Protecting Research Subjects, Respondents and Participants
In many ways the entire ethical review process is about ensuring the protection and well being of those who make our research possible and meaningful. To ensure such protection five areas must be considered: honouring trust, anticipating harms, negotiating consent, ensuring the rights to confidentiality and anonymity, and weighing participant involvement in research and academic production.
1.) Honouring Trust: in all research, including when there may be a conflict of interest, social researchers must place the interests and rights of the respondents, informants and participants first. In those cases where it is not possible to fully guarantee the interests of participants or subjects, social researchers would be well advised to seriously consider whether they should pursue that piece or strand of research. Similarly, researchers should consider the impact of their work on that of their colleagues. Should the work of researchers potentially undermine the ability of colleagues to establish trust within similar communities or among populations, researchers would again be well advised to consider whether they should pursue that strand of research. Some extremely interesting strands of research could be so potentially damaging to respondents that they must not be pursued.
2.) Anticipating Harm: Social researchers must be sensitive to the possible consequences of their work and should work to identify and protect against potential harm. Obviously researchers should not place themselves in harm¿s way, but equally researchers should consider the impact of their work on research subjects, participants, and support staff, including interpreters, research assistants, drivers, and others involved in and assisting with data collection. In certain situations, where particularly religious or ethnic minorities or populations involved in socially deviant behaviours may be particularly vulnerable, it may be necessary to withhold data or to refrain from studying these groups altogether. In addition, in all cases where there is the potential to physical risk, this must be passed through the School and University¿s risk assessment procedures.
3.) Negotiating Informed Consent: Informed Consent is a fundamental principle. It is, as the Association of Social Anthropologists describes, a process not a one-time event. It is the spirit of transparency and open communication that guides the concept of consent: why is the research being conducted? What is the role of the informant or the respondent in the process of data collection? What is the purpose of the research project? These are questions that guide the conception of informed consent.
Negotiating informed consent centres on clearly and accurately communicating the substance and aims of the research to a potential respondent, and gaining their agreement in turn. This can be obtained through the exchange of a written document (which is the preferred option), but not all social or cultural situations will allow or are best facilitated by acknowledgement of the respondents¿ willingness to participate through a written document. In some oral cultures written documents have no cache, and in some political or social situations a written document might be dangerous or inappropriate; in these cases oral consent should be obtained and the application form state how it will obtained. The intent is not to obtain written consent as such, but to communicate the purpose of the research to the participants and to be assured that they understand what they are committing themselves to.
The respondent should be made aware of the scope and duration of the research project. At times it may be necessary that participants respond spontaneously and without preconceived or preconditioned ideas. Under these circumstances respondents should be de-briefed and the purpose and design of the research explained to them. Under some circumstances covert research is possible, but it requires a higher degree of scrutiny and a more precise articulation of the purpose and the gain for not engaging in disclosure. Treating respondents with respect will be the crucial guide here. This does not mean that respondents should be liked; quite to the contrary, researchers have a responsibility to engage all manner of populations, including those on the very fringes of societies or polities. However, even those with widely divergent viewpoints from the researchers¿ own or that of mainstream populations must be afforded respect and dignity, including those times when a researcher may be engaged in covert data collection.
Finally, when technical data-gathering devices are employed such as audio or video recording devices, the respondent or participant should be made aware of the capabilities of such devices and must be free to reject their use without prejudice.
4.) Rights to confidentiality and anonymity: anonymity is not merely having a name removed. Informants and respondents must have the option to engage researchers under terms of confidentiality and anonymity. This principle goes hand in glove with honouring trust. Social researchers appear in respondents¿ lives, but will eventually leave and return to their own institutional homes. Respondents, on the other hand, will live with the consequences of their having participated in research within their communities for some time to come. Therefore, social researchers must be sensitive to their own ability to create disruptions in respondents¿ lives. Holding respondents¿ trust is extremely important; to do this it is important to remember the many facets of identity, not merely recognition by name. Often when a respondent asks that his or her engagement remain anonymous the concern of recognition is not with regard to the world or community at large, but rather with regard to the most immediate and local communities. Eliminating a name is not enough; further care must be taken to protect identities and keep confidences.
The implications are not merely associated with recognition. Confidentiality and anonymity are kept to protect respondents¿ privacy, to ensure their social standing, and protect against the adverse effects of revealing information that relates illegal or socially deviant activities.
Keeping confidentiality and anonymity also requires protocols for data storage. This is particularly important while in the field. It is fine to inform respondents that their information will be held in confidence and its inclusion will be under terms of anonymity, but such assurances could be compromised easily if names, locations, and data are kept together in notes, or are kept in an insecure manner. This may be more pertinent to some research projects than others, but all social researchers should consider issues of data storage. In those cases of extremely sensitive materials, extra precautions should be taken, including the creating of coding protocols so that it is not possible to connect testimony or disclosures to particular individuals.
5.) Respondents' participation: researchers must be sensitive to disruptions. Finally, social researchers must be sensitive to their ability to disrupt or alter social networks and human relationships. Researchers are often in the field for a relatively short time, but participants must live with the consequences of involvement for much longer periods. The relationship between researcher and respondent is strongest when this is recognised and the researcher treats respondents with respect. Many communities feel that researchers descend upon them and take from them ¿ take information, take time, take respect by making them feel they are objects and not subjects of research. Social researchers can help each other tremendously when they respect communities and respect the respondents¿ position within academic production: they are central. Often returning to a field site after research is concluded to share results is greatly appreciated, and normally an offer to share results of the research should be made.
