believe that they were delivering extremely high
der to deal electric shocks to another person as part of a study of learning. In truth, the
esearch. research was abour the influence of the experirncnter in encouragíng obedience
to the researcher's insrrucrions.
In recent years, considerable ethical scrutiny has been applied to researchers
studying humans (and animals for that matter, rhough this is not an issue fOI
qualitative researchers and hence not covered in this chapter). Institutions such
as universities, health services and the prison service have introduced ethical
1 scientific cornmittees to overview research conducted within theír ambit. This is usually
berg Code rwo-fold:
's medical
le medical ¡¡¡, institutions monitor research by researchers who work for the insritution;
; them was ~ institutions monitor research in their institutions by researchers from out-
f electrical side o the institutions.
í
462 PART <1 PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUAlITATIVE RESEARCH

I\..
~-------------------------------------------------------
The ethical environment of qualltative and other research

In addition to this are the ethical principIes of the researcher's discipline. The
complexity of ethical control is illustrated in Figure 16.2. While the aim is to
pre-empt possible erhica] problems, sanctions can be applied against those who
violate ethical requirements. These may be instigated by the researcher's pro-
fessional body bur also by their home institution. Finally, there is the risk rhat
participants may sue researchers and their employers in court when research
oversteps the mark.
Ethical guidelines help ro protect researchers as well as participanrs in
research. But there is more to it than that. Gross ethical violations by research-
ers risk bringing psychology as a profession, and not just the offending indi-
viduals, into disrepute. The negative consequences of this for all researchers
are potentially serious. Organisations and individuals gain autonomy by the
application of clear and accepted ethical principies. Self-regulation is generally
CHAlOTE"16 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH 463

seen as beneficial given rhe possible excesses of governmenr legislation con-


cerning the conduet of research. Autonomy is a eharaeteristic of many suc-
cessful professions such as medicine and the law. They are not entirely free
from government legislarion but they opérate somewhat independently of ir.
Professions such as medicine emerged as powerful independent bodies during
the nineteenth century (Howitt, 1992) and their autonorny meant that they
retained control over rnajor aspects of professional activities. Ethics are an
important mechanism by which professions regulate themselves and avoid
outside (political) control.
Qualitative research in psychology is very differenr from medical research
whieh resulted in rhe earliest ethical codeso Ethics have become increasingly
sophisticated over the years in ways that the judges who framed the Nuremberg
Code could not have foreseen. It can be argued that the ethical code of the
American Psychological Association is the most sophisticated one directly
applicable to psychology. It is adopted in this chapter because of its demand-
ing and comprehensive nature. The most recenr version of the American
Psychological Associatiori's manual on ethics was first introduced in 2002 and
carne into effect on 1 June 2003 (American Psychological Association, 2002).
The code is coneeptually based and so provides an intellectually systematic
wa)' of understanding ethical issues. It covers the full range of the professional
activities of psychologists, including their roles as educators and practitioners
as well as researchers. So, for example, you wil! find thar the code requires that
psychology teaching should exhibir fidelity to the current state of knowledge
in the discipline.
There are two important points which should be borne in mind by qua lita-
tive and orher researchers:
$ The American Psychological Association guidelines do not simply apply to
professionals in the field of psychology but also students affiliated to the
organisation.
'" There is an assumption that psychologists should know the releva m ethi-
cal standards which apply to their work and rhe American Psychological
-_~ Association rejects ignorance of these standardsas an excuse.
Rescarchers often articulate the view that modern research ethics are more
to do with the discourse of instirutiorial control than the protection of par-
ticipants. Bureaucratic procedures serve the function of demonstrating that
university managemenrs have control on individual researchers. This per-
spective is shared by Johnson and Altheide (2002) who argue that there are
.ipline. The five different spheres which should be considered when discussing research
le aim is to ethics (see Figure 16.3). These range from the individual researcher's pr i-
t those who vate principIes for their coriduct to instituriona l ethics. Although personal
.chers pro- erhics overIap with and subsume some of rhe orher ethical spheres, the
he risk that corporate or institutional level of ethics is prirnarily to do with legality
en research and the avoidance of legal problems. That is, they ser ve to defend uni-
versities and other providers of research from difficulties and criticismo
:icipanrs in However, Johnson and Altheide identify the sphere of professional ethics
>y research- as the one where the most difficulties arise since it grows like a 'bamboo
nding indi- shoot in a rainforest' (p. 65). Professional ethics are particularly relevant
researchers to the qualitative researcher beca use of the rather different and distinc-
rmy by the tive relationships that qualitative researchers may have with their research
is generally participants.
464 PART PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH

1 is aimed a protectinq the organisation


gal proble I s I

prinCiPle~ g verning the COf'duct of research


hould be Itreated I

ubsume ti
I I
ethical spheres given above
I

FiGUFiE 16.3 Johnson and Altheide's (2002) spheres of ethics

The American Psychological Association argues that ethics should be based Oil
five different integrating principies (Figure 16.4). These apply just as much to
qualitative as to quantitative research.

Principie A: Beneficence and nonmaleficence


According to this, psychologists should be seen as being to the benefit of people
wirh whom the psychologist engages professionally. That is, psychological work

~ ...._--_._-----_._----------
í
"1 - ,'" - " ""
Benefi ence an1 onmaleficence ,
[
elity and refPonsibility 11

[ 1

lnteqrltv: ~ccuracy, h nesty, truthfu+


[ ~

[-- Equltv: equa I access to bSYChOlogy'S b~

-_1
-
[------
Respect rights and dig ity

'---------------------.--------------------.------------
':;UFE 16A The basic principies of APA ethics
_J
CH;'.?E:R'6 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALlTA TIVE RESEARCH 465

should benefit clients, widely defined. Equally, psychologísts should seek to avoid

I
harm to their clients and research participants. This appears to be a reasonable
principie but there are circumstances where rhere may be some doubt about its
applicability. For example, what if the research involves interviews with prison-
ers and they reveal to the researcher that they have committed crimes which are

I not known to the authorities? Should the principie of beneficence apply and the
researcher refnse to pass on such new inforrnation to rhe authorities? What if
the prison makes such revelation a requirernenr for cooperation in the researeh?

I Principie B: Fidelity and responsibility

I
Essentially the work of a professional psyehologist involves relationships of
trust with other people. Consequently, they are expected to:
i:¡;, take responsibility for what they do;

I ?5

l.'l
eonduet themselves in aecordance wirh established

ties and inforrn clients and others of this.


professional standards;
make it cIear that ethics ha ve a role in all aspects of their professional activi-

They ha ve a responsibility to monitor the ethical conduet of other mernbers of


the psychological cornmunity including their colleagues.

Principie C: Integrity includinq accuracv, honesty


based on and truthfulness
much to
Integrity should be manifested throughout every part of a psychologist's pro-
fessional life. So, for example, although ir is generally accepted that in some
eircumstances deception may be appropriate such as when there are clear ben-
efits from the research which substantially outweigh the risks. Nevertheless,
of people even then, the psychologist should correct any harmful consequences.
ical work
Principie D: .Justice _..equatltv ot access to
psvcholoqv's benefits
In their work, psychologists should be aware, for example, of their actual
and potential personal biases in order that al! people experience fair and just
practices from thern. For qualitative researchers, this can be regarded as part
of a reflexive orientation to the research process. Fu:rthermore, psychologists
should neither condone nor engage in unjust practices and should be sensitive
to the means by which injustice may be manifest.

Principie E: Respect for people's rlqhts and dignity


Ir is held that people ha ve the following rights: privacy, confidentiality and
self-determination. One consequence of this is that psychologists need to
understand why some people may be vulnerable and unable to make autono-

J
mous decisions. Children, those who have intellectual limitations and some
elderly people are obvious examples of this category. This principie also
means rhat psychologists need to respect (and be able to recognise) differences
between groups of people in terms of culture and roles. This means that char-
acteristics such as disability, culture, age, ethnicity, gender, gender identity,
language, nationality, race, religion and socio-econornic status are all matters
466 PART 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUAlITATlVE RESEARCH

for consideration and respecto Psychologists not only must try to avoid biases
against such groupings but be critical towards others who fail to reach the
expected standard.
Box 16.8 at rhe end of this chapter indicates so me of the complexity of eth-
ics in a characteristic qualitative study.

Ethical procedures in qualitative research


The same basic ethical requirernents apply to qualitatíve psychologists as apply
to any other form of psychological research with human participants. There
are some special problems for qualitative researchers, as we shall see, as well
as idiosyncratic difficulties. However, the following are key matters which may
be an issue for researchers.

Institutional clearance
A large proportíon of psychological research is carried out wíthín organisations
such as schools, hospitals and prisons - and, of course, universities. Many insti-
tutions require formal approval to be granted before they allow research to take
place within the institution and before they allow members of their staff to carry
out research there or elsewhere. Generally, but not always, the responsibility for
granting approvallies with an ethical cornmittee. (Sometimes the authority for
approving the research may rest with a single individual such as the head of a
school.) The procedures can appear to be cumbersome (for example, lengthy
forms to complete) though sometimes the committee has a fast-track proce-
dure which can be used where the research is not at al! ethically problematic.
Qualitative researchers have the same obligations as any other ro obtain ethical
c1earance from the organisation that they work for and any organisation where
they wish to conducr their research. For example, a university researcher wish- ,'"l.',,',

ing to carry out research in a prison might need to follow the procedures of both
organisations. Although it may appear thar qualitative research involves rela-
tively benign methods ot,data collection, this is something that the qualitative I
researcher should not take for granted. Some work characteristic of qualitative'
researchers may not require ethical clearance such as where the study involves
archival material and other forms of documentary material (newspapers and
magazines, for insrance). However, in almost all other cases it is incumbent on
the researcher to obtain the necessary ethical approval.
Any application for ethical approval should be open and honest with no
attempt to hide issues. Consequently, the application should:

>$ exhibir transparency in that it accurately and patently represents the true
nature of the research;
~ be accurate in terms of the informaríon provided;
~ be clear in terrns of what it cornmunicates abour the proposed research,
$ avoid misleading in any way such as through lies, partial truths or by omission:
@ act as a templa te or protocol for the research that is actually carried out - if
there are changes then it will probably be necessary to seek further approval.

Most research by students takes place in a university setting. So the ethics


vetting procedures of universities are of interest to those planning qualitative
CHAPTER 16 ETHICS AND DATA MANtlGEMENT IN OUALlTATIVE RESEARCH 467

avoid biases research studies. There may be special procedures for srudent research but nor
o reach the necessarily so. The erhics committee is likely to be a generic committee dealing
with al! research involving human participanrs irrespective of the disciplinary
exity of eth. background of the research. So it would deal with research frorn disciplines
such as sociology, business studies, biology and so forth. One approach
involves a two-tiered process of ethics clearance:

~ The first srage involves unproblematic research which meets basic erhical
standards and raises no ethical difficulties. Such research can be identified
using a basic screening questionnaire.
ists as apply
iI1t The second stage is for research which cannot meet these basic standards
iants, There
to be reviewed in detail by the ethics committee. The research mal' then be
see, as well
approved, approved with provisos or refused ethical clearance, which means
; whichmay
that the research cannot take place.

Of course, many types of research are unlikely to be ethically problema tic.


So there may be provision for the general approval of generic styles of research
which have previously met appropriate ethical criteria. Such blanket approval
rganisations speeds up theethical clearance process. (Ir hardly needs to be mentioned here
Many insri- that the work of students can be under severe time and timing pressures.)
arch to take Screening questions can be used to identify unproblematic research propos-
.taff to carry als fairly effectively. The following is a list of the sorts of issue the screen-
msibiliry for ing questionnaire might address. Because of their apparent irrelevance to
.uthority for qualitative research, rnatters to do with invasive physiological or biological
le head of a techniques have been left out of consideration. If you are planning a research
ple, lengthy study, decide between true and false for each of the following statements which
:rack proce- are based on an ethics screening questionnaire used at one British university.
oroblematic. Respond to each of the staternents honestly:
otain ethical
ation where ;jj The researcher(s) involved in the study has prior experience of and/or
ircher wish- adequate training in the methods to be ernployed. TRUE/FALSE
ures of both '" An experienced member of staff wil! supervise student researchers and jun-
ivolves reía- ior researchers directly. TRUE/F ALSE
: qualitative The researcher(s) is not in a position of direct autherity over participants in
f q ualitative the study (such as when students are recruited by teaching staff at a univer-
rdy involves sity to be participants in the research). TRUE/FALSE
spapers and
i1,; The participants wil! not be members of vulnerable groups (i.e. children les s
cumbent on
than 18 years old, elderly people above the age of 65 years, women during
pregnancy, individuals with a mental illness, prisoners al" otherwise detained
est with no
people or any orher vulnerable group). TRUE/FALSE
"" The research procedures are not likely to cause clistress of a physical, social,
nts the true emotional or psychological nature. TRUE/F ALSE
<ji¡ The research procedures are not physically or psychologically demanding on
the participants. TRUE/FALSE
.esearch;
~ The srudy do es not expose participanrs to risks or distress greater than the
ry OmlSSWl1; risks and distress of their normal liíestyle. TRUE/FALSE
ried out - if ~ If the study includes observations or recording of participants, they will be
er approval. informed in advance that this will be involved. TRUEIF ALSE
o the ethics <11 Participants can choose whether to rake pan free frorn any pressures and
; qualitative based on informed consent. TRUE/F ALSE
468 PAR, ~\ PLANNING ANO WRITING UP QUALlTATlVE RESEARCH

~ Participants will be fully informed about the study's objectives and derails of
the procedure before the research commences or ar the end if the inf
rion would risk invalidating the study. TRUFjF~~~
<J? Deception is not used in the research either by withholding informario
from participants or by misleading thern in ways which could harm or lea~
to their exploiration. TRUE/FALSE
@ Where the use of deception is proposed, it is unavoidable given the purposes
of the study. TRUE/F ALSE
Ii'! Where deception is used, participants wil! be debriefed about the true pur-
pose of the srudy soon after its cornpletion. TRUE/FALSE
@ Consideratíon has be en given to how participants will reacr on being told thar
information has been withheld or that there has been deliberate deception.
TRUEJFALSE
@ Participanrs will be rold that they may withdraw from the study at any stage
and require that their data (e.g. tapes, notes) are destroyed. TRUEIFALSE
ti Inforrnation about individual participants in the research will be confiden-
tial and not identífiable except with prior agreement. TRUE/FALSE
~¡, Videos and audio-recordings will be kept in a secure place and nor allowed
ro be used by third parties. TRUE/F ALSE
& Video and audio-recordings of participants wil! be destroyed wirhin six
years of the completion of the investigarion. TRUE/FALSE
," The researcher has not been offered inducernents ro do rhe research by a
third party (except for their contractually agreed salaries or for expenses).
TRUEIFALSE
'~' Participants will nor be offered inducements other than basic expenses to
take part in the study. TRUE/FALSE

How do yau decide whether your research is free of ethical problems based
on the above? Well unless you answered TRUE to all of the staternents which
are releva m to your research then there ma}' be erhical problems with your
work. This rneans rhar you would have to subrnir a detailed proposal for
_ approval by the cornrnittee. Of course, ethical requirements can vary from
institution to insritution so you need to check what procedures are in place
where you are working or studying. Nevertheless, the above should give you
the flavour of what mighr be involved. The following sections provide more
informarían about the ethical basis of these screening items.
As you are probably beginning to realise, obtaining ethical clearance for
your research can involve a lot of bureaucracy and a grear deal of form filling.

Informed consent in the recruitment of research


participants
Informed consent 1S the principie that particrpants agree to take part in
research freely and in the light of knowledge about what the research is about.
This means that participants:

w should not be placed under pressure to participate in the research (e.g. rhey
should not be coerced and they should not be made to fear the consequences
of not taking part in the research)
§ should understand exacdy what participating in the research will involvc

------------------------------ --- ---


470 P/l.RT 4 PLANNING ANO WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH

rhe researcher that some SOftS of information ha ve to be disclosed such


as unknown crimes. Confidentialiry issues can be complex in qualitative
research as indicated in Box 16.1.

But ir is important to stress that ir may be difficult to rneer these requirements


in qualitative research. The qualitative researcher only knows with hindsight
what wiII happen during the research and the possible effects of this, The
qualitative researcher needs to be responsive and adaptable in their data col-
lecting strategies which inevitably means that they may touch on matrers quite
unanticipated when the research was planned - simply beca use rhey take rheir
lead from the participant.
Incentives or rewards for taking part in the research need to be made clear
to the potential participant prior to the research. Alrhough the gl~neral view
is that payments or other rewards for parricipating are best avoided, if rhey
are to be given then this should be made cIear in advance. There are several
potential reasons for this, including the possibility rhar the participant mal'
fee! offended by a cash payrnent or some other form of reward. Their motives
for participation may be to them much more altruistic and payments rnay
compromise their goodwill.
ETHICS ANO DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALlT A T1VE RESEARCH 471

It would be usual to pro vide the name and contact details of a third party
who may be approached about the bona fides of the researcher as well as
further details about the research and their rights as participanrs. Students
doing research would, for example, give details about the person supervising
their research. If this person works at a university then this in itself would help
confirm that the researcher can probably be trusted.
However, the issue of informed consent may be confounded by the pro-
cedures employed by qualitative researchers. The main reason for this lies in
the phrase 'the delusion of alliance' (Stacey, 1988). This refers to the 'closer'
relationship which may be involved in qualitative research. This can encourage
participants to say more and reveal more than they might have in more tradi-
tional psychological research. In this, it is much clearer when the researcher
is actually collecting data and when they are taking a break from the research
task. Because this is relatively poorly demarcated in much qualitative rcscarch
then the risk of involuntary disclosure of inforrnation becomes more serious.
L Shaw (2008) suggests that another way of putting this is to suggest that the
researcher has bccome a covert researcher in this contcxt and such research is
highly problematic ethically.
There are additional issues when considering videoing interaction as dis-
cussed in Box 16.2.
There are circumstances in which it is not necessary to obtain informed con-
sent. Nevertheless, the requirement that the research is not likely to cause the

closed such
qualitative

-quirernents
h hindsight
lf this. The
-ir data col-
iatters quite
:y take their

made clear
eneral view
ded, if they
are several
icipant may
reir motives
-ments may
472 P,c.RT.'< PLANNING ANO WRITING UP OUALITATIVE RESEARCH

individual in volved stress or harm applies - damage to an individual's reputa.


tion is an obvious risk which should be monitored. The main circumstal1ces
in which ir is permissible to carry out research with no prior consenr being
sought are as follows:

~ The research is based on the use of anonymous questionnaires or obser-


vations in natural settings. It is important to maintain confidentiality,
nevertheless.
$ The study involves the use of archival materials rather than new data collec-
tion. The requirernent of confidentiality applies here too.
<Ül The study involves jobs or similar organisarional matrers but the research
puts the participants in no jeopardy related to their employment. Again con-
fidentiality is assumed.
o The research is about 'normal educational practices, curricula or classroom
management methods' in an educational establishment.
@ If the law or institutional regulations allow research without informed con-
sent then it is ethical to carry out research in these circumstances.
But the local ethics commíttee may nevertheless require ethical clearance in
some of the above circumstances and so you need to check.
Several of the above are particularly pertinent to qualitative research.
Ir should be nored that the above is based on the American Psychological
Associarion's ethics, which may not be guiding the ethical committee at your
university, for example.
It is generally accepted, nowadays, that a researcher will formally obtain the
agreement of participants to taking part in the research in the light of informa-
tion abour appropriate detailed knowledge of what the research entails and
other information such as the freedom of the participant to withdraw from
the study unproblematically. There are a number of advantages to this. The
overriding one is, of course, that the researcher has evidence of agreernent to
participa te. Generally speaking, the consent [orm is used to do this but verbal
agreement in the course of an interview is an obvious, viable, rnethod in some
circumstances. A.nother irnportanr advantage of the consent form is that they
generally require the researcher to stipulate details about rhe erhics-related fea-
tures of the research which otherwise rhe researcher may not have considered.
Typically a consent form consists of two parts:
~ A one page or so description of the study. This is the inforrnation sheet or
study description .
• A one page forrn giving derails of the "ethical contraer' between the partici-
pant and the researcher. This is the consent form itself,

So what should go into each of these? There is no universal consent form,


though you can track clown a lot of them on the Web easily. However, your
particular university or other institutionallocation may have its own procedure
for consent, induding a remplate for the consent formo Y our own department
may have its own preferred procedure which you should follow. Each consent
form, however, has to be railored to the particular research study in question.
Remember thar there are circumstances where consent may have to be obtained
from a third party, e.g. where the research involves children. Copies of the infor-
mation sheet and the consent form should be given to each parricipant for them
to reta in. Nevertheless, the following should be helpful in general.
CHAPTER 16 ETHICS ANO DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 473

reputa_ The information sheet/study description


lstances
The information sheet or study description should be written in everyday
t being
language commensurate with the language ability of the participants in the
researeh. Inforrnarion should be provided detailing the nature of their involve-
. obser- ment in the researeh and any potential risks sremming from partieiparion. The
J.tiality, following should be included:

,$ What the projeet is about - that is, what the study aims to aehieve.
1 eollec-
@ Whar the partieipanr is required to do in the study togerher with details of
the time commitmenrs that the research places on its participanrs.
eseareh
IIn con- e What the arrangements for confidentiality of the data are.
fá What the arrangements concerning the privacy of personal data are.
ssroom f!# What the arrangements for the security of the data are.
@ Who will have access to the data.
ed con- ~ The purposes for which the data shall be used.
@ The extent to whieh partieipants will be identifiable in publications.
anee in i!} The voluntary nature of participation in the study.
~ The participant has a total right to withdraw from the study (including
.search,
withdrawing their data) without having to give a reason or explanation for
)logical
this. If appropriate, a statement indicating rhat wirhdrawal from the study
ar your
has no eonringent consequences such as the wirhdrawal of medical services.
tain the ~ What benefits mighr the research bring rhe participant.
iforrna- * What risks or potential harm does the research pose for participants.
uls and ~ If you are intending to do further research (e.g. follow-up interviews) at
w from
another time or if there is a possibility of doing so, care is needed. You
Lis. The must obtain permission from the participant to contact thern in future at
nent to
this stage. Failure ro build this in at this stage may mean thar the partici-
: verbal pants cannot be contacted again. The Data Prorecrion Act, in the United
n some
Kingdom, prevenrs such unagreed Iollow-ups. See the later section on the
lar rhey Data Protection Act.
red fea-
;':' Contact details for rhe research team or the supervisor in the case of student
sidered,
research which can be used to obtain further informatÍon.
~ Contact details for the institution's Ethics Committee in case issues anse
.heet or which cannot be appropriately dealt with by the researchers or the supervisor.

partlcl-
The consent form
t form, The typical consent form includes various statements about the project and
-r, your the ethical arrangements which the participant signs to indicate their consent
)Cedure to the study, So the consent form should include things such as the following
irtrnent suitably modified for the particular research project being planned:
consent ~ The title of the research project
restion.
~ Things that need to be included are
btained
e infor- fj 1 (the participant) have been informed about and understand the nature
)r thern of the study.
,,¡ Any quesrions that 1 may have had have been answered to rny satisfaction,
474 PART 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP OUALlTATlVE RESEARCH

;s 1 understand that 1 am free to withdraw myself and my data from the


research at any time and that there would be no adverse consequences to
me for doing so.
~ No inforrnation about me will be published in a form which could poten-
tially identify me.
15 M)' data, in an anonyrnous form, may be used by other researchers.
'$ 1 consent to participa te in the study as outlined in the inforrnation sheet.
<li Space for the signature of the participant, their ful! name, and the date of
the agreement.

It is suggested that you use the above to guide yourself when writing your
own inforrnation sheet and consent formo This is nor to make life harder for
you unnecessarily but to encourage active consideration of the ethical status of
your qualitative research. The different methods used by qualitative research-
ers to collect data have radically different ethical requirernents. For example,
it is relatively easy to ensure data confidentiality by using anonyrnity, etc.
when conducting an in-depth interview but highly problematic in relarion
to focus group data where the researcher simply cannot guarantee privacy
and confidentialiry given the numbers of participants who cannot be bound
effectively by the erhical principies which apply to researchers. Furthermore,
if a researcher conducrs a participanr observation, then many of these con-
siderations may not always apply. So is generally accepted that observarional
research in publie places may not require the agreernent of rhose observed if
they are going about their usual activities in public places. Yet this is a eomplex
area so it is important ro eheck with your local Research Ethies Committee
which may have a rather different viewpoinr. The point is that a 'one-size-firs-
al!' approach to obtaining consent is probably inappropriate.
Ir is important to gíve consideration abour what can be done with the data
obtained in qualitative studies. You need the permission of your participants
to makc it available to orher researchers. Not to do so can be a problem
beca use (a) qualirative research has an ethos which stresses the importance of
making one's data available to orher researchers for verification, etc. bur also
(b) it may be a requirernent of rhe research's funding body that the data are
archived and made available to other researchers. The UK Data Archive (n.d.)
has details of the erhical and practical necessities of sharing data.

Legal and ethical management of data


The management of the data collected by the qualirative psychologist is- not
merely a matter for research ethics committees and rnay be a matter for data
proteetion legislation. Thus many of the things included on the inforrnation
sheet and consent form discussed in the previous section are as much about
data protection legislation as they are about research ethics. The concepc
of 'transparency' is used in data protection to refer tú rhe openness of the
research to the data givers. Such legislarion is common in Wesrern countries
but, of course, the detail of the legislation will vary from country to country. In
the United Kingdorn the relevanr legislation is the Data Protection Acr (1998).
The legislation strikes a balance between the privacy of participants in research
and the value of research in modern society though ir applies to all forms of
personal data - not iusr that obtained through research. Universities and orher
CHAPíER 16 ETHICS ANO DAT A MANAGEMENT IN QUALlTA TlVE RESEARCH 475

from the organisations wil! ha ve institurional and departmental data protection officers.
luences to Their job is to ensure that procedures for data handling comply with national
legislation. They should be consulted if you are in any doubt as to how the
uld poten. legislation should be implemented for your particular research.
Anyone who carries out research which involves the collection or use of per-
sonal information about individuals who can be identified from that data has to
:hers.
comply with the data protection legislation. The sort of data (qualitative or qua mi-
:ion sheet. tative) and whether or not it is stored in a digital, electronic form or in hard copy,
he date of manual form are immaterial. These basic requirements should indicate that the
rich, detailed data rhat qualitative researchers coUeet fall very firmly and decisively
into rhe domain of data prorection legislarion. The only exceptions to this are data
mng your
which already are publicly available such as electoral registers and so forth.
aarde¡ for
Personal information is more or less any inforrnation which can be identi-
1 status of
fied as being about a particular individual. Ir may come as some relief to know
: research-
that once any personal identifiers are removed from data then the data protec-
example,
tion legislation no longer applies. By employing such procedures as not usíng
mity, ete.
participants' real names or rhose of anyone else mentioned in the research
11 relatíon
and removing identifying material about locations and so íorth the legislarion
:e privacy
ceases to apply. However, there are arguments that this is, in some cases, an
be bound
unsatisfactory way of dealing with qualitative material. For example, Nespor
rhermore,
(2000) raises issues to do with rhe anonymisatíon of identífying features for
.hese con-
the place that the research was carried out. If the researcher removes such
ervational
contextual inforrnation then the consequence is rhat useful features of the data
bserved if
are made unavailable to the reader. It makes a bíg dífference to how data are
1 complex
understood if the ful! context is provided. Remove this context and something
.ornmittee
important is lost. Just a final point on this - remember that the digital record-
e-size- firs-
ing stored on your computer counts as data under the Data Protection Act so
you must ensure that the anonymisarion procedure has been carried out on
tl the data
irticipants rhis just as much as ir applies to any transcriptions of the data. (Some issues in
relatíon to anonyrnisation are discussed in Boxes 16.3 and 16.4).
I problem

»rtancc of
., but also
~ data are
aive (n.d.)

;;ist is not
r for data
formation
ich about
e concept
ess of the
countries
ountry. In
ct (1998).
1 research
forms of
and other
476 PART 4 PLANNING ANO WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH
CHAPTEfi!6 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN OUAlITA T1VE RESEARCH 477
478 PARY 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH

This brings us to the question of what happens if the data from the research
are not turned into an anonymous form and so the Data Protection Act applies.
Quite a number of things follow. One is that the Data Protection Act actually
requires that the data are only kept as long as they are needed for the purposes
explained to those who provided the data. Consequently, the researcher is left
to destroy the data at an appropriate stage ir the data are not anonyrnised once
the research is completed.
If the data come under the data protection legislation then you must.also
give consideration to their safe keeping. So where are the hard copies to be
sto red - who has access to the data in this form? Equally, where the data are
stored on computer, the question is one of who can gain access to the com-
puter? In other words, procedures ha ve to be decided on to ensure that the
personal data are available only to the persons stipulated in the 'contraer' with
the participant.

When deception may be used


The deception of research participants is regarded as being unacceptable in
psychological research in most circumstances. Some psychologists have gone
so far as to recornmend that deception should be prohibited (e.g. Baumrind,
1985). There are various reasons for this. Systematic research evidence has
been summarised as follaws:

the available evidence suggests that the direct experience of deception and
rhe suspicion of deception carry wirh them the potential of provoking sig-
nificant cognitive-emotional as well as behavioral responses. To the extent
CHAPTER16 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALlTATlVE RESEARCH 479

that these responses are bound to introduce systematic error variance in the
data, they impair, and possibly destroy, experimental control. In light of
this danger we conclude that the prohibition of deception is a sensible
convention (Ortmann & Hertwig, 2002, p. 125)

This has implications for the work of qualitative researchers. A more trusting
relationship needs to be built up in qualitative research between the researcher
and participants. Only in this way can the need for rich, in-depth interview
data or participant observation data be meto Bowen summed this up in the
fol!owing way:

From an ethical standpoint, risks and concerns are greater in qualita-


tive research than in quantitative research. This is mainly because of the
close involvement of the researcher with the research process and with the
participants. Qualitative researchers often become immersed in the life of
respondents. Ethical concerns arise also because qualitative research offers
considerable interpretative latitude to the researcher and the data are, on a
whole, rife with personal opinions and feelings. (Bowen, 2005, p. 214)

To the extent that it could be reasonably expected that physical pain or


emotional distress wil! be caused then deception should not be used. So what
are the circumstances in which deception may be legitimate? The ethical guide-
lines suggest that where the research potentially has 'scientific, educational or
applied value' then there is a case for considering the use of deception. What
this means is that the researcher should establish the credibility of other ways
of carrying out the research. Only where there seems to be no effective alterna-
tive to the use of deception should deception be considered. A risk assessment
.esearch
should be carried out to establish the pain and distress the study is likely to
applies.
produce. But there is more to it than this. It is unlikely that the researcher who
actually
proposes a study involving deception can dispassionately evaluate the viabil-
'urposes
ity of alternative methods and, perhaps, the amount of pain or di stress that
er is left
the research may arouse. Consequently, it is important to consult with other
.ed once
members of the psychology community about the issue as they may well be in
a better position to provide a balanced assessment in this situation.
ust also
The use of deception brings its own responsibilities. Most importantly, the
es to be
:lata are researcher has a responsibility to reveal and explain the deception as soon as
possible. The recommended stage for doing this is irnmediarely after the data
le com-
have been collected from the participant. Sometimes there may be a reason to
that the
delay the revelation of the deception until the data have been collected from all
ct' with
of the participants. Irrespective of the stage at which the deception is revealed,
there should be ample provision for giving the_participant the right to withdraw
his or her data from the study. In addition, it should be noted that the ethics
of the British Psychological Society (2010) make a distinction between deliber-
ate lies and omitting to mention important details about the research's nature.
table in
Lying by omission may be as unacceptabIe as lying by commission. The British
ve gone
umrind, Psychological Society indicates that the test of whether omitting information
is undesirable may be found in the reaction of participants when they are toId
nce has
that they have been deceived (i.e. at the debriefing). If their response is riega-
tive (such as anger, evidence of discomfort) then this dearly indicates that the
ion and procedure is unacceptable in this case and consequently should be reviewed.
:mg sig- What should happen next is not indicated by the British Psychological Society,
e extent though the choices of abandoning or modifying the research are obvious ones.
480 ?ART 4 PLANNING ANO WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH

Research with subordinates and those relatively


less powerful
Researchers frequently occupy a relatively powerful position compared with
the participants in their research. This may be inevitable since in order to have
access to participants, the researcher often has the trust of importanr members
of organisations such as schools, hospitals and charities. Furthermore, one
has only to remember the frequent suggestion that psychological research
is largely carried out on university studenrs to see that here is a relationship
based on power - the universiry academic researcher over the studenr research
participanr. Refusing to participa te is more often than not the only power that
such potential participants have. Given these power-based relationships which
have their basis outside of the research setting, there is the possibility thar
adverse consequences may follow if they declined to take part in the research.
Similarly, they may feel under pressure not to withdraw from a study that they
feel unhappy about in these circumstances. Of course, the impact of rhe supe-
rior-subordinate differential can be different when the researcher is also rhe
participant's lecturer and there are inducements to rake part in the research or
if there are requirements that students take part in a number of research stud-
ies as part of their degree programmes. One way around this ethical problem,
for example, is to oHer other ways for students to obtain course credits which
do not involve taking part in the research. Power is an especially importanr
issue in the qualitarive interview as discussed in Box 16.5.
CHAPT2:¡:¡ 16 ETHICS ANO DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 481

iarer] wírh
ler to have
t members
more, one
1 research
:Iationship
it research
rower rhar
lips which
bility thar
= research.
y that they
f the Supe-
is also the
esearch ar
.arch stud-
1 problem,
dirs which
importanj

Inducements to encourage participation


There are a number of ethical considerations which result from offering money
or other incentives to potential participants as an inducement to and a reward
for becoming a participant in a research study. These include the following:
~, Rewards in terms of money or gifts to research participants should be smal!.
Payments can be more than inducements to give up a little time; if they are
roo large they consequently mal' be coercive. Large rewards may make it
virtually impossible for an impecunious participant to say no. Research
guidelines do not stipulate what would be a reasonable reward though some
institutions may set limits. One formula for rewarding modestly mighr be
to pay out-of-pocket expenses for items such as bus or train fares to get to
the research site plus a small amount of money, paid on an hourly basis, to
recompense a litrle for lost time. Generally, researchers tend to prefer not
to pay research participants but sometimes there may be a case for doing
·".t so. There is the negative consequence that paying parricipants might set up
an expectation that they always should be paid. Where a researcher can-
not afford to pay beca use they have no relevant funding, this ethos would
make for difficulties. Student researchers, of course, probably do not have
the financial resources to make any payments to participants in research.
While this is probably uncommon, frorn time to time the inducement of pro-
fessíonal psychological services are offered as a way of encouraging research
participation. Of course, it is assumed that the service provider should be corn-
petent to deliver these services. 50 this would not apply to student researchers
because they lack the competence to offer such services. An examplc of such
services offered as an inducement would be counselling. If services are offered,
the ethical guidelines advise that rhe exact nature of thc services and the
limirations on the provision of these services (e.g. the number of counselling
482 PART 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUAlITATlVE RESEARCH

sessions offered) should be given ro the potential participanrs. Furthermore,


The e'
any risks associated with the psychologícal service should be clarified.

Box 16.6 discusses some of the practica! derails associated with the use of
inducements in qualitative research.

as
Irrespective of the nature of research, during the final stages debriefing of
the participants should take place. Debriefing ideally should involve both the
researcher and the research participant in a 'mutua!' discussion of the nature of
the research, the results of the research, and the conclusions from the research
as far as possible. Obviously the debriefing may take place long before any
research conclusions are available. One strategy to overcome this is to prepare
a summary of the research and its findings for circulation to the participante
at a later stage. During the debriefing session itself, the researcher shou!d
seek to identify and correct any rnisconceptions that the participant may have
developed about various aspects of the research, There are sornetimes good
scientific, academic or humane reasons for withholding certain information -
or alternatively postponing the main debriefing for a more suitable occasion.
There may be other reasons for a two-stage debriefing process - for exarnple,
rhe research may .involve two or more data-gathering stages separated by a
considerable period of time. Too much iníormation at the end of the first stage
may risk unduly influencing the data whích the participant contributes at rhe
later stages of the research.
CHAPTER 16 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUAlITATlVE RESEARCH 483

If one regards debriefing as a method of dealing with ethical issues then


this is to ignore its other important functions. Debriefing is the stage at which
the researcher learns about the research from the viewpoint of the parricipant,
Properly, the de briefing phase should involve the taking of careful notes since
there is a sense in which it is data - and this is especially so for qualitative
research with its emphasis on rich data. The de briefing may enrich the inter-
pretation of the main data in any sort of research and should be considered an
essential component of research studies.
Of course, issues may be raised during the debriefing which suggest that there
was harm done to the participant in the research as a consequence of deception
(or other features of the study for that matter). Reasonable efforts should made
to deal with any such harm which is identified during the course of the debrief-
ing. Researchers, and especially student researchers, do not have the appropriate
counselling skills to deal with significant distress. So the researcher should have
appropriate courses of action for the participant so that they may contact a rel-
evant professional who should be able to dea! with this matter. Helplines and other
facilities may be appropriate when the distress is caused by things such as inter-
viewing about intrinsically distressing matters such as abortion, drugs and mental
health issues. Similar helpline details are often given by the media when emotive
topies are featured on television, for example. There has been research on the effee-
tiveness of debriefing (e.g. Epley & Huff, 1998; Smith & Richardson, 1983) and it
seems clear that debriefing may be insufficient to deal with the effects of deception,

The ethics of report writinq and pubtication


rthermore,
ed.
The ethical concerns of research do not end with the debriefing of participants
the use of Iollowing data collection. There are a number of ethical issues which arise in
relatíon to publishing the data which should be noted.

I
.~
Ethical standards in reportinq research
The fabrication of data is ethically \vrong and this applies to students as well
as professional rescarchers. There will be circumstances in which a researcher
iriefing of
~ both the
: nature of
e research
i realises that there are errors in the data analysis which they have published
journal articles about. These are most likely to be compurational or statistical
errors and where they occur then it ís important to make reasonable efforts
to correct the errors. This can be achieved by printing corrections or retrae-
.efore any tions in the journal where the research was first published. Oceasionally more
:0 prepare malicious circumsrances ar ise. Many years ago, 1 was part of a team which
irticipants employed a particular interviewer. Sornerirne later, a friend of this inrerviewer
er should told me that some of the interviews had been fabricated. Forrunately, the
may have research team had already identified that this interviewer's data were systern-
mes good atically differenr fram those of rhe orher interviewers and excluded ir from the
rmation - analysis, though, of course, we were not able to show that it had been fabri-
JCcaSlOl1. eated. Thus falsification may occur at differenr stages in the researeh process.
'example,
ared by a
Plagiarism
first stage
ues at the Plagiarism occurs when someone takes rhe work of another person without
properly acknowledging its source and gives the impression that it is their own
484 PART 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH

work. Psychologists should not plagiarise and the same should be true of psy-
chology students. Merely citing the source of the material is not sufficient to
avoid the charge of plagiarism in circumstances where a large chunk of some-
one else's work is reproduced. Material that you have quoted directly should
be identified using quotation marks and, of course, the pages from which the
quotation was taken given in the citation.
In student work, plagiarism may result in firm disciplinary action by their
university which, if it is extreme or persisrent, may cost a srudenr their degree.
Similarly, at the professional level, there may be profound consequences in
cases of plagiarism. A famous TV psychiatrist in the UK, Raj Persaud, was
suspended by the medical profession for undermining public confidence in his
profession through dishonest conduct after he was found guilry of plagiarising
the work of others in his publications (MailonLine, 2008).

Making data available fer verification


Once your analysis of the data has been published then the data themselves
should be available for checking by those competent to do so. This is not for
rhe purpose of giving other people the opportunity to take your data and pub-
lish it in some other formo To do this would require your agreement. Making
the data available is a way of allowing the claims of the original researcher to
be validated. The person wishing to check the data may be required to meer
the cost of supplying the data in a verifiable formo Of course, the data should
not be made available if by doing so the confidentiality of the source (i.e. their
anonymity) might be compromised. Also, and this may happen with funded
research, the data may not be made available to other researchers if a third
parry has proprietorial rights over the data.
It is worth noting that the typical qualitative research paper gives more
access to the data than does rhe typical quantitative research paper whích
supplies only sumrnary tables and other output. Remember rhat one should
get the signed permissíon of the participant to distribute the data to rhe wider
research cornmunity.

Appropriate credlt ter authcrship of publicatlons


A psychologist should not stake a daim for authorship of a publication to which
they have not contributed substantially. The authorship of a publication should
start with the individual who has contributed rnost to the publication and end
with the person who has contributed least but nevertheless subsrantially enough.
Senior membership of a research organisation in itself does not warrant inclu-
sion in the list of authors - this is determined by the responsibility that the indi-
vidual carries for doing the research and writing it up. Those who made a minar
contribution may be acknowledged in a footnote. Ir do es nor rnerit a position
in the list of authors. Publications which origina red out of student dissertations
usually ought to give credit to the student as the first (principal) author.

Repeated publication of the same data


Ir is not proper to publish the same data in several publications. If, for so me
reason it is done, then the fact that this was originally published elsewhere
should be acknowledged in later publications.
CHAPTER 15 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN OUALlTATIVE RESEARCH 485

:ue of psy. The Internet raises special issues which are dealt with in Box 16.7.
lfficient to
k of some-
.tly should
which the

in by their
eir degree.
:¡uences in
.saud, was
ence in his
lagiarising

themselves
; is not for
1 and pub-

it. Making
.earcher to
sd to meet
ata should
e (i.e. their
ith funded
; if a third

\IVeS more
per which
me should
I the wider

ons
n to which
ion should
m and end
llyenough.
rant inclu-
at the indi-
de a minor
a position
ssertations
loro

" for some


elsewhere
486 PART 4 PLANNING AND WRITING UP QUALlTATlVE RESEARCH

KE
t/I QUe
tici
pro
aris
eth
¡¡ ThE
el el
CHAPEf~ 16 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUAlITATIVE RESEARCH 487

KEY POINTS
@ Qualitative research differs from quantitative research in its orientation to those who par-
ticipate in a research study. Qualitative research values the person as an entirety. The ethical
problems which arise in qualitative research can, therefore, be very different from those which
arise in quantitative research. So me of these issues are not obvious from standard research
ethics and require the active vigilance of the researcher.
~ The ethical environment in which research takes place is complex and includes bureaucratic
elements. It is no longer the case that researchers simply have to be aware of the ethical
488 PART 4 PLANNING ANO WRITING UP QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH

standards expected from them as members of an academic discipline. Generally, the formal
seeking of ethical approval is a key part of any research project. Ethics are not an afterthought
but integral to effective planning of research.
;19 Psychological ethics are based on broad principies rather than prescribed behaviours. As a con-
sequence, the consideration of the ethical aspects of research is an active part of its planning .
• Ethical issues may have to be revisited in the light of what happens in the course of the research.
Because qualitative methods are extremely variable in nature, the qualitatlve researcher needs
to be extra vigilant and avoid complacency.
. .~--_.-._-..•.
.~ _-_._~
-'.'-'-'-' -_._--_ .. _~,"._- ----._.-' ._--- -.,--~_...

e;

f
t
i L
~
Brink
Roge

8row
Anin

Econ
aqes

~ This,
1 may
1
,¡ Maut
1
:¡ Roth
:.! http
1
:1 This
~ in qu
~
~
;:
i
CHI\PTE!~ \6 ETHICS AND DATA MANAGEMENT IN QUALlTATIVE RESEARCH 489

-rrnaí
'ught

con-
ninq.

arch.
.eeds

,t~ '¡\\,~ .\, i•.,.


oaP,,(!. )::lt, •• ,).,
~I ~

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2008). Ethics in qualitative psychological research. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-
Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 263-2~79). London: Saqe.
Brown, L. S. (1997). Ethics in psychology: cui bono? In D. Fox and 1.Preilleltensky (Eds.), Critica! osvctiotoqv:
An introduction (pp. 51-67). London: Sage.
Economic and Social Research Council (n.d.). Research Ethics Framework. tlti:p://w·i;/w,esrG.ac.i.lhf.Jm-
aqes/Fram1:!worv,.Jor_ResearGhj:thícs_tcm8-4586.pdf (accessed 6 April 2012).
This contains a number of case studies useful for qualitative researchers as well as an ethical checklist. It
may be of qreatest interest to PhD students since their work may well be supported by the ESRC.

Mauthner, M., & Birch, M. (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. London: Sage.

Roth, W.-M. (2004). Qualitative research and ethics. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), Article 7.
hH¡;:! fWW'0ICjU¡;¡Utative-research.nét/indéx,php/h¡sf<uCide/\f¡",w/6¡4t!:~3i (accessed 6 April 2012).
This discusses ethical problems stemming from the close relationship between researcher and participants
in qualitative research.

You might also like