Inspired by Guillemin and Gillam’s1 now classic article on reflexivity that introduced the seminal distinction between procedural ethics and ethics in practice, Tolich’s2 edited volume Qualitative Ethics in Practice (QEiP) fleshes out one part of the ethical binary. Guillemin and Gillam characterised procedural ethics as a constant, a one off best-guess as to what the ethical issues in a project might be. On the other side of the binary, ethics in practice are identified as being a recurrent, a perplexing problem for iterative, informant led qualitative research. Big ethical moments, they predicted, were likely to materialize in the field, often at odds with the ethical considerations listed in formal procedural ethics review. Their solution was reflexivity, yet as a novice researcher (at the time) this left me wanting more examples of how researchers both recognised and then addressed big ethical moments.
Mauthner et al.’s3 edited volume Ethics in Qualitative Research is a reservoir of diverse ethical moments found routinely in qualitative research. They ask, what does a researcher do when they notice a pornographic imagine on the wall of foster parents they are interviewing? Is this image reportable or is the researcher locked in researcher mode answerable only to the principle to do no harm? Equally perplexing is the contradiction posed for researchers who fake friendships to secure an interview leaving the substance of the friendship ambiguous. Guillimen and Gillam’s reflexivity solution assumes novice researchers have the resources to work through these immediate problems, but they don’t.
What QEiP offers are multiple examples of big ethical moments demonstrating the reflexivity used by scholars when their best-laid procedural ethics go awry. Edwards and Weller’s4 story of Dan, an 18-year-old youth who volunteered to take part in a longitudinal study about growing up in England was, once analysed, earmarked to be archived. Interviewed at age 11 and again at age 14, on the third and final data collection phase four years later the researchers discovered that Dan had tragically passed away. This was their big ethical moment: what should happen to Dan’s earlier transcripts and tape as these had the potential to be Dan’s parents’ eternal heirloom retelling Dan’s short life. The reflexivity process involved an existing reference group advising and weighing up the needs of the parents against the rights of Dan, who had shared candid thoughts about his family. Before reading Edward’s and Weller’s chapter you might consider how you would have addressed the competing needs of Dan’s enduring privacy versus his parents’ grief.
Dan’s story is one of three chapters with big ethical moments that concerned death. Tolich claims death, by its nature, presents ethics committees with a big ethical moment which they mechanically treat as a “third rail” evoking a conservative designation of heightened vulnerability.
Emphasis on ethics in practice does not denigrate the important role played by procedural ethics. The chapter on the Belfast Project’s storage of transcripts of interviews with the IRA and UVF at Boston College5 demonstrates this. When an Irish police officer subpoenaed the transcripts the limits of confidentiality unravelled. Among other things, it was notable the storage of transcripts was not subject to procedural ethics. Had any ethics committee evaluated the information sheets given to donors this big ethical flaw in confidentiality would have been recognised.
Tolich’s opening four chapters stake a claim that qualitative research is unique requiring its own set of ethical considerations and lexicon. For example, confidentiality has a precise meaning in qualitative research: the researcher knows what the participant said and promises not to tell others. However, as in the Boston College example, a subpoena can undermine any assurances. Yet in more everyday examples confidentiality can so easily be undermined. Confidentiality assurances given to employees in a small workplace (N=10) are easily undermined by internal confidentiality; when those internal to the workplace can identify others in the text.Anonymity is a biomedical term needing discarding from the qualitative lexicon. Dan’s transcripts, for example, can be archived but given the researcher knows what Dan said, Dan’s transcripts can never be anonymised. At best they are confidential. If all identifiers are removed the data can be de-identified. Confidentiality and de-identification are useful qualitative terms, but anonymity is not.
Qualitative researchers urgently need a comprehensive ethics code devoted solely to qualitative research. Van den Hoonaard’s6 chapter, the making of the qualitative code of ethics in Canada Tri Council National Statement announces Qualitative Researches coming of age, itself is a big ethical moment.
References
1 Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
2 Tolich, M. (Ed) (2015) Qualitative Ethics in Practice, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
3 Mauthner, M. Birch, M. & Jessop, J. (2005). Ethics in Qualitative Research. Sage, Los Angeles.
4 Edwards, R. & Weller (2015) Ethical Dilemmas Around Anonymity and Confidentailaity in Longitudinal Data Sharing: The Death of Dan in Tolich, M. (Ed) (2015) Qualitative Ethics in Practice, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
5 Palys, T and Lowman. J (2015) A Belfast Project Autopsy in Tolich, M. (Ed) (2015) Qualitative Ethics in Practice, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
6 Van den Hoonaard (2015) The Making(s) of a Qualaiative Code of Ethics: Canada’s Trii-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans in Tolich, M. (Ed) (2015) Qualitative Ethics in Practice, Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.