research ethics in qualitative research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Ethics Hist Med

Ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: the necessity to develop a specific guideline

Mahnaz sanjari.

1 Nursing PhD Candidate, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Fatemeh Bahramnezhad

Fatemeh khoshnava fomani, mahnaz shoghi.

2 Assistant Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Mohammad Ali Cheraghi

3 Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Considering the nature of qualitative studies, the interaction between researchers and participants can be ethically challenging for the former, as they are personally involved in different stages of the study. Therefore, formulation of specific ethical guidelines in this respect seems to be essential. The present paper aimed to discuss the necessity to develop explicit guidelines for conducting qualitative studies with regard to the researchers’ role. For this purpose, a literature review was carried out in domestic and international databases by related keywords.

Health care providers who carry out qualitative research have an immense responsibility. As there is no statistical analysis in qualitative studies, the researcher has to both evaluate what he or she observes and to interpret it. Providing researchers with the necessary skills and applying stringent supervision can lead to better extraction of reliable information from qualitative studies. This article presents a debate in order to illustrate how researchers could cover the ethical challenges of qualitative studies and provide applicable and trustworthy outcomes.

Researchers face ethical challenges in all stages of the study, from designing to reporting. These include anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent, researchers’ potential impact on the participants and vice versa. It seems of paramount importance that health care providers, educators and clinicians be well informed of all the different aspects of their roles when acting as qualitative researchers. Hence, these adroit roles need to be well defined, and the use of practical guidelines and protocols in all stages of qualitative studies should be encouraged.

Introduction

In the recent millennium, the constant trend of change in the demands of the community as well as transforming the trend of knowledge production has highlighted the necessity for researchers to adopt a more comprehensive approach. Increasingly, many academic disciplines are utilizing qualitative research (QR) as the qualitative method investigating the why and how of the process of a developed concept ( 1 , 2 ). Qualitative research is sometimes defined as interpretive research, and as interpretations can be incorrect or biased, the findings may be controversial ( 3 ). However, qualitative research is not only useful as the first stage of quantitative research, but can also play a key role in ‘validating’ it or in providing a different viewpoint on the same social phenomena ( 4 ).

Qualitative studies tend to use methods that result in text production rather than numerical outputs. Given that the researcher is considered to be the research instrument, and the plan of inquiry needs to be developed and altered as the study progresses, a qualitative researcher cannot depend upon traditional approaches to address certain concerns such as bias and credibility. Therefore, learning from a series of mistakes is often considered an integral part of qualitative research ( 5 , 6 ).

In this study, a literature review was carried out in international electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Sciences, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Ebsco, EMBASE and Science Direct without any time limitation, using the search terms “qualitative research”, “researchers’ role”, “ethical challenges” and “ethical guidelines”. These keywords were also searched on national electronic databases including Scientific Information Database (SID), Iran Medex and Medical Articles Library (Medlib) using the same strategy.

Authors of the present article endeavor to shine a light on the ethical issues affecting researchers and propose strategies to face the ethical challenges of qualitative studies, so as to provide applicable and trustworthy outcomes. This could be the basis for the formulation of specific ethical guidelines in this regard.

An overview on qualitative research in health care

Up to the 1970s, qualitative research was solely employed by anthropologists and sociologists. During the 1970s and 1980s, however, it was favored by various disciplines and experts of different branches of science and humanity such as health care, psychology , nursing, management, political science , education, and communication studies ( 2 , 7 ).

Qualitative research has been conducted in the field of nursing in order to identify, describe and explain related concepts, experiences and phenomena and to develop the nursing knowledge. Nursing professionals simultaneously introduced qualitative research to their peers. Since 1970, qualitative research has been performed to achieve the concepts of patient care and other main perceptions in the nursing profession. Qualitative studies provide nurses with sensitivity to the lived experiences of individuals from different nursing care aspects ( 4 , 8 ).

Role of researchers in qualitative studies

In the case of nurses who perform qualitative research, ethical issues are raised when the nurse-patient relationship in the research area leads to some degree of therapeutic communication for the participants ( 9 ). Thus, nurse researchers must be aware of the impact of the questioning on the participants, and in order to decrease such harmful effects on human subjects, the “reflexive approach” is recommended ( 10 ).

In qualitative studies researchers are often required to clarify their role in the research process ( 11 ). In the QR procedure the researcher is involved in all stages of the study from defining a concept to design, interview, transcription, analysis, verification and reporting the concepts and themes. Therefore, whenever instruments are involved in qualitative research, a human being will be an integral part of the process ( 12 ).

It is argued that humans have increasingly become the “instrument of choice” for naturalistic research due to certain characteristics: they are highly responsive to environmental stimuli, have the ability to interact with the situation, pull together different pieces of information at multiple levels simultaneously, and perceive situations holistically; moreover, they are able to process findings the instant they become available, can present immediate feedback, and feel unusual responses. Nevertheless, researchers need to improve the abilities that make them appropriate human instruments and consequently, their interpersonal skills are of major importance in natural settings and study processes ( Table 1 ) ( 13 , 14 ).

Researcher’s role in qualitative methods at a glance

Ethical challenges in qualitative studies:

The researcher-participant relationship.

The relationship and intimacy that is established between the researchers and participants in qualitative studies can raise a range of different ethical concerns, and qualitative researchers face dilemmas such as respect for privacy, establishment of honest and open interactions, and avoiding misrepresentations ( 19 ). Ethically challenging situations may emerge if researchers have to deal with contradicting issues and choose between different methodological strategies in conflict arises. In such cases, disagreements among different components such as participants, researchers, researchers’ discipline, the funding body and the society may be inevitable ( 20 , 21 ). Some important ethical concerns that should be taken into account while carrying out qualitative research are: anonymity, confidentiality and informed consent ( 22 ).

According to Richards and Schwartz’ findings ( 22 ), the term ‘confidentiality’ conveys different meanings for health care practitioners and researchers. For health care practitioners, confidentiality means that no personal information is to be revealed except in certain situations. For researchers, however, the duty of confidentiality is less clear and involves elaboration of the form of outcome that might be expected from the study ( 22 , 23 ).

The researcher must endeavor to minimize the possibility of intrusion into the autonomy of study participants by all means. When highly sensitive issues are concerned, children and other vulnerable individuals should have access to an advocate who is present during initial phases of the study, and ideally, during data gathering sessions. It is sometimes even necessary that the researcher clarify in writing which persons can have access to the initial data and how the data might be used ( 24 , 25 ).

Informed consent has been recognized as an integral part of ethics in research carried out in different fields. For qualitative researchers, it is of the utmost importance to specify in advance which data will be collected and how they are to be used ( 26 ). The principle of informed consent stresses the researcher’s responsibility to completely inform participants of different aspects of the research in comprehensible language. Clarifications need to include the following issues: the nature of the study, the participants’ potential role, the identity of the researcher and the financing body, the objective of the research, and how the results will be published and used ( 27 ).

Informed consent naturally requires ongoing negotiation of the terms of agreement as the study progresses ( 26 ). Many people consider it necessary to participate in research that their peers, community and/or society may benefit from. Therefore, qualitative health researchers need to clarify that the research they carry out will benefit science and can contribute to the improvement of health policy ( 5 ).

Research design

The qualitative method is utilized to explain, clarify and elaborate the meanings of different aspects of the human life experience. Therefore, researchers can interpret people’s experiences because they are involved in human activities. The principle of ‘no harm’ to participants ought to be considered by researchers, who should be aware of the potential harms that might be inflicted upon study subjects. Obviously, sometimes a conflict between the right to know (defended on the basis of benefits to the society) and the right of privacy (advocated based on the rights of the individual) may happen ( 27 , 28 ).

There are several effective strategies to protect personal information, for instance secure data storage methods, removal of identifier components, biographical details amendments and pseudonyms (applicable to names of individuals, places and organizations) ( 27 ). Researchers have the responsibility of protecting all participants in a study from potentially harmful consequences that might affect them as a result of their participation. It is getting increasingly common for research ethics committees to seek documented proof of consent in a written, signed, and ideally, witnessed form. Researchers can only do their best to protect their respondent’s identity and hold the information strictly confidential as there would be no guarantee for it otherwise ( 29 ). Furthermore, in investigations of sensitive topics where written consent puts the informants at risk, audio recorded oral consent would be more appropriate ( 30 ).

Development of personal relationships with participants may be inevitable while collecting certain data. Therefore, researchers should seriously consider the potential impact they may have on the participants and vice versa, and details of such interactions should be clearly mentioned in research proposals ( 23 ). Overall, the role of the researcher as (a) stranger, (b) visitor, (c) initiator, (d) insider-expert or other should be well defined and explained ( 3 ). As Brenner quoted Kvale state that, preparing an ethical protocol can cover issues in a qualitative research project from planning through reporting ( 30 ).

Data gathering and data analysis

In qualitative research, data are collected with a focus on multifaceted interviews and narratives to produce a description of the experiences. The researchers, therefore, play the role of a mediator between the experiences of the respondents and the community of concerned people ( 28 , 31 ). The post-interview comment sheet could assist the researcher to note the feelings of informants, as well as interpretations and comments that occurred during the interview ( 32 ).

Data collection needs to be as overt as possible, and findings should be recorded. Although there is no guarantee of absolute confidentiality, openly recording field notes assists participants to decide what they wish to have on the record. In health care research, the problem may be even more exaggerated as the researcher is sometimes the health provider as well ( 33 ).

In comparison with other research methods, ethnography has singular characteristics. When a researcher aims to study the culture of certain people, living amongst them is inevitable. This method of collecting data is a subject of debate from an ethical point of view. Long presence of the researcher amongst people of a particular culture necessitates informed consent. Participants should always be aware of the information that has been obtained and is being recorded, and consent to it. Sometimes this cannot be achieved easily and conflicts may happen, as in studies of cultural and ethnic characteristics ( 18 ).

The physical presence of the researchers within the culture requires them to be responsible for their role and potential consequences on the field. For instance, when criminals or a group of war veterans suffering from a disease are the subject of a study, the risks involved in living amongst them should be considered. Ethnographers must be vigilant about any distractions stemming from close interactions that can be potentially harmful to participants in the long run ( 33 , 34 ). Researchers can benefit from supervision sessions directed at learning, mentoring and skill development, all of which can foster their ability to carry out research without risking their health. Adequate professional supervision (which may be outside of the university) can be of service to researchers in dealing with the potential stress associated with the study ( 35 – 37 ).

In order to gain explicit data, ethnographers need to know the role of instrument details. There are eleven steps defined in ethnography which are meant to assist researchers. These steps include participant observation, ethnographic record, descriptive observation, taxonomic analysis, selected observation, componential analysis, discovering the cultural theme, cultural inventory, and finally writing ethnography ( 38 , 39 ).

Researchers should always be aware of the precise reason for involvement in a study in order to prevent undesirable personal issues. The probability of exposure to vicarious trauma as a result of the interviews needs to be evaluated. Interviewers should be properly scheduled to provide the researcher with sufficient recovery time and reduce the risk of emotional exhaustion, while allowing ample time for analysis of the objective and emotional aspects of the research. It is also necessary for the researcher to be familiar with signs of extreme fatigue and be prepared to take necessary measures before too much harm is done ( 40 – 42 ).

In qualitative studies, researchers have a great responsibility and play many different roles. It is argued that qualitative research that deals with sensitive topics in depth can pose emotional and other risks to both participants and researchers. Clear protocols for dealing with distress should be in place so that both parties involved in research can use them if necessary. It is not usually easy to predict what topics are likely to lead to distress, and researchers should therefore receive sufficient training in predicting traumatic situations.

Preventive measures for researchers who carry out sensitive qualitative studies should include official arrangements for a peer support program consisting of a list of researchers who are involved, or a constellation of researcher support activities aiming at improving psychological fitness in the form of a professional confidence building module. Other such measures include offering adequate supervision to provide opportunities for self-development and self-care, and facilitating the process of self-reflection and self-monitoring.

Strategies for emotional distancing need to be considered and adopted if the research topic or participants have the potential to be emotionally challenging. An appropriate planning should be in place before the commencement of the fieldwork, and it must be perfectly clear how the study should be conducted and what level of relationship development is necessary. Measures must also be taken so that levels of self-disclosure, objective displays of emotion during the interviews, and strategies to end the relationships are well defined and communicated.

One of the most prominent tasks of qualitative researchers is to minimize the flaws in observation and endeavor to gain truthful knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to continuously update their investigation skills in terms of methodology and find novel techniques to better carry out studies in the field of health and sociology.

As explained before, qualitative research is carried out in natural settings, which requires researchers to work in close collaboration with other members of the team and under direct supervision to discuss and resolve issues as they arise. Therefore, development of practical strategies and communicating them to researchers can be of great benefit and assist them in conducting more perceptive qualitative studies. It is noteworthy that such research should be directed towards making a difference in people’s lives, improving care delivery in different settings and at all levels, and providing a framework for health sciences without any ethical disturbances.

As a result of the extensive body of research in the field of medical sciences, patients comprise a large proportion of the public who are frequently subjects of studies. Research Ethics Committees are formed to provide independent advice to participants, researchers, funders/sponsors and healthcare organizations on the extent to which research proposals comply with universally endorsed ethical standards.

In the history of social and medical science, there have been a few research studies that seriously injured people, and many more in which their welfare was not sufficiently protected. Nations and research associations have taken steps to prevent hurtful and intrusive research. To return to the matter of privacy, the researcher should not rely solely on the informant to identify possible intrusion, but needs to work at anticipating it in advance. Confidentiality does not necessarily preclude intrusion, as anonymity by itself is not enough to protect a person’s privacy or prevent disclosure of personal issues. Investigators should refrain from soliciting private information that is not closely related to the research question.

Considering the aforementioned challenges, it is recommended to conduct further research in order to provide meticulous and explicit ethical protocols, guidelines and codes with respect to qualitative studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to offer special thanks to Dr. Ali Tootee for his assistance in the language editing of this article.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, what is your plagiarism score.

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics

• Ron Iphofen
• Martin Tolich - University of Otago, New Zealand
• Description

Part One: Thick Descriptions Of Qualitative Research Ethics Part Two: Qualitative Research Ethics By Technique Part Three: Ethics As Politics Part Four : Qualitative Research Ethics With Vulnerable Groups Part Five: Relational Research Ethics Part Six: Researching Digitally

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This is a landmark collection in the field of qualitative research ethics, and a Handbook with a key message.  The contributions are full of insights about ethical issues in diverse research contexts, populations and methods. Taken together they build the case for an institutional approach to ethical review for qualitative research that can deal with specificity and complexity.  Iphofen and Tolich’s Handbook will be richly informative for academic researchers but it should be required reading for ethics committee members. 

I doubt there are many, if any, qualitative researchers who are not mindful of the ethical responsibilities they bear when investigating social situations. These responsibilities go far beyond the procedural requirements of ethics reviews and require careful thought and on-going review. By considering various ethical perspectives whilst reflecting the diversity of qualitative approaches and techniques, the contributions to this handbook demonstrate the need to treat each research endeavour as a unique instance, requiring a unique ethical response. In doing so it offers a valuable resource to both experienced researchers and those who are just starting out alike.

Preview this book

Select a purchasing option, related products.

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies pp 195–213 Cite as

Ethics in Qualitative Research

• Sylwia Ciuk 4 &
• Dominika Latusek 5  
• First Online: 01 December 2017

3169 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

In this chapter, we explore a number of ethical questions and ethical dilemmas that can arise at different stages of the research process. Rather than attempting to provide an answer to these or a full overview of the ethical issues encountered by researchers, we aim to sensitize the reader to some of the complexities involved in trying to do qualitative research in an ethically sensitive manner. We see ethics not as a uniform set of rules or a formal institutional requirement but rather as an integral element of research praxis. We therefore consider a number of ethical questions that are likely to arise at different stages of the research process and alert the reader to some ethically important moments that they might encounter. We start by looking at some ethical questions linked to the research design. We then turn to discussing ethical challenges associated with negotiating access, trying to obtain informed consent from participants as well as maintaining and managing relationships with them. We conclude by discussing ethical issues in relation to data presentation.

• Research ethics
• Research process
• Informed consent
• Data presentation

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Allen, Q. (2012). Photographs and Stories: Ethics, Benefits and Dilemmas of Using Participant Photography with Black Middle-Class Male Youth. Qualitative Research, 12 (4), 443–458.

Article   Google Scholar  

Beech, N., et al. (2009). “But I thought We Were Friends?” Life Cycles and Research Relationships. In S. Ybema et al. (Eds.), Organizational Ethnography. Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life . London: Sage.

Google Scholar  

Berger, R. (2015). Now I See it, Now I Don’t: Researcher’s Position and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research, 15 (2), 219–234.

Birch, M., & Miller, T. (2002). Encouraging Participation. Ethics and Responsibilities. In M. Mauthner et al. (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research . London: Sage.

Birch, M., Miller, T., Mauthner, M., & Jessop, J. (2012). Introduction to the Second Edition. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research (pp. 1–13). London: Sage.

British Sociological Association. (2006). Visual Sociology Statement of Ethical Practice . Retrieved from http://www.visualsociology.org.uk/about/ethical_statement.php

Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2007). Predatory vs. Dialogic Ethics. Constructing and Illusion or Ethical Practice as the Core of Research Methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 13 (4), 315–335.

Christians, C. G. (2011). Ethics and Politics in Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 61–80). Los Angeles: Sage.

Clegg, J. W., & Slife, B. D. (2009). Research Ethics in the Postmodern Context. In D. M. Mertens & P. E. Ginsberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics . London: Sage.

Corti, L., Day, A., & Backhouse, G. (2000). Confidentiality and Informed Consent. Issues for Consideration in the Preservation of Access to Qualitative Data Archives. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 1 (3).

Coupal, L. (2005). Practitioner-Research and the Regulation of Research Ethics. The Challenge of Individual, Organizational, and Social Interests. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 6 (1).

Cox, S., Drew, S., Guillemin, M., Howell, C., Warr, D., & Waycott, J. (2014). Guidelines for Ethical Visual Research Methods . Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.

Duncombe, J., & Jessop, J. (2002). “Doing Rapport” and the Ethics of “Faking Friendship”. In M. Mauthner et al. (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research . London: Sage.

Fine, G. A. (1994). Ten Lies of Ethnography. Moral Dilemmas of Field Research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22 (3), 267–294.

Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2), 261–280.

Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27 (4), 391–414.

Hammersley, M. (2009). Against the Ethicists: On the Evils of Ethical Regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12 (3), 211–225.

Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts . London: Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hedgecoe, A. (2008). Research Ethics Review and the Sociological Research Relationship. Sociology, 42 (5), 874–886.

Hochschild, A. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Howell, C., Cox, S., Drew, S., Guillemin, M., Warr, D., & Waycott, J. (2014). Exploring Ethical Frontiers of Visual Methods. Research Ethics, 10 (4), 208–213.

Kara, H., & Pickering, L. (2017). New Directions in Qualitative Research Ethics. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20 (3), 239–241.

Kent, G. (2000). Ethical Principles. In D. Burton (Ed.), Research Training for Social Scientists . London: Sage.

Kozinets, R. (2002). The Field Behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (1), 61–72.

Kozinets, R. (2015). Netnography . London: Sage.

Langer, R., & Beckman, S. C. (2005). Sensitive Research Topics: Netnography Revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8 (2), 189–203.

Lunnay, B., Borlagdan, J., McNaughton, D., & Ward, P. (2015). Ethical Use of Social Media to Facilitate Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research, 25 (1), 99–109.

Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0) . http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf . Accessed 15 Apr 2017.

Marzano, M. (2007). Informed Consent, Deception, and Research Freedom in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13 (3), 417–436.

Mauthner, M., Birch, M., Miller, T., & Jessop, J. (2012). Conclusion: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas and New Digital Horizons. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research . London: Sage.

Miller, T. (2012). Reconfiguring Research Relationships: Regulation, New Technologies and Doing Ethical Research. In T. Miller, M. Birch, M. Mauthner, & J. Jessop (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research (pp. 29–42). London: Sage.

Miller, T. (2015). Going Back: ‘Stalking’, Talking and Researcher Responsibilities in Qualitative Longitudinal Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18 (3), 293–305.

Miller, T., & Bell, L. (2002). Consenting to What? Issues of Access, Gate-keeping and Informed Consent. In M. Mauthner et al. (Eds.), Ethics in Qualitative Research . London: Sage.

Mitchell, W., & Irvine, A. (2008). I’m Okay, You’re Okay. Reflections on the Well-Being and Ethical Requirements of Researchers and Research Participants in Conducting Qualitative Fieldwork Interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7 (4), 31–44.

Murray, L., & Nash, M. (2016). The Challenges of Participant Photography A Critical Reflection on Methodology and Ethics in Two Cultural Contexts. Qualitative Health Research. 22 (3): 267–294.

Neale, B. (2013). Adding Time into the Mix: Stakeholder Ethics in Qualitative Longitudinal Research. Methodological Innovations Online, 8 (2), 6–20.

Roberts, L. D. (2015). Ethical Issues in Conducting Qualitative Research in Online Communities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12 (3), 314–325.

Roth, W.-M. (2005). Ethical as Social Practice. Introducing the Debate on Qualitative Research and Ethics. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6 (1).

Sabar, G., & Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, N. (2017). I’ll Sue You If You Publish My Wife’s Interview’: Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research Based on Life Stories. Qualitative Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116679727 .

Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (2010). The ESRC’s 2010 Framework for Research Ethics: Fit for Research Purpose? Sociological Research Online, 15 (4), 12.

Tilley, L., & Woodthorpe, K. (2011). Is it the End for Anonymity as We Know It? A Critical Examination of the Ethical Principle of Anonymity in the Context of 21st Century Demands on the Qualitative Researcher. Qualitative Research, 11 (2), 197–212.

Van Maanen, J. (1983). The Moral Fix: On the Ethics of Fieldwork. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary Field Research . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Whiteman, E. (2007). “Just Chatting” Research Ethics and Cyberspace. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6 (2), 1–9.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

Sylwia Ciuk

Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland

Dominika Latusek

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Teesside University Business School, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom

Malgorzata Ciesielska

Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego, Warszawa, Poland

Dariusz Jemielniak

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Ciuk, S., Latusek, D. (2018). Ethics in Qualitative Research. In: Ciesielska, M., Jemielniak, D. (eds) Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65217-7_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65217-7_11

Published : 01 December 2017

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-65216-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-65217-7

eBook Packages : Business and Management Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Chapter 7. Ethics

The “fly on the wall” approach in anthropology, still taught as an antidote to the influences of one’s subjectivity on the research process, only obscures the fact that even those who try to be insects are, at the very least, already influencing the social environment in which they conduct their fieldwork and, more important, are already committing themselves to a very clear moral and political position—that of letting things remain as they are, or leaving the status quo untouched. Neutrality is impossible—or better still, neutrality may work for the maintenance of privileges, but it does not work for all. Many forms of oppression, exclusion, and death continue to be perpetrated in the name of objectivity and detachment. —Joȃo Helios Costa Vargas, Catching Hell in the City of Angels

Introduction

Joȃo Helios Costa Vargas spent two years living in South Central Los Angeles, a region of predominantly Black neighborhoods known for high rates of poverty, crime, and violence. When recounting the findings of his ethnographic research, he refused to write “neutrally.” As a human being, he viewed the prospect of writing as if he were merely “a fly on the wall” distasteful if not unethical. He wanted to name oppression outright. To testify to the outrages and injustices he saw perpetrated against those living in these communities by those with power—the police, school authorities, the public at large. And so he did, and his book is both more powerful and more honest for that. His choice is both an example of reflexivity (see chapter 6) and an example of ethics in practice. In this chapter, we explore a great many ethical considerations made by qualitative researchers and argue that being ethical is a constant and ongoing responsibility for any researcher and particularly for those involved in social science. Unlike other fields of science, the lines between doing right and doing wrong are sometimes hard to distinguish, a situation that puts tremendous pressure on every qualitative researcher to consider ethics all the time .

This is a very important chapter and should not be overlooked. As a practical matter, it should also be read closely with chapters 6 and 8. Because qualitative researchers deal with people and the social world, it is imperative they develop and adhere to a strong ethical code for conducting research in a way that does not harm. There are legal requirements and guidelines for doing so (see chapter 8), but these requirements should not be considered synonymous with the ethical code required of us. Each researcher must constantly interrogate every aspect of their research—from research question to design to sample through analysis and presentation—to ensure that a minimum of harm (ideally, zero harm) is caused. Because each research project is unique, the standards of care for each study are unique. Part of being a professional researcher is carrying this code in one’s heart, being constantly attentive to what is required under particular circumstances. Chapter 7 provides various research scenarios and asks readers to weigh in on the suitability and appropriateness of the research. If done in a class setting, it will become obvious fairly quickly that there are often no absolutely correct answers, as different people find different aspects of the scenarios of greatest importance. Minimizing the harm in one area may require possible harm in another. Being attentive to all the ethical aspects of one’s research and making the best judgments one can clearly and consciously are integral parts of being a good researcher.

Being an Ethical Researcher

Being a competent qualitative researcher means being reflective (chapter 6) and being ethical. In the next chapter, we will explore the regulatory requirements of ethical practice, but it is important to recognize that being ethical goes well beyond following the rules and regulations. Born from an epistemological perspective (chapter 3) that places value on the diversity of meanings and unique perspectives of the humans we study, qualitative researchers’ ethics encompass truthfully and generously reporting those meanings and perspectives, being attentive to what people tell and show us, and honestly appraising the harm and efficacy of what we report. The rules and regulations guiding qualitative research tend to focus on the importance of informed consent and the general balancing of potential benefits against likely harms. However, our duties to those with whom we interact go well beyond these aspects of our research. Further, because each study is unique and involves relationships between a researcher and research “subjects,” proceeding ethically requires constant attention and deliberation. One might make dozens of decisions during the research process that have ethical implications. It is not permissible to stop thinking about ethics after you have submitted your application for institutional review board (IRB) review (more on this process in chapter 8) or once you have received permission to proceed with your study: “Ethics are more than a set of principles or abstract rules that sit as an overarching entity guiding our research.… Ethics exist in our actions and in our way of doing and practicing our research; we perceive ethics to be always in progress, never to be taken for granted, flexible, and responsive to change” ( Davies and Dodd 2002:281 ).

Reviewing agencies such as IRBs will not scrutinize all the ethical decisions you need to make throughout your research process. Only you can do this. It is thus vitally important that you develop your sense of ethics as part of your identity as a researcher. Being reflective can help, as you are more likely to identify and acknowledge and confront ethical issues if you are paying attention to the process.

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part walks you through the research process, highlighting a variety of places where ethical issues may emerge. The second part presents several ethical scenarios. I encourage you to talk through these with a friend or colleagues from class. You may find as you do so that you disagree on what the “correct” ethical decision is. This is absolutely normal and an important lesson. There are many “gray” areas in ethical consideration where there is no clear right or wrong answer. Sometimes there are “least bad” courses of action. Being ethical does not always means doing the right thing—it simply means trying to find the right thing to do and being able to justify the decisions you make.

Part 1: Ethical Issues throughout the Course of the Study

Research design.

Many of the rules and regulations around conducting qualitative research focus on the research design. For example, institutional review boards routinely ask you to justify your sample, while including members of vulnerable populations (e.g., children) in the study will trigger a heightened review. In chapter 8, we will look more closely at the formal requirements, but before getting there, we need to take a step back and think about the study design more generally. Why is this study being conducted in the first place? If human subjects are involved (this is the aspect that triggers formal review), any study is going to affect them to some extent. The impact on the humans we study could be quite minimal, as in the case of unobtrusive observations in which no personal information is recorded. Or it could be substantial, as in the case where people are asked very personal and potentially “triggering” questions about a harmful phenomenon. Or it could be simply the inconvenience of being bothered by a nosy researcher. Is your study worth the bother? Recognize that the advantages of a successful study accrue to you in the first place (completing your degree requirements, publishing an article, etc.) and secondarily contribute to collective knowledge. Make sure that that secondary contribution is really worth it. This may require you to do enough foundational research to ensure that what you are doing is truly novel and worth the expense.

Once you have determined that, yes, it is worth doing this study because we don’t yet know the answer to the research questions you’ve posed and those questions are good questions to ask, you need to consider whether this is the best and least harmful way to answer those questions. Balance the contributions to knowledge and the potential harm to humans posed by the research. Sometimes, the knowledge is so important that we are willing to lean a little harder on our research subjects, causing them a bit more discomfort or potential harm than we would be willing to do for a study of less importance. To make this kind of calculation, you have to be very honest about the importance of your work, another aspect of reflexivity (chapter 6). You also have to think about your research subjects honestly and the power they have to protect themselves from your intrusion. Poor people often get studied more often than rich people because they have less power to protect themselves from unwanted intrusions on their privacy. Designing a study around easy-to-access people is an ethical decision. Sometimes it is the right decision, sometimes not.

Just as you have to consider your sample in terms of power and the ability of some groups to hide from your scrutiny, you also have to consider your sample in terms of who gets to be included and what the implications of exclusion are on our knowledge. Medical studies that exclude certain hard-to-reach populations out of convenience are poorer for that exclusion. You want to be very clear about stating and justifying both your inclusion criteria and your exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria are those characteristics your research subjects must have in order to participate in the study. Being of adult age is a common inclusion criterion. Exclusion criteria are those characteristics that would disqualify people from being part of your study. These are established to protect potential participants, as in the case where those not born in the United States are excluded from a study that observes potential criminal behavior so as to protect them from deportation orders and reporting mandates. On the other hand, by excluding this group of people, you have limited their insights and perspectives from being heard.

Data Collection

Once you have designed your study in an ethical manner, you will have to find the people to match your inclusion criteria and invite them to participate. In most cases, you cannot ethically collect data without permission. This permission must often be in writing, and there are formal rules about what this writing looks like, which will be fully described in chapter 8. What about situations where you are simply observing behavior? If this is in a private setting, you will still need to get permission as well as access to the site. Who is giving you access to the site? This, too, raises ethical considerations. Is this a person with power (e.g., an employer) such that their permission may influence employees’ consent to be included in the study? If a principal of a high school allows you to observe teachers teach, does it matter that there is a lawsuit pending against the principal for unlawful terminations of various teachers? Yes, it does! You must consider how you and your research may be implicated in ongoing workplace issues. Ethics come into play even in public settings, especially in cases where the people being observed have little choice but to act in public (e.g., a community pool during a heatwave).

One of the obvious harms that can be created by a nosy researcher other than inconvenience and bother is the breaching of confidential statements or publications of private reflections and actions. You may think you are doing enough to protect your research subjects from harm by keeping what you learn anonymous (e.g., using pseudonyms or reporting only aggregate group data—e.g., “community pool members were rowdy”), but anonymity is easily breached. Even when no “identifiable information” is collected, the risk of being able to attribute data to particular individuals is never nonexistent. Formal rules and regulations specify in great detail various levels of anonymity and confidentiality permitted (see table 7.1). The bottom line is that we have to act as if what we write of people we observe and talk to may be individually identified (however unlikely) and consider what harm would occur to those people when we publish our research. This might necessitate multiple case sites to protect our subjects from identification (e.g., three community pools rather than just one) or even rethinking the kinds of questions we ask, refraining from pushing our interview subjects to address supplemental questions (those that are not directly tied to our research questions) that might cause them harm or embarrassment to them if they were identified.

Table 7.1. Anonymous and Confidential Data, A Vocabulary

Another aspect of gaining permission is deciding how much information about the study to provide in advance. Again, there are formal rules that require honesty, simplicity, and clarity when explaining the research study. The language must be understood by the particular research subjects. If one is doing research with children, the language describing the study is going to necessarily be different than if one is explaining the research study to adults. If one is doing research with nonnative English speakers, the language should be in the native language as well. There are many times, however, when these simple rules fail to take into account the research design’s requirements. Some researchers, especially psychologists, employ a certain level of deception in their research design, as stating honestly what the study is about would undercut the value of the findings. Accurate information is sometimes not possible without deception. When this is the case, reviewing agencies can make exceptions to the rule of fully informed consent so long as the deception is minimal and poses no harm and there is some debriefing after the fact (as in an experiment in which the full study is explained as soon as the experiment ends). There are other times, however, when researchers accurately describe the general purpose and goal of the study but fail to mention details that, had the subjects known in advance, they might have withheld their consent. This might be the case, for example, where a powerful CEO is told that he is taking part in a study of power dynamics at large corporations when in fact the study is also focused on gender imbalances and male CEOs’ biases toward women in leadership. The simple explanation was not deceptive, but the CEO may have decided to opt out had he received all the information. In such a case, the researcher needs to balance the potential benefits of the study with the likely harm to the subject and may very well come to the conclusion that this is an ethical practice. Others might disagree, of course.

There are a host of other questions to consider. How long will you stay in the field? What kinds of relationships will you form with the people you are observing, and how will you gracefully “exit” the field with the least amount of pain to those who have come to rely on your presence? What level of collaboration do you have with your participants? How deep are your interview questions? Are your probes too invasive? All of these are ethical questions that arise during the data collection phase.

More questions arise during data analysis and the presentation of your findings. Because we have not yet gotten to those subjects in this book, I am going to reserve much of the discussion on these and point them out in relevant chapters. There are two later-stage ethical challenges, however, that you need to plan for in advance: Who will own the data you collect? What kind of impact might the presentation or reporting of your findings have?

You will often need to think about who owns the data that has been collected and analyzed and who has rights of control over it. For example, some researchers negotiate access with employers or supervisors at particular worksites. Those employers or supervisors may then expect some control over the data collected. Maybe they want to see the results first, before anyone else, or perhaps they even want a say in which results are made public. It is important to work out any agreements on the use of the data in advance so you are not put in a position of having someone else dictate what you can do with your data.

You should also consider the impact your study may have on those who granted you access to the site and to all of those who were willing to be interviewed or observed. If your findings could result in a negative outcome (anything from bad press to loss of business or community support to public shaming of an individual or group), you should anticipate this and consider your ethical obligations, obligations that may exist to multiple persons and groups and may be in conflict with one another. How will you handle this?

Many of these questions (and more) will arise during the course of your research. Keeping a journal will help you reflect on the challenges. Every decision you make will probably carry an ethical consideration. To give you a sense of how ambiguous these ethical decision points can be, let’s walk through a few ethical scenarios.

Part 2: Ethical Scenarios

Below are several short scenarios that will help you think through how to spot ethical issues and how you might resolve them. Pay attention to all stages of the research process, from design to publication. It’s possible that one or more of the scenarios are fatally flawed from the very start. Think about what each researcher owes to (1) the scientific community of which they are a part and (2) the human beings with whom they are building relationships. How to properly balance the two? A few questions follow each scenario, but you need not confine your consideration to these questions. Note that each scenario might bring up more than one ethical issue!

Scenario 1: The Glass Ceiling

Jacinda would like to understand how women deal with sexual discrimination and harassment in engineering firms. She is able to secure a temporary job as a receptionist at Engineer-O, a Fortune 500 firm. To everyone in the company, she is simply a “temp.” While working there, she approaches several women about their experiences. A few are willing to sit down and be recorded by her as she asks them questions about working at the company. In addition to the interviews, she keeps notes of her own daily experiences at the company (during her breaks and at night). She witnesses many examples of sexual harassment—managers who make sexual comments to their employees. She also takes pictures of the office and cubicle walls of some of the male employees, where sexually explicit images of women and/or misogynistic sayings are posted.

Questions to consider: From whom must Jacinda get consent for her study? The women she interviews, the men whose walls she takes pictures of, those whose activities she observes? Does she need to tell her boss that she is an undercover researcher? Should she?

Scenario 2: #BlackLivesMatter

Anne is a White twenty-five-year-old graduate student who is interested in police-community relations, especially in urban neighborhoods that have experienced conflicts (e.g., police shootings of unarmed Black men and children). She has a very close friend, Jamal, who lives in one such neighborhood. He allows her to hang out with him for a summer. She carries around a notebook and writes down observations frequently. She also records a few interviews with Jamal, his best friends, his parents, and his beloved grandmother, whose house he lives in. One Sunday, while she is at his grandmother’s house, the police knock down the front door and force everyone to lie down on the ground as they search the premises. She begins to cry and writes movingly afterward of the pain and terror written on Joyce’s (Jamal’s grandmother) face as they lie next to each other with a gun at their necks. On another occasion, she is present when Jamal finds out his best friend has been fatally shot by a local gang. She gets in the car with Jamal as he looks for the killer. He asks her to hold his gun. She writes all of this down and plans on publishing everything.

Questions to consider: What are Anne’s duties and responsibilities in terms of publishing these events? From whom must she get consent? What if Joyce and Jamal’s friends did not know she was a graduate student conducting a study? Did she commit a crime when she carried Jamal’s gun for him? Should she have received permission from the police department before conducting this study?

Scenario 3: The Unhoused

Julie is doing a study of the unhoused in San Francisco. She approaches several men on the street and explains her study and asks if she can follow them around. Twelve agree. She spends several weeks in their company—getting to know them, following them as they panhandle and recycle old bottles and cans, and asking them questions about their lives. She records many of their conversations on her phone. When it is too cold outdoors, she sometimes allows one or two men to crash at her apartment. She knows they really dislike the shelters and how they are run. She also encourages them all to use her shower during the course of the study. Other times, she buys them food. Once or twice, she has paid for beers and has sat with them as they drink and reminisce about their childhoods. And still other times she has given “Julius” cash, even though there is a chance he will use it to buy heroin. After six months, she realizes she has enough material to write a book about the men. She leaves San Francisco and moves back to her home in Berkeley. Although she tells the men the study is over, she does not follow up with them or provide any of them with contact information for her.

Questions to consider: What does Julie owe the unhoused participants of her study after six months? Should she have provided them with a way to contact her in the future? Should she have made an attempt to reconnect with them? Was it appropriate to allow the men to use her apartment? Would it have been wrong not to do so? Should Julie have helped the men more? Did she help them too much? Was it wrong to drink beer with them? To give Julius cash he might have used to buy heroin? If her book is published to great success, does she owe any of the proceeds to the men?

Scenario 4: Studying Upside Down

Franco is a graduate student interested in understanding the practice of racial discrimination and how this might be related to individual beliefs about insider/outsider status within a community. During the Trump administration, he heard a lot about “White working-class racists,” but he suspects that wealthy White persons are just as discriminatory as poor White persons. He designs a research plan that allows him to hear what people have to say about “who belongs” in the US and a part that allows him to actually observe interactions they have with others. As his father belongs to a very fancy golf club, he plans to (1) interview the members of the club and (2) golf at the club and otherwise hang out and watch interactions between (primarily White) members and (primarily Latinx) staff. He did not ask the club’s permission. The club leadership heard about the study, however, when one of its members mentioned they saw a young man writing things down in a notebook when they were in an argument with a caddy. The club pressured the IRB of Franco’s university to revoke his application. Franco doesn’t fight the decision (how can he?). Still interested in understanding racial discrimination, he uses the same research design, but now at a poor neighborhood’s community pool. He finds some examples of racism in his interviews with the White working-class pool-goers and observes one example of what could be racial discrimination.

Questions to consider: Should Franco have approached the golf club directly to secure permission for this study? Why do you think he did not? Does it matter that his father was a member? Was his original design a good one? Why or why not? How would you have handled the IRB revocation? Is Franco’s new site a good one? Why or why not? Is his decision to observe at a community pool ethical?

Scenario 5: Political Deception

Mumbi, a graduate student from Kenya, is fascinated by American politics. In particular, she wants to understand the increasingly visible role of race among politically active conservatives in the US. She plans to do research at a local Republican Party headquarters during campaign season. She will work there herself and interview other volunteers. Mumbi’s informed consent form explains that she is doing research on “how people engage politically.” Informally, she tells her covolunteers that she is a Republican and that she voted for Trump. However, as a Kenyan citizen, she is not able to vote in the elections, and had she done so, she would never have voted for Trump. She thinks Trump is truly the devil.

Questions to consider: Is Mumbi’s failure to identify herself unethical? What does she owe the people she is interviewing? Is it ethical to omit the motivations for the study? Had she included all the facts about herself and her motivation for the study, would she have received different information from the people she interviewed? Is deception justified in this case or not? Should Mumbi worry about her personal safety?

Scenario 6: What Do Your Friends Say About You?

Serena is a psychology graduate student trying to understand how people make friends. She runs an experiment using primarily college students at a large research university in the Pacific Northwest. In the experiment, she provides students notecards with interesting facts about some strangers and records which strangers get selected as potential new friends. Some of the facts include (1) shops at Walmart, (2) has traveled outside the US, and (3) owns a MAGA hat or T-shirt. She finds that those who espoused fact (2) were overwhelmingly chosen as friends and that only one in five chose a friend that selected (3) and zero chose friends who chose (1). Based on these findings, she develops a theory that people value cross-cultural experiences. She debriefs the students in the experiment and tells them that (1) was the big loser!

Questions to consider: Are there any problems with this study design? Who is likely to be included and who is not likely to be included in the sample? What might be wrong with the theory Serena developed? Were any college students harmed by the questions asked? What would you have advised Serena before she began running the experiment?

Quick Recap of Common Ethical Challenges to Consider

• Who was included in the sample design? Who was not included?
• How did the researcher get entry into the field?
• What did the researcher tell people about their research?
• Was there “informed consent”?
• When reporting findings, was care taken to protect the anonymity , confidentiality , and dignity of the research subjects?
• Does this study contribute to our knowledge about a subject in a way that does not foster harm ?

Further Readings

Cwikel, Julie, and Elizabeth Hoban. 2005. “Contentious Issues in Research on Trafficked Women Working in the Sex Industry: Study Design, Ethics, and Methodology.” The Journal of Sex Research 42(4):306–316.

Davies, Deirdre, and Jenny Dodd. 2002. “Qualitative Research and the Question of Rigor.” Qualitative Health Research 12(2):279–289.

Diniz, Debora. 2008. “Research Ethics in Social Sciences: The Severina’s Story Documentary.” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(2):23–35.

Fujii, Lee Ann. 2012. “Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities.” PS: Political Science and Politics 45(4):717–723.

Guillemin, M., and L. Gillam. 2004. “Ethics, Reflexivity, and ‘Ethically Important Moments’ in Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 10(1):261–280.

Knight, Michelle G. 2000. “Ethics in Qualitative Research: Multicultural Feminist Activist Research.” Theory Into Practice 39(3):170–176.

The science and practice of right conduct; in research, it is also the delineation of moral obligations towards research participants, communities to which we belong, and communities in which we conduct our research.

A discrete set of population groups for which heightened ( IRB ) review is triggered when included as participants of human subjects research .  These typically include children, pregnant persons, and prisoners but may also include ethnic or racial minorities, non-English speakers, the economically disadvantaged, and adults with diminished capacity.  According to the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), “Vulnerable persons are those who are relatively (or absolutely) incapable of protecting their own interests. More formally, they may have insufficient power, intelligence, education, resources, strength, or other needed attributes to protect their own interests.”

A condition in which the identity of individual subjects is not known to researchers; although this is not often truly possible, researchers can nevertheless take steps to ensure that the presentation of the data to a general audience remains anonymous through the use of pseudonyms and other forms of identity masking.

A condition in which the researcher knows the identity of a research subject but takes steps to protect that identity from being discovered by others; this may require limiting presentation of sensitive data.  While the connection between the participants and the results are known, the terms of the confidentiality agreement between the researcher and the participants limit those who will know of this connection.  Compare to anonymity .

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews
• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework
• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Introduction

What are research ethics?

Informed consent in qualitative research, trust in the researcher-participant relationship, navigating the ethics review board.

• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Ethical considerations in qualitative research

Qualitative research often involves the researcher working with and collecting data from people. This raises critical ethical concerns that all qualitative researchers should keep in mind. This article will discuss the topic of informed consent , but other issues of privacy, confidentiality , and trust, among other considerations, also require careful consideration.

Ethics generally refer to the principles of right and wrong that guide an individual or a group. In the context of research, ethics are the standards and guidelines that dictate acceptable conduct during the research process, ensuring that researchers act in a manner that protects the rights, dignity, and welfare of the participants involved.

In qualitative research , the importance of ethics becomes more nuanced due to the deeply personal and subjective nature of the methods used. Qualitative researchers often engage in prolonged, intimate interactions with participants and immerse themselves in the participants' settings, sometimes even their lives. As such, the potential for ethical dilemmas or conflicts can be heightened, making a comprehensive understanding of ethics crucial for qualitative researchers.

What are the ethical considerations in qualitative research?

A critical aspect of research ethics is respect for persons. This principle emphasizes recognizing and respecting the autonomy of research participants, acknowledging their capacity to make decisions about their involvement in the research. It also involves providing special protection for individuals with diminished autonomy who may be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, or individuals with cognitive impairments.

Beneficence, another key ethical principle, is about maximizing potential benefits for the research participants and minimizing potential harm. In the qualitative research context, potential benefits might include contributing to new knowledge, enhancing understanding of a phenomenon, or informing policy or practice changes. Potential harm might involve psychological distress, invasion of privacy, stigmatization, or misuse of data.

Justice, a third core principle, involves ensuring a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research. This means carefully considering the selection of participants to avoid exploiting vulnerable groups or excluding others without justification.

Lastly, qualitative researchers also need to consider the principle of fidelity, which involves being honest and transparent, fulfilling promises, and establishing and maintaining trust with participants. These principles are not meant to be exhaustive, nor are they universally applicable without consideration of context. In fact, one of the complexities of qualitative research is that ethical considerations often have to be balanced and negotiated in light of the specific circumstances of each study. What's ethical in one study might not be in another, and this underpins the importance of researchers being reflective and responsive to the ethical dimensions of their work.

Why do research ethics matter?

It's important to note that ethics in qualitative research are not merely about compliance with formal ethical guidelines or approval from ethics review boards. While these are necessary, ethics in qualitative research go beyond this, requiring researchers to continually negotiate ethical issues throughout the entire research process, from design to dissemination. Understanding and adhering to ethical principles in qualitative research not only protects the participants but also enhances the quality of the research, as it encourages thoughtful and respectful engagement with the research process and its stakeholders. It is a fundamental part of responsible and credible research practice.

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research practice. In practice, consent is such a necessary practice that universities and national institutes often require it to be outlined in the research proposal before ethical approval is granted. At the same time, journals often prohibit the publication of research findings if consent is not obtained. Consent is not merely the act of simply getting a participant to sign a form. It involves a clear and detailed understanding on the part of both the researcher and research subject regarding the nature of the research and how it is to be conducted. This section will discuss the importance of informed consent, the process of obtaining it, and the challenges and strategies involved in ensuring its proper implementation.

What is informed consent?

Informed consent is the process by which a research participant voluntarily confirms their willingness to participate in a particular study after having been informed of all aspects of the research that are relevant to their decision. It is a fundamental ethical obligation for all researchers, grounded in the principle of respect for persons, which recognizes the rights of individuals to autonomy and self-determination.

Importance of informed consent

Informed consent ensures that participants are not coerced or deceived into participating in a study. It upholds the principles of autonomy and respect for persons by recognizing and affirming the right of individuals to control what happens to them. Additionally, consent helps protect the researcher and the institution conducting the research by providing evidence that participants have voluntarily agreed to participate and understand the nature of the research and how the researcher intends to conduct research.

As a matter of medical research and biomedical research, consent is an outright necessity where people's health and welfare are concerned. The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki requires research participants to be treated with respect and given opportunities to make informed decisions. The principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration prevent unscrupulous researchers and practitioners from preying on research subjects, no matter how beneficial the research aims might be.

Process of obtaining informed consent

The process of obtaining consent involves several key steps. First, researchers must provide potential participants with clear, detailed, and understandable information about the study. This includes information about the purpose of the research, what participation will involve, the potential benefits and risks, the safeguards that will be in place to protect confidentiality , the voluntary nature of participation, and the participant's right to withdraw at any time without penalty.

Once this information has been provided, researchers should give potential participants sufficient time to consider whether they wish to participate and ask the researcher any questions if they need further clarification. Researchers should then obtain explicit confirmation from participants that they have understood the information and agree to participate. This can be done verbally with an audio recording, but it is typically documented in a written consent form that the participant signs. It is important to save the documents and/or audio recordings as proof of having obtained consent (e.g., research review boards or academic journals may ask for such proof).

Challenges and strategies in ensuring consent

Obtaining consent in qualitative research can present several challenges. For instance, the iterative nature of many qualitative research designs means that the specifics of the research may evolve over time, making it difficult to provide complete information at the outset. Moreover, certain participant groups may have difficulty understanding the consent information due to language barriers, low literacy levels, or cognitive impairments.

In response to these challenges, researchers can adopt several strategies. For evolving research designs, researchers can commit to a process of ongoing consent, where they continually update participants about changes and check their continued willingness to participate.

For participant groups with comprehension difficulties, researchers can use simplified language, visual aids, or third-party intermediaries to help explain the consent information. In some cases, researchers may also need to seek consent from legally authorized representatives while still involving the participants as much as possible in the consent process.

Despite its challenges, researchers must make every effort to ensure that participants understand the research and voluntarily agree to take part. This not only respects participants' rights but also contributes to the overall quality and credibility of the research.

Powerful tools for your research in ATLAS.ti

Put your data to work with our intuitive qualitative data analysis interface. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti.

Privacy and confidentiality in qualitative research

In qualitative research, ensuring privacy and confidentiality is paramount. As researchers frequently deal with sensitive data about individuals, it's crucial to respect and protect participants' rights to privacy and ensure the confidentiality of their information. This section will detail the concepts of privacy and confidentiality, the methods to maintain them, and the associated challenges in qualitative research.

Understanding privacy and confidentiality

Privacy and confidentiality, although related, are two distinct concepts in research ethics. Privacy pertains to an individual's right to control the extent, timing, and circumstances of sharing oneself with others. It is linked to notions of personal space and seclusion.

On the other hand, confidentiality relates to the agreement between the participant and the researcher about how the participant's information will be handled, used, and disseminated. It involves an assurance that personal information shared for the purposes of the research will not be disclosed in a way that allows the identification of the participant without their permission.

Methods for maintaining privacy and confidentiality

Several methods can be employed to maintain privacy and confidentiality in qualitative research. During data collection , privacy can be respected by conducting interviews or observations in private settings where the participant feels comfortable and by asking only questions that are necessary for the research.

Personal identifiers can be removed or disguised in transcripts, reports, and publications to ensure confidentiality. Data can be securely stored, and access can be limited to only the necessary members of the research team. Additionally, researchers can use pseudonyms instead of real names in their reports to further ensure that participants cannot be identified.

In certain situations, a technique called data aggregation can be employed. This involves presenting data in a way that represents groups of people rather than individuals, thus minimizing the risk of identification.

Challenges in ensuring privacy and confidentiality

Despite these methods, ensuring privacy and confidentiality can present challenges. Given the depth and detail often involved in qualitative data, even when identifiers are removed or disguised, participants may still be recognizable based on the context or content of their information.

There's also a potential conflict between maintaining confidentiality and providing rich, detailed descriptions, which is a hallmark of qualitative research . Furthermore, in small or close-knit communities, anonymity can be particularly challenging to maintain, as participants might be identifiable simply based on the nature of their experiences or roles.

In response to these challenges, it's important for researchers to have open and ongoing discussions with participants about privacy and confidentiality issues. They should negotiate what information is off-limits and continuously seek consent as more personal or sensitive data emerges. Researchers need to strike a balance between providing a rich, detailed account of the data and protecting their participants' identities.

The establishment of trust in the researcher-participant relationship is a fundamental aspect of qualitative research. Trust can influence the quality and depth of the data gathered, as participants are more likely to share honest and detailed information if they trust the researcher.

The importance of trust in qualitative research

Trust is foundational to successful qualitative research. Researchers often delve into personal, sometimes sensitive, topics. As a result, the participants' willingness to share depends largely on the level of trust established between them and the researcher. Trust can enhance participant engagement and willingness to participate, which can, in turn, enrich the quality of the data gathered. Moreover, the ethical integrity of the research process is often judged by the degree of trust that participants place in researchers.

Strategies to build and maintain trust

Building and maintaining trust with research subjects requires careful attention and ongoing effort. The process typically begins with clear, transparent communication about the research purpose, procedures, benefits, and risks, which can foster initial trust.

A key strategy for building trust is demonstrating respect for participants and their experiences. This includes honoring their time, listening carefully to their responses, and validating their experiences and feelings. Showing empathy and understanding can also enhance trust, particularly when discussing sensitive topics.

Additionally, maintaining confidentiality , as discussed in the previous section, is crucial for building and maintaining trust. If participants are confident that their information will be kept confidential, they are more likely to trust the researcher and share openly.

Ensuring that the research benefits the participants or their community in some way can also contribute to trust. This could include producing knowledge that addresses a community concern, providing a platform for participants' voices to be heard, or translating research findings into actions or interventions that benefit the participants.

Consequences of trust violation

Violations of trust can have severe consequences in qualitative research . Participants may withdraw from the study, refuse to provide further information, or provide false or misleading information. Trust violations can also harm the reputation of the researcher and their institution, impede future research efforts, and, in some cases, could lead to formal complaints or legal action.

Thus, it's essential for researchers to be aware of the importance of trust and make conscious efforts to build and maintain it throughout the research process. By doing so, they can foster more meaningful and productive relationships with their participants, leading to richer data and more impactful research findings.

Vulnerability and power dynamics in qualitative research

In qualitative research, it is crucial to recognize and address the potential vulnerability of participants and the power dynamics that exist between researchers and participants. These issues are at the heart of many ethical considerations in research.

Vulnerable populations in qualitative research

Vulnerable populations in research refer to groups of individuals who may be at a higher risk of exploitation or harm due to certain characteristics or circumstances. These might include children, older adults, prisoners, people with cognitive or mental health impairments, people with low socio-economic status, or people experiencing homelessness, among others.

Vulnerable individuals may have limited autonomy, be less able to understand or consent to research participation, or be more susceptible to harm from the research. Researchers need to exercise particular care when including vulnerable individuals in research to ensure that they are not exploited and that their rights and welfare are protected. As a general rule, protecting the rights and agency of vulnerable groups takes priority over data collection.

Power dynamics between researchers and participants

Power dynamics in qualitative research refer to the imbalance of power that often exists between researchers and participants. Researchers usually hold a position of power in the research relationship, as they determine the research design, control the data collection and analysis process, and decide how the findings are reported. This power imbalance can influence participants' experiences and responses in the research and can potentially lead to exploitation or harm.

For instance, participants might feel pressured to participate in the research, to answer questions they are uncomfortable with, or to disclose more information than they would like, due to the perceived power of the researcher. They might also fear potential repercussions if they withdraw from the research or provide negative feedback.

Strategies for minimizing power imbalances

To minimize power imbalances, researchers can adopt several strategies. These can include involving participants in the research process, known as participatory research methods. For instance, researchers can involve participants in designing the research questions, selecting the methods, analyzing the data, or disseminating the findings.

Researchers can also aim for transparency in all research procedures, continually inform participants of their rights, and reinforce the voluntary nature of participation. It's also crucial to approach participants with respect and humility, acknowledging their expertise in their own experiences and valuing their contributions to the research.

Moreover, in the case of vulnerable populations, additional safeguards might be necessary. These could include obtaining consent from a legally authorized representative, using simplified language or visual aids to explain the research, ensuring that participation does not exacerbate the individuals' vulnerability, and providing additional support or resources as needed.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), or Ethics Review Boards, are formal ethics committees that review all research involving human subjects. The aim of these committees is to ensure that the proposed research studies adhere to ethical guidelines regarding human subjects protection. An ethics committee protects the rights, safety, and well-being of the participants in research. Navigating the review process can be complex, but understanding its purpose and procedures can help researchers to ensure their studies meet the necessary ethical standards.

Purpose of the ethics review board

The primary purpose of an ethics review board is to protect human subjects from potential harm. Boards review research proposals to ensure that the studies are designed and will be conducted ethically, respecting the principles of informed consent , confidentiality , and protection of vulnerable populations, among others. They also aim to ensure that the potential benefits of the research outweigh any risks to participants.

Getting ethical approval for your study

To prepare for a review from an institutional review board, researchers should familiarize themselves with the specific guidelines and procedures of their institution's review board. This usually involves developing a detailed research proposal that outlines the study's purpose, methods , participant recruitment, consent procedures, data handling practices, and measures to protect participants' rights and welfare.

Researchers should also prepare to address potential ethical issues that might arise in their study. This involves thinking through potential risks to participants, how these risks will be mitigated, and how any unexpected ethical issues will be handled.

The review process and responding to feedback

Once a research proposal is submitted to the ethics review board, it undergoes a process of review. The board members assess the proposal for potential ethical issues and decide whether to approve the study, request modifications, or reject the study. This process can take several weeks or months and may involve several rounds of feedback and revisions.

If the board requires modifications, researchers should carefully review the feedback, make the necessary changes to their proposal, and provide a clear rationale for these changes when resubmitting the proposal. It's important to view this process as a constructive dialogue aimed at enhancing the ethical quality of the research rather than a hurdle to overcome.

Conducting the study and post-study considerations

Once the study is approved, researchers should conduct the study as outlined in their approved proposal. Any significant changes to the study design or procedures should be reported to and approved by the review board.

After the study is completed, researchers may need to submit a final report to the review board, outlining how the study was conducted and how any ethical issues were handled. Researchers should also be prepared to address any ethical issues that arise during data analysis, reporting, or dissemination and may need to seek further guidance from the review board in these cases.

Let ATLAS.ti help you with conducting research

From proposal to findings, ATLAS.ti gives you the research instruments you need. Download a free trial today.

Statistics for the Public Good

Ethical considerations associated with Qualitative Research methods

Introduction.

This high-level guidance has been developed by the UK Statistics Authority’s Centre for Applied Data Ethics (CADE), and the UK Government Data Quality Hub (DQHub), based at the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The guidance can be used as a practical resource to help researchers identify different ethical issues when conducting qualitative research.  

This guidance is not exhaustive but aims to support researchers navigating the ethical issues surrounding qualitative research projects (particularly in relation to primary data collection). It brings together existing literature on qualitative research methods and their ethical concerns. Links to further resources are provided if you would like to read about aspects in more detail.  

The guidance has been created for researchers using qualitative methods within the ONS . However, the ethical considerations discussed, and the mitigations for these, can be more widely applied to all types of qualitative research.  

The guidance is divided into several parts.    

• An introduction to qualitative research and why ethics matters in this space.   
• An overview of some of the ethical considerations associated with qualitative research methods, and some potential mitigations for these issues. This includes an overview of some of the qualitative methods used within the ONS.  
• An ethics checklist which summarises the main points covered in this guidance.    
• A list of helpful links to further resources.   

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Perspective article, diy academic archiving: mischievous disruptions of a new counter-movement.

• 1 Department of Media and Communication, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY, United States
• 2 Department of Sociology, Okanagan College, Kelowna, BC, Canada
• 3 Department of Sociology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Against increasing injunctions in research governance to create open data, and knee-jerk rejections from qualitative researchers in response to such efforts, we explore a radical counter movement of academics engaged in what we term “DIY Academic Archiving,” the creation of open and accessible archives of their research materials. We turn to interviews with three DIY academic archivists, each drawing on an ethos of community archiving, as opposed to emerging open data schemes: Melissa Munn on The Gaucher/Munn Penal Press Collection , 1 Eric Gonzaba’s Wearing Gay History , 2 and Michael Goodman’s Victorian Illustrated Shakespeare Archive . 3 We see these archives as engaged in a “politics of refusal,” which challenges both conventional methods and ethics in qualitative research as well as new moves toward open data. On the one hand, academics are tasked to “protect” their data by destroying it, under the guise of a supposed mode of “care.” On the other hand, open data makes quite contrary demands, to care for data by making it “open” for further extraction through (re)use. DIY Academic Archiving is a practice of refusal that supports a redirection away from this binary. In this article, we explore how DIY academic archivists play with coding as a form of mischievous disruption, and so are contributing to new data imaginaries. We offer insight into how DIY Academic Archiving supports researchers in their theoretical, methodological and political commitments, and at the same time, how it can enable researchers to take the care-full risk of archiving our research data.

Introduction

This article is an invitation to re-imagine practices of data reuse and sharing in the qualitative social sciences, with an intentionally playful intervention into both current research governance framings of data reuse and rejections of it: what we term “DIY Academic Archiving.” DIY Academic Archiving is a process of building online collections of research data, often outside of institutional repositories, and with a strong commitment to public access to data. In our view, “open” is often not open enough; commonly meaning data is made available to other researchers, but not to research participants, communities of interest and other publics, and is usually buried in data repositories, which are not very accessible. We came to describe DIY Academic Archiving through the process of building an open, online archive of research data, consisting of oral history interviews with ecofeminist activists at the Clayoquot Sound Peace Camp in the early 1990s ( https://clayoquotlives.sps.ed.ac.uk/ ; Moore et al., 2021 ). 4 Against our own initial assumptions that producing an online archive might be a straightforward process, we found that our work was in fact deeply methodological, opening up opportunities to imagine unconventional infrastructures for listening and engaging with data, participants, and wider publics ( Dankert, 2018 ). We turn to interviews with other DIY academic archivists who provide reflections on the design and creation of their archives, to show how playful collaboration and accessible design work to create radical potential in the process of creating data archives. We draw on three distinct projects: Melissa Munn’s Penal Press , 5 Eric Gonzaba’s Wearing Gay History (WGH), 6 and Michael Goodman’s Victorian Illustrated Shakespeare Archive (). 7 With each example, we show how these academics are engaging in forms of “mischievous coding” illustrating how they bring their intellectual, methodological and political commitments to the practice of data archiving. In doing so, they counter some of the concerns about new moves in research governance around open data, and offer other ways of imagining the process of data reuse, which might be more meaningful for many qualitative researchers.

DIY academic archiving as a politics of refusal

Across the qualitative social sciences, the practice of academics sharing their research data by depositing it within national or institutional data repositories continues to grow, if slowly. We see radical potential in some of these initiatives, but in coming to DIY Academic Archiving, we make a different archival turn. Our inspiration comes from the politics, practice and ethos of feminist, queer and black archival theorists and community archivists ( Flinn et al., 2009 ; Flinn and Stevens, 2009 ; Bly and Wooten, 2012 ; Dever, 2017 ; Bastian and Flinn, 2018 ). These interlocutors direct us to the importance of attending to marginal knowledge and audiences, as well as to a need for creativity within formal ways of doing work, here specifically archival theory and practice. The work of DIY Academic Archiving requires academics to question how their data may be shared more openly, productively flushing out tensions related to conventional strategies of qualitative data extraction. The process of such questioning supports the re-imagining practices of care and risk around participants and their data ( Moore et al., 2021 ).

Injunctions to deposit research data into institutional repositories for data sharing, and more recent articulations of a drive for open data, have provoked some understandable dissent among qualitative academics who question the overall benefit of sharing data for (re)use. 8 DIY Academic Archiving offers generative ways through these tensions. Qualitative researchers may feel their “small data” cannot fit into systems designed around quantitative or “big data.” For some, there is a concern that depositing research in the black box of data repositories may result in a sense of loss of control as appropriate contextual information and nuances might not be captured by data (re)use. DIY Academic Archiving alleviates some of these strains by allowing autonomy and an opportunity to engage deeply with “small data” ( Rieder, 2015 ). As an alternative to depositing data in existing repositories, DIY archivists can turn to a range of digital platforms that, while providing turnkey solutions, are built and designed with different ethics, including Omeka 9 and Mukurtu. 10 DIY Academic Archiving, however, involves more than simply harnessing the use of technology to deposit and hold research data and materials. Rather, it is a critical practice that functions as “technology of knowing” ( Stokes, 2021 ), creating potential for fertile meeting points of collaboration and the sharing of new knowledge ( Hanlon et al., 2024 ).

DIY Academic Archiving requires deep and meaningful engagement with ethical concerns related to the sharing of research materials online for (re) use, a topic we explore in Moore et al. (2021) . A further concern, however, is that the work of preparing data for archiving is often understood as one of data cleaning, or time-consuming data management, terms redolent with academic disdain for a certain kind of labor that is seen as not intellectual, methodological or creative, but rather as manual, menial and unskilled. Yet feminists have long understood the importance of cleaning as a practice of care and nurturing, which is usually undervalued. Why should we not clean our data, if we care and value them? And understand cleaning as a skilled practice? We argue that the work of preparing data for archiving requires care-full methodological attention to how data is being transformed in the process of archiving (see Moore et al., 2021 ), a process that is creative, intellectual, political, and filled with epistemological potential. We invite academic colleagues to approach DIY Academic Archiving as a method , not a deposit box, and to (re) engage with data in unexpected ways.

Thus, against knee-jerk reactions to calls to archive and reuse qualitative data ( McLeod and O’Connor, 2021 ), we invoke “a politics of refusal,” drawing on black feminist theory and praxis ( Moore et al., 2021 ; Gross et al., 2023 ). The distinction here is that, as Tuck and Yang have usefully articulated: “Refusal is a generative stance, not just a ‘no,’ but a starting place for other qualitative analyses and interpretations of data” ( Tuck and Yang, 2014b , 812). While many criticisms of archiving and reuse as framed by mainstream research governance are well made, we argue that they often also foreclose the possibilities of alternative ways of imagining the archiving of qualitative research data. To be clear, our refusal of current research governance and emerging conventions around depositing and sharing data is not intended as a rejection . National data archives and university library data repositories are doing important and necessary work, which is often undervalued by academic colleagues, or perhaps even more commonly, simply unrecognized. Instead, our refusal is intended as a mischievous play with these existing framings. Our refusal seeks to redirect discussions of open data, actually expanding the possibilities of creating and sharing open data, and, at the same time, doing this in ways that might be more consistent with many qualitative researchers’ pre-existing methodological and political commitments.

Mischievous coding in DIY academic archiving

We came to these insights initially through creating our own DIY Academic Archive, Clayoquot Lives: An Ecofeminist Story Web, which holds oral history interviews and other materials related to the Clayoquot Sound Peace Camp. Having learned through our own process of building this archive ( Moore et al., 2021 ), we were keen to hear from others who, perhaps as accidently as us, ended up creating archives with research data and learning much more along the way than anticipated. We carried out selected interviews with others who we saw as engaged in their own forms of DIY Archiving. We turn to brief examples from these interviews to illustrate the potential of DIY Archiving and what we came to understand as a rather mischievous approach to coding, one that emerged to enable access to and engagement with the data, but on the academics’ own terms.

Coding is a common research practice across multiple disciplines. 11 Coding might often be understood as rigorous, consistent, robust and standardized—and we understand coding as a creative process. Here, data are “cleaned up” differently, demonstrating how generative a process DIY Academic archiving can be. In DIY Academic Archives, the researcher controls what information (metadata, categories, and tags) is made available when designing and organizing the infrastructure of the archive. This is a type of strategic curation that ultimately impacts how audience (s) will come to encounter the research materials. It is in this process that possibilities of redirection—what we call “mischievous coding”—emerge.

Mischievous coding involves critically thinking through questions related to audiences and users. The three examples we feature here are alive with mischievous disruptions through play, born of invisible, off-the-side-of-the-desk labor. This playful labor is not easily recognized or valued by institutions, but it has a profound importance for the researchers in question. In these examples, mischievous labor becomes mischievous play, as each DIY academic archivist plays with coding to consider multiple publics: Munn builds infrastructure to disrupt any easy assumptions about the prison populations she researches; Gonzaba works with community interlocutors to establish best practices; and Goodman actively decontextualizes images for public engagement.

Making mischief with the search infrastructure—Melissa Munn on The Gaucher/Munn Penal Press Collection

The Gaucher/Munn Penal Press Collection is an open-access online archive holding thousands of digitized prison newsletters, collectively known as “the penal press,” which were created and produced by prison inmates within the Canadian penal system. Dating back to the 1950s, the newsletters offer a crucial insight into everyday life behind bars, as well as prisoners’ concerns about the justice system, carceral policies and prison reform via drawings, reflections, essays, stories and poems. The archive is intended to preserve this prison journalism and make the newsletters available and accessible to prisoners, former prisoners and their families, as well as to scholars, other publics, and media outlets. Building on the collection first started by Dr. Rober Gaucher, these newsletters (old and new editions) continue to be collected and digitized by Professor Melissa Munn.

Munn provided a strong account of her decisions around how the newsletters would be searchable, and why. She told us how The Penal Press , by design, “is not organized to be word searchable, so you cannot put a word in […] and it will find it in every document for you. That was a very deliberate choice I made” (Munn). Thus, while the newsletters themselves are not word searchable, each newsletter is attributed to certain categories or codes, which can be searched. Munn recounted her thinking about coding the newsletters and how she created the search function on the website:

MUNN: I had to make a decision on what were the topics that I thought people would want to search about. In that, there are some judgments. For example, if you look at my website, the categories, there is nothing on alcohol addiction, because I do not know that I like the framing of it as alcohol addiction. So politically, that was not in line with my position, so they are not there. However, if you look you will find a category called “Claire Culhane” because she is my hero. So Claire Culhane gets her own category on my website.

Munn’s decision not to allow prisoners’ lives to be easily reduced to pathological stories about alcohol addiction, alongside her commitment to making sure that the prisoner rights activism of Claire Culhane is remembered, demonstrates the power of coding and its potential to remake worlds, through her mischievous disruption of research conventions that reduce people to objects of analysis. As Tuck and Yang remind us, “analytic practices of refusal involve an active resistance to trading in pain and humiliation… refusal can comprise a resistance to making someone or something the subject of research” ( Tuck and Yang 2014a , 812). Material on alcoholism can be found in the archive, but it is not made easy for users. Rather, users would need to work through all the newsletters before they can find material on alcoholism. In this way, Munn provides readers with alternative stories of prison life—both through the text of the newsletters, but also through the form of the newsletters. Munn was committed to showcasing the art and creativity of the prison journalists and manifested in the drawings, setting and materials (also see Clarkson and Munn, 2021 ). This was a necessary part of the story she wanted to tell about prisoners through her research. Here, we see how DIY Academic Archiving provides a way to bust through persistent myths about prisoners, working to strategically amplify alternative stories about prisoners’ lives. Coding and archiving were not a technical or administrative exercise, but rather part of the research process whereby Munn was able to shape her research narrative, and narratives about prisoners, as she would in other research outputs, such as academic articles or books.

This mischievous approach to search infrastructure exemplifies Sneha’s reminder that “The digital object is made through all of these processes: digitization, encoding, cross-referencing, querying, collation, reading, and narrating—all of which involve conceptual and material aspects of thinking and doing” ( Sneha, 2017 ). Munn’s deliberate refusals of certain narratives of prisoners offers a powerful rebuttal to some which reduce understandings of preparing data for archiving to matters of cleaning or admin, and fail to appreciate the considerable methodological and conceptual work involved, how the ways in which stories are told using data, do not begin with articles and books and other more formal publications, but also through the arrangement of data in an archive.

Collaborating with communities—Eric Gonzaba on the Wearing Gay History archive

Wearing Gay History (WGH) is a digital archive created by Dr. Eric Gonzaba to showcase LGBT+ communities through their material cultures. The collection documents queer history through t-shirts from gay cafes, bars and nightclubs, queer festivals and events, campaigns and more, offering an extensive digitized t-shirt collection from archives from across the US and beyond. In one digital space, the collection brings together items that would otherwise require extensive travel to see in material form. The WGH archive demonstrates the potential of “pooling power” in creating digital archives, where a single t-shirt does not exist in isolation, but rather becomes part of a wider (and large) community, and in this case global movement, which can now be experienced by new audiences.

For Gonzaba, a key element of organizing the archive meant engaging with LGBT+ communities throughout the process of building the archive. Rather than develop an archive design and a coding framework as a solitary practice, Gonzaba worked collaboratively with a highly engaged and knowledgeable community of interest:

GONZABA: Things will be messy, they’re meant to be messy, but working in public… Wearing Gay History was built openly, people were commenting, be it Twitter and Facebook, were commenting on the site and offering suggestions in real time as I was building it, literally as I was adding the first five t-shirts people were saying ‘this is awkward’, ‘you should change this’, blah, blah, blah and working openly and being messy […] It’s one thing to have instructions in front of you, I certainly follow those instructions, but until you actually get your feet wet, do you actually realize how the site and how archives actually works.

Gonzaba’s participatory approach to archiving brought LGBT+ communities directly into the process of building the digital site from the beginning, drawing on their own knowledge of items in the collection, as well as their ideas about how queer community would be displayed. Such a collaborative approach challenges researchers’ usual practice of being in control of how data is managed and shared publicly, leaving it difficult to anticipate how coding structures might develop. While the liveliness of the design process proved fruitful in building the architecture of the DIY archive, it was also necessary for Gonzaba to establish certain boundaries. Many who heard about the archive wanted to submit their own t-shirts to the collection:

GONZABA: I had to make some decisions at the beginning and one of the decisions I wanted to make was that these shirts were going to be able to be found. So, you’re going to look at these shirts and you’re going to be able to find a copy of it in some archive.

In the process of making the online, open archive, flexibility and a commitment to collaboration generated questions for Gonzaba, not only in so far as what materials the archive would ultimately hold, but also in setting limitations on the degree of audience engagement. This resulted in the decision to document t-shirts available from established collections only, where there was already public access to materials. Through community engagement and participatory archiving, Gonzaba’s work played with questions of who is an expert and who knows most about the items in the collection, recognizing that as a researcher he is not the only one with knowledge. By letting queer publics into the archive from the onset, Gonzaba demonstrates how his refusal of the solitary role of researcher, and his invitation to users into the archive-making process, offers an opportunity for play and mischief with usual research practices, but in ways that do not compromise data, but instead complements and enriches it.

The pleasures of designing for users—Michael Goodman on the Victorian Illustrated Shakespeare Archive

The Victorian Illustrated Shakespeare Archive (VISA) is a visual digital archive of Shakespeare illustrations. Created by Dr. Michael Goodman as his PhD research, the collection features over 3,000 digitized illustrations of vintage etchings published in the mid-1800s, and which have appeared in four major United Kingdom editions of Shakespeare’s Complete Works. For Goodman, accessibility of his archive for audiences and users were key commitments, which shaped the architecture of his DIY archive. By design, VISA provides very little contextualizing information for audiences visiting the digital collection. Rather than guide, suggest or control navigation through the archive, users are invited to explore it as they please, allowing for audience-led encounters and creative interactions with the extensive collection of illustrations.

Like Penal Press and WGH, creating the VISA archive was a labor-intensive process 12 that involved sourcing publications, scanning thousands of illustrations and assembling them in digital form. Such labor is often invisible, as user-audiences experience a public-facing version only. As Smith and Whearty (2023) note, “these materials may seem to ‘magically appear’ on our servers and screens—but it is skilled labor, not magic, that brings them there.” For Goodman, the labor of scanning thousands of illustrations and getting the materials “there” (onto the online platform), made possible the things he valued most in the making of his archive: the pleasure of play, creativity and discovery, for himself and for audiences alike. In making his archive, Goodman was able to play around with form and esthetics by adjusting images, “feeling [his] way about the place and just seeing what happens” (Goodman). This was an enriching experience to Goodman, further heightened by his ethos of building an accessible archive for general audiences. The delight which Goodman conveyed when speaking of designing VISA, echoes Kim’s (2018) account of building digital archives, particularly user-centered sensory pleasures, which can hide the labor involved, as well as archival agendas. To Kim, “the question of pleasure speaks to the importance of desire in archival building and about emotional affect.” The seeming lack of contextual information on Goodman’s site risks obfuscating the considerable thought that went into its design and creation:

GOODMAN: There’s a lot of thought that’s gone into the way I wanted that presented, and the way it’s been designed and thought through, but saying that, what I wanted people to do is look at it and not realize it’s designed in that sense. So, it’s like, the design—it’s a cliché of design is that a design is invisible. So, you don’t necessarily see it, you just use it. And you play around with it and it might provoke some questions in your brain through the juxtaposition of images. Also, I wanted it accessible and easy to use, that was the other main important aspect.

This invisible labor of pleasurable play involved actively decontextualizing the images. Again, mischievous coding is used as a tool of redirection. Goodman’s commitment to open and accessible design and the resulting space of playful discovery mischievously disrupts both user experience and ideas surrounding labor, which highlights the generative (and joyful) power of making, as well as refusal by making things differently.

Designing his archive in this audience-centered way brings to the fore questions about scholarship and academia and the public good. Making, building, and playing with design allows space for both reflection and refusal ( Loveless, 2019 ). Presenting data via the archive refuses institutional systems which value and reward publications, quality indexes and research excellence frames, yet often remain inaccessible behind paywalls and academic frameworks.

GOODMAN: Making things is just as valuable as writing things… It doesn't necessarily have to be in a book form, it doesn’t have to be an article, I can make things, I can do stuff, I can be creative in creative Cloud, I can be playful, I can explore ideas in a practical visual way or a musical way or whatever.

For Goodman, a scholarly resource’s value does not automatically mean it shuts out the public, and popularity among the public does not necessarily mean it excludes academics. Indeed, the success of the archive design can be seen in the praise and recognition it has received in multiple media outlets, such as the BBC Shakespeare ( 2018 ). Academics, perhaps more used to weighty background information and guidance and direction, may paradoxically find it harder to use, or to grasp the complexity of the behind-the-scenes decisions. Goodman is critical of academic gatekeeping. Placing a strong emphasis on ensuring the material’s accessibility in a user-friendly manner was a key for him, prioritizing the archive’s potential for sharing, inspiring, and connecting. By making these materials available in this way, Goodman invites visitors to discover and engage with it playfully, whether pedagogically, for scholarly pursuits, or creative mischief.

We see the archives created by Munn, Gonzaba, Goodman and others as a powerful counter-movement, refusing mainstream framings of open data, while persistently, and with considerable dedication, offering new, arguably more meaningful, “archival imaginaries” for qualitative researchers ( Moore, 2016 ). In this process, the dismissive rejection of the labor of preparing data for archiving is transformed into a site of mischievous trouble-making, knowledge creation (both the knowledge that comes through attending to the detail of making archives, as well as the act of retrieving knowledge that might otherwise become lost), and the insistence that some knowledge are not erased, destroyed, disavowed, but are worthy of intense care. Each of these examples demonstrate how data curation is tied to notions of access, complicating the ideas and assumptions of “open,” and the binary of what it means to be “open”: while all of their archives look “open,” there is often invisible, yet intentionally mischievous, curatorial labor at work, guided by the researcher-creators’ commitments. While Munn’s archive moves against a type of data extractivism, Gonzaba’s archive challenges unidirectional processes of engagement. Meanwhile, Goodman’s archive resists dictating the terms of the audience encounter, to avoid leading them toward certain interpretations.

DIY Academic Archiving offers a playful “politics of refusal” and as such can be seen as a form of mischievous academic labor that supports productive disruptions and redirections, and which perhaps paradoxically, insists that open data is often not open enough. Understanding DIY Academic archiving as a form of method ( Moore et al., 2021 ) creates opportunities for academics to challenge emerging norms around expected ways of sharing data as a form of generative refusal. In taking up and proposing DIY Academic Archiving as a counter-movement of academic archiving that is already happening, we make mischief by insisting on archiving outside of the current norms of research governance, as well as by refusing the destructive ethic to destroy data which researchers have so carefully co-produced. We make mischief by insisting on the care in cleaning, in preparing data for others to use. We make mischief by insisting on the methods, and methodology, in archiving and data cleaning, and in insisting that marginalized people’s knowledge count and deserve the care-full risk of archiving our research data.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by School for Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

MK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MH: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. We would like to declare a small amount of funding to support the transcription of interviews from the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, as well some funding from Okanagan College to support a Research Assistant through the Grants-in-Aid fund.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the following people: Nikki Dunne, an essential member of our team and co-conspirator; Sacha Alfonzo Villafuerte who worked as a Research Assistant at Okanagan College; and of course, Melissa Munn, Eric Gonzaba, and Michael Goodman for their time and invaluable insights.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

1. ^ https://penalpress.com/

2. ^ https://wearinggayhistory.com/

3. ^ https://shakespeareillustration.org/

4. ^ This experience also contributed to Moore’s subsequent involvement in a further DIY Academic Archiving project, Reanimating Data: People, Places and Archives , see https://reanimatingdata.co.uk/about/

5. ^ https://penalpress.com/

6. ^ https://wearinggayhistory.com/

7. ^ https://shakespeareillustration.org/

8. ^ We are not rehearsing all the arguments against reuse here, but see Moore (2007) for an early review of these debates, and McLeod and O’Connor (2021) and Hughes and Tarrant (2019) for more recent discussions.

9. ^ https://omeka.net/

10. ^ https://mukurtu.org/

11. ^ Qualitative researchers use coding practices to identify themes across research materials. While DIY Academic Archiving also draws on coding as a tool for understanding research material and organizing data, it is also used to prepare and curate data for public engagement and use.

12. ^ The labor involved in digital archiving is significant and featured extensively across the interviews. While a detailed exploration exceeds the scope of this article, we explore this further in our forthcoming book on DIY Academic Archiving (Palgrave 2024).

Bastian, J. A., and Flinn, A. (2018). Community Archives, Community Spaces: Heritage, Memory and Identity . London: Facet.

Google Scholar

BBC Shakespeare (2018). “Victorian illustrated Shakespeare archive.” BBC Shakespeare on Facebook. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/BBCShakespeare/videos/2138039096435014/ (Accessed October 6, 2018).

Bly, L., and Wooten, K. (2012). Make Your Own History: Documenting Feminist and Queer Activism in the 21st Century . Los Angeles: Litwin Books, LLC.

Clarkson, C., and Munn, M. (2021). Disruptive Prisoners: Resistance, Reform, and the New Deal . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Clayoquot Lives (n.d.) “Clayoquot Lives: An Ecofeminist Story Web” Available at: https://clayoquotlives.sps.ed.ac.uk/ (Accessed January 14, 2024).

Dankert, Z. (2018). Decolonial listening: an interview with Rolando Vázquez. Soapbox J. Pract. Listen. 1, 147–156. Available at: https://www.soapboxjournal.net/print-editions/1-1-practices-of-listening .

Dever, M. (2017). Archives and new modes of feminist research [special issue]. Aust. Fem. Stud. 32, 1–4. doi: 10.1080/08164649.2017.1357017

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Flinn, A., and Stevens, M. (2009). ‘It is nohmistri, wimekin history’: telling our own story: independent and community archives in the UK, challenging and subverting the mainstream. In: Eds. J. Bastian and B. Alexander. Commun. Archiv. Shap. Mem. , Facet, London, 3–28. doi: 10.29085/9781856049047.003

Flinn, A., Stevens, M., and Shepherd, E. (2009). Whose memories, whose archives? Independent community archives, autonomy and the mainstream. Arch. Sci. 9, 71–86. doi: 10.1007/s10502-009-9105-2

Gross, L., Mashreghi, S., and Söderman, E. (2023). Refusal – opening otherwise forms of research. Fennia Int. J. Geogr. 201, 154–168. doi: 10.11143/fennia.120482

Hanlon, M., Karels, M., and Moore, N. (2024). Fashioning DIY digital archives: unsettling academic research to Centre garment workers’ voices. Int. J. Fashion Stud. Special Issue: ‘B(l)ending Research Methods: Reimagining a Theoretical Turn in Fashion Scholarship’, 11:1.

Hughes, K., and Tarrant, A. (eds.) (2019). Qualitative Secondary Analysis . London: Sage.

Kim, D. (2018). “Building pleasure and the digital archive in Wernimont” in Bodies of Information: Intersectional Feminism and Digital Humanities . Eds. J. Wernimont and E. Losh (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

Loveless, N. (2019). How to Make Art at the End of the World: A Manifesto for Research-Creation . Durham: Duke University Press

McLeod, J., and O’Connor, K. (2021). Ethics, archives and data sharing in qualitative research. Educ. Philos. Theory 53, 523–535. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1805310

Moore, N. (2007). (Re) Using qualitative data? Sociol. Res. Online 12, 1–13. doi: 10.5153/sro.1496

Moore, N. (2016). “Weaving an archival imaginary: researching community archives” in The Archive Project: Archival Research in the Social Sciences . eds. N. Moore, A. Salter, L. Stanley, and M. Tamboukou (London: Routledge), 129–152.

Moore, N., Dunne, N., Karels, M., and Hanlon, M. (2021). Towards an inventive ethics of carefull risk: unsettling research through DIY academic archiving. Aust. Fem. Stud. 36, 180–199. doi: 10.1080/08164649.2021.2018991

Mukurtu (2023). “Home page.” Available at: https://mukurtu.org/ (Accessed December 12, 2023).

Omeka (2023). “Home page.” Available at: https://www.omeka.net/ (Accessed December 12, 2023).

Rieder, D. M. (2015). “Introduction” in Hyperrhiz: New Media Cultures , 13. doi: 10.20415/hyp/013.i01

Smith, A. J., and Whearty, B. (2023). “All the work you do not see: labor, digitizers, and the foundations of digital humanities in debates” in Debates in the Digital Humanities 2023 . eds. M. K. Gold and L. F. Klein (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

Sneha, P. P. (2017). “Making humanities in the digital: embodiment and framing in Bichitra and Indiancine” in Making Things and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities . ed. J. Sayers (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

Stokes, J. (2021). How to do Media and Cultural Studies . London: Sage.

Tuck, E., and Yan, W. K. (2014a). “R-words: refusing research” in Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry With Youth and Communities . eds. D. Paris and M. T. Winn (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 223–248.

Tuck, E., and Yan, W. K. (2014b). Unbecoming claims: pedagogies of refusal in qualitative research. Qual. Inq. 20, 811–818. doi: 10.1177/1077800414530265

Keywords: DIY academic archiving, refusal, feminist ethic of care, research ethics, reuse of qualitative data, open data, open research

Citation: Karels M, Hanlon M and Moore N (2024) DIY academic archiving: mischievous disruptions of a new counter-movement. Front. Commun . 9:1374663. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1374663

Received: 22 January 2024; Accepted: 18 March 2024; Published: 02 April 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Karels, Hanlon and Moore. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Martina Karels, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Feminist Fabulations in Algorithmic Empires

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 14, Issue 4
• Collaborative design of a health research training programme for nurses and midwives in Tshwane district, South Africa: a study protocol
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8761-2055 Rodwell Gundo ,
• Mavis Fhumulani Mulaudzi
• Department of Nursing Science , University of Pretoria , Pretoria , South Africa
• Correspondence to Dr Rodwell Gundo; rodwell.gundo{at}up.ac.za

Introduction Nurses are essential for implementing evidence-based practices to improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, nurses lack knowledge about research and do not always understand research terminology. This study aims to develop an in-service training programme for health research for nurses and midwives in the Tshwane district of South Africa.

Methods and analysis This protocol outlines a codesign study guided by the five stages of design thinking proposed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. The participants will include nurses and midwives at two hospitals in the Tshwane district, Gauteng Province. The five stages will be implemented in three phases: Phase 1: Stage 1—empathise and Stage 2—define. Exploratory sequential mixed methods including focus group discussions with nurses and midwives (n=40), face-to-face interviews (n=6), and surveys (n=330), will be used in this phase. Phase 2: Stage 3—ideate and Stage 4—prototype. A team of research experts (n=5), nurses and midwives (n=20) will develop the training programme based on the identified learning needs. Phase 3: Stage 5—test. The programme will be delivered to clinical nurses and midwives (n=41). The training programme will be evaluated through pretraining and post-training surveys and face-to-face interviews (n=4) following training. SPSS V.29 will be used for quantitative analysis, and content analysis will be used to analyse qualitative data.

Ethics and dissemination The protocol was approved by the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee of the University of Pretoria (reference number 123/2023). The protocol is also registered with the National Health Research Database in South Africa (reference number GP_202305_032). The study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

• Nursing Care
• Patient-Centered Care
• Patient Satisfaction

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076959

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY

This study will be strengthened through the use of quantitative and qualitative methods to understand the research problem.

The inclusion of two hospitals and the participation of different nurses and midwives will ensure the credibility of the findings.

Local research experts, nurses and midwives will collaborate to develop a training programme appropriate to the context of the setting.

The findings will be limited to two hospitals; therefore, the findings may not be generalisable to other hospitals.

Introduction

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has gained prominence in health services internationally over the past three decades. 1 EBP integrates individual clinical expertise with clinical evidence generated from systematic research. 2 EBP aims to deliver appropriate, efficient patient care. 3 Consequently, generating evidence that informs care delivery has become increasingly important for improving patient-centred care, patient safety, patient outcomes and the healthcare system. 1 3 In healthcare, nurses are well positioned to implement EBP because they constitute the largest proportion of the health workforce. 1 4 Nurses thus have to be proactive in acquiring, synthesising and using research knowledge and the best evidence to inform their practice and decision-making. 3 4

Recognising the need for EBP, many nursing organisations worldwide have developed best practice guidelines for patient-care decision-making. 4 In South Africa, the roadmap for strengthening nursing and midwifery acknowledges that nurses are vital for providing safe and effective patient care. Strategically, investing in nurse-led research will help develop nurse-led models of care. 5 Similarly, the South African Nursing Council expects nurses to actively participate in research activities, including academic writing, reading and reviewing, as part of continuing professional development. 6 Training nurses and midwives can enhance their research capacity and enable them to use available resources for research, ultimately leading to changes in EBP in clinical settings.

Nurses need to gain research knowledge and become comfortable with research terminology. 7 8 Although undergraduate nursing training includes a research component, this training does not always translate into a strong understanding of research. 7 As such, there needs to be more nurse-led patient-centred research. A recent review of nursing research from 2000 to 2019 showed that most nursing research is conducted by nurses working at higher education institutions. Research output and collaboration are also disproportionately more prominent in high-income countries across North America, Europe, and Oceania than in low-income and middle-income countries. 9 The other challenges that affect health research include limited time, lack of research facilities, research culture, mentors, access to mentors, and workforce capacity. 10

Little is known about the research literacy of nurses and midwives and research training programmes for practicing nurses and midwives in South Africa. Therefore, we developed a protocol to develop a research training programme for nurses and midwives in the Tshwane district of South Africa. This protocol is guided by the following research questions: (a) what are the levels of nurses’ and midwives’ knowledge, attitudes and involvement in research?; (b) what are the learning needs of nurses and midwives regarding research design and implementation?; (c) what content should be included in a research training programme for nurses and midwives?; (d) how does the developed training programme impact nurses’ knowledge about research?

Theoretical framework

The principles of constructivism learning theory will guide this study. This theory is rooted in the work of Piaget and Vygotsky. 11 This paradigm explains how people might acquire and retain knowledge. 12 Through the lens of constructivism learning theory, adult educators acknowledge learners’ previous experiences, appreciate multiple perspectives and embed learning in social contexts. The instructor is a mentor who helps learners understand new information. Constructivism learning theory has three dimensions, namely, individual constructivism, social constructivism and contextualism. In individual constructivism, learners are self-directed and construct knowledge via personal experience. Social constructivism assumes that learning is socially mediated, and that knowledge is constructed through social interaction. In contextualism, learning should be tied to real-life contexts. 13 Some benefits of constructivism theory are that learners enjoy learning because they are actively engaged and have ownership over what they learn. 12 The theory was considered appropriate because the study will be conducted at two research-intensive hospitals. Therefore, nurses and midwives are familiar with the research process.

Methods and analysis

Research design.

We will use a codesign approach guided by the stages of design thinking proposed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University. 14 15 The design originated from participatory research and involves active engagement of the participants to identify needs and collaboratively propose solutions. 14 16 The approach is considered appropriate because it ensures meaningful involvement of end-users, thereby creating meaningful benefits. 17 A codesign approach ensures fewer challenges when implementing the initiative because stakeholders are fully engaged throughout the process. 14 Underpinned by the African philosophy of Ubuntu, the process will promote the culture of working together and collective solidarity. 18

The study will be guided by the five stages of design thinking: empathise, define, ideate, prototype and test. Empathise aims to understand the deeper issues, needs and challenges needed to solve the problem. Define involves data analysis and prioritising the needs of the end users of the training programme. Ideate includes brainstorming for innovative solutions to address the identified needs. In the prototype stage, the idea or innovation is shown to the end users and other stakeholders. Finally, testing involves checking what works in a real-world setting. 14 15

Study setting

The study will be conducted at two public hospitals in the Tshwane district of Gauteng Province in South Africa. The province has the highest population density, the most hospitals and the greatest number of nurses and midwives. 19 According to a 2016 community survey, Gauteng has a population of 13.4 million people. 20 Tshwane is one of the five districts in the province and the third most populous district, accounting for 24% of the population in the province. 21 There are three district hospitals, namely, Tshwane, Pretoria West, Jubilee and ODI; one regional hospital, Mamelodi; and three tertiary hospitals, namely, Steve Biko Academic Hospital, Dr George Mukhari Hospital and Khalafong Hospital. The two hospitals were selected due to their proximity to the University of Pretoria. One of the hospitals is a tertiary hospital with 800 beds. The second hospital is a 240-bed district hospital linked to the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Health Sciences. 22

Target population

The population will comprise nurses and midwives working at the two hospitals. In South Africa, there are six categories of nurses and midwives based on qualifications as follows: registered auxiliary nurse (higher certificate), registered general nurse (diploma in nursing), registered midwife (advanced diploma), registered professional nurse and midwife (bachelor’s degree), nurse specialist or midwife specialist (postgraduate diploma), advanced specialist nurse (master’s degree) and those with doctorate degrees. 5 Nurses working at academic hospitals are expected to engage in research activities, including academic writing, reading and reviewing, as part of continuing professional development. 6 A preliminary audit revealed 1900 nurses and midwives working at the two hospitals.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Participation will be limited to registered auxiliary nurses, registered general nurses, registered midwives, registered professional nurses and midwives older than 18 years, those registered with the South African Nursing Council, and those with more than 3 months of experience. All people older than 18 years are mandated to give legal consent in South Africa. Nurses with less than 3 months of experience or undergoing orientation will be excluded from the study.

As illustrated in table 1 , the study will be implemented in three phases and five stages to address the four objectives. Stage 1 is currently underway. The collection of the qualitative data started in December 2023 at one of the two hospitals. This will proceed at the second hospital until April 2024. The whole study is expected to be completed by September 2024.

• View inline

Illustration of the research process guided by the stages of design thinking

In this phase, we aim to understand the nurses’ and midwives’ perceived knowledge, attitudes and involvement in research and their learning needs. We will base our investigation on empathising and defining. An exploratory sequential mixed methods design will be used. This design begins with collecting and analysing qualitative data. The qualitative findings are used to develop quantitative measures or instruments to test the identified variables. 23 In this study, the qualitative findings will be used to revise a questionnaire for the subsequent quantitative strand.

Strand 1—qualitative study

Qualitative methods are appropriate for investigating the who, what and where of events or experiences of informants of a poorly understood phenomenon. 24 25

Sample size and sampling

Forty-six participants (n=46) will be selected from nurses and midwives working at the two hospitals. The sample size was pragmatically determined according to the mode of data collection and the volume of data to be collected. However, the final sample size will be determined by data saturation.

We will purposively sample nurses and midwives from the following cadres: registered auxiliary nurses, registered general nurses, registered midwives, and registered professional nurses and midwives. As presented in table 2 , two focus group discussions (FGDs) will be held at each hospital and will involve 10 participants each. Due to power differences that can cause a halo effect among the participants, 26 one FGD will include senior professional nurses and midwives. In contrast, the other FDG will include junior nurses and midwives with either diplomas or certificates. For the individual interviews, three participants (one registered auxiliary nurse, one registered general nurse with a diploma and one professional nurse (with either a bachelor’s or postgraduate qualification)) will be invited to participate. The participants will be expected to share their knowledge of the competencies needed for conducting health research.

Sampling plan for the qualitative strand

Data collection

The study information will be communicated through nursing and midwifery managers. Participation will be voluntary. Nurses and midwives willing to participate will be invited for either FGDs or individual interviews. The participants will be given the details of the study and a consent form. The interviews will be conducted in English in hospitals in private settings at times and places that are most convenient for participants. The participants will be requested to use pseudonyms during interviews. A semistructured interview guide will be used for the interviews (refer to online supplemental file 1 ). The interviews will be audiotaped and later transcribed verbatim in English.

Supplemental material

Data analysis.

The data will be analysed manually using conventional content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon. 27 The steps of the analysis will be as follows: (a) repeatedly reading the data to achieve immersion and a sense of the whole; (b) deriving and labelling codes by highlighting the words that capture critical thoughts and concepts; (c) sorting the related codes into categories; (d) organising numerous subcategories into fewer categories; (e) defining each category; and (f) identifying the relationship of the categories in terms of their concurrence, antecedents or consequences. To ensure the reliability of the qualitative coding, tHead2he two researchers will code the first transcript independently. The online Coding Analysis Toolkits 28 will be used to calculate intercoder reliability. The two researchers will discuss differences and agree on the coding before proceeding to the next transcript.

Methodological rigour

Trustworthiness will be achieved through credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. 24 29 Credibility will be achieved through spatial and personal triangulation. Spatial triangulation refers to collecting data on the same phenomenon from multiple sites, while personal triangulation refers to collecting data from different types and levels of people. 29 This study will collect data from different cadres of nurses and midwives at two hospitals. Transferability will be enhanced by providing sufficient study details. Dependability and confirmability will be achieved by establishing an audit trail describing the procedures and processes. Additionally, reflexivity will be used to ensure the transparency and quality of the study. 29 30 Reflexivity is where researchers critique, appraise and evaluate the influence of subjectivity and context on the research process. 30 In some branches of qualitative inquiries, researchers use reflexive bracketing to prevent subjective influences. However, Olmos-Vega et al 30 observed that this approach is no longer favoured in modern qualitative research because setting aside certain aspects of subjectivity is problematic. In this study, reflexivity will be ensured by keeping memos and field notes to document interpersonal dynamics and critical decisions made throughout the study.

Strand 2—quantitative study

A cross-sectional survey will be used to assess nurses’ and midwives’ perceived knowledge, attitudes and involvement in research.

The sample size was calculated using Yamane’s formula 31 as follows: n=N/(1+N(e2), where n is the sample, N is the population size, and e is the level of precision. Assuming a 95% CI and the estimated proportion of an attribute p=0.5, the calculated sample size for a population N=1900 with ±5% precision is 330. In this study, a convenience sampling technique will be used to select participants.

The researchers will brief nurse managers about the study. Furthermore, posters inviting nurses and midwives to participate in the study will be placed in each department. The poster will include details of the study and relevant contact details. The nurses and midwives willing to participate will be given an information sheet, consent form and questionnaire. They will be requested to leave the completed questionnaire in a designated box in the unit manager’s office.

Data collection instrument

The data will be collected using the Edmonton Research Orientation Survey (EROS). The EROS was developed in Canada and is a valid and reliable self-reported instrument for measuring perceived knowledge, attitudes and involvement in research. The tool has four subscales with 43 items. The four subscales are the value of research, value of innovation, research involvement and research utilisation (EBP). Valuing research is a positive attitude towards research; the value of innovation refers to being on the leading edge or keeping up to date with information; research involvement relates to active participation in research; and research utilisation (EBP) pertains to whether respondents use research to guide their day-to-day practice. Additionally, there is a category for the barriers and support for research. 32–34

The EROS items are measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree. The maximum score is 215. Higher overall scores indicate a stronger research orientation. The scores will be categorised into high (between 143 and 215 points), medium (73–142 points) or low (0–72 points). 32 33 The tool has been extensively used to assess the research orientation of health professionals, including physiotherapists, 35 midwives, 36 occupational therapists, 33 academics 32 and undergraduate students. 34 Previous studies reported high internal reliability with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.95 37 and 0.92. 34

Although the tool has been previously used among South African occupational therapists, 33 the copyright author observed that the tool had been developed at a time when there was no access to information via the internet, hence the need to find ways of incorporating such issues. This study will use qualitative findings to identify items not included in the tool but relevant to the South African context.

The quantitative data will be entered into Microsoft Excel and imported to IBM SPSS statistics V.29. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise demographic characteristics and questionnaire scores. Mean scores and SD will be calculated for individual items, subgroup scores and overall scores. Independent sample t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and multiple regression will be used to compare the scores of different groups of nurses and midwives. The assumptions for each test will be assessed before analysis. The level of significance will be set at 0.05.

During this phase, we will develop the training programme based on the learning needs identified in Phase 1. Research experts (n=5) will participate in a one-design studio workshop to brainstorm the content to be included in the training programme. Although there is limited literature on the definition and characteristics of an expert, Bruce et al 38 defined an expert as a person who is knowledgeable or informed in a particular discipline. Bruce et al 38 further observed that maximum variation or heterogeneity in sampling experts yields rich information. This study will select experts based on the criteria proposed by Davis 39 and Rubio et al . 40 The characteristics include clinical experience in the setting, professional certification in a related area, research experience, work experience, conference presentation and publication in the topic area.

A design studio workshop is a process in which participants create, and critique proposed interventions. 16 The researcher will share the findings of Phase 1 and explain the workshop’s goal to the participants. Participants will be provided with pens, sticky notes and flip-chart paper. The researcher will facilitate discussion and capture feedback. At the end of the workshop, the researcher will consolidate the ideas, create a more detailed programme design and communicate with the participants.

Next, we will develop a prototype to be discussed in a consultative meeting and validation meeting. An iterative process will be used to validate the developed training programme. The consultative meeting will be held with research experts (n=5). A validation exercise will also be conducted with nurses and midwives (n=20), the programme’s end-users. The nurses and midwives will be identified in consultation with nurse managers at the two hospitals to avoid disruption of services. During the validation exercise, the participants will be grouped into smaller idea groups to review and discuss the developed programme. Each group will be requested to identify a representative to report on behalf of the group. The feedback from the consultative and validation meeting will help to improve the developed programme.

The purpose of this phase is to assess the impact of the developed training programme. The developed training will be delivered to 41 nurses and midwives in the Tshwane district. The sample is based on similar studies that have implemented interventions for health professionals. For example, a study by Gundo et al 41 used G-Power software 42 to calculate the sample size based on a conservative effect size of d=0.5, a power of 80% and an alpha=0.05. The calculated sample size was 34, but 41 participants were invited to participate in training to allow for a dropout rate of at most 20%. The identification and invitation of the participants will be negotiated with nurse managers at the two hospitals to avoid service disruptions. The selection process will ensure the representation of the different cadres of nurses and midwives. We will invite a team of research experts to facilitate the training. The impact of the training will be assessed by comparing pre-survey and post-survey EROS scores, FGDs with participants, and evaluations at the end of the training. A paired-sample t-test will be used to compare the pretest and post-test scores.

This protocol aims to develop a research training programme for nurses and midwives in the Tshwane district of South Africa. Initially, we will investigate the learning needs of nurses and midwives. The learning needs will inform a training programme to improve research capacity. As observed by Hines et al , 7 implementing a training programme will improve nurses’ research knowledge, critical appraisal ability and research efficacy. Building capacity for health research in Africa will enhance the ownership of research activities that target relevant topics.

Furthermore, findings relevant to local populations will be communicated in a culturally acceptable manner. Research recommendations may also resonate better and have a better uptake among African policymakers than research produced by internationally led teams. 43–45 This research training programme could be used in other hospitals with similar contexts and other categories of healthcare professionals. However, this will require a larger, multicentre validation study. Our findings will be limited to the two hospitals; therefore, the findings may not be generalisable to other hospitals.

Ethics and dissemination

The protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Pretoria (reference number: 123/2023). The protocol is registered with the National Health Research Database in South Africa (reference number GP_202305_032). The two hospitals also provided permission for the study. Permission to use the EROS was obtained from the copyright authors, Dr Kerrie Pain and Dr Paul Hagler.

The participants will receive an information leaflet and be required to provide written informed consent. The researcher will ensure that the participants’ personal information is anonymised. Participants can give the researcher written permission to share their personal information. During the FGDs and individual interviews in Phase 1, the participants will be asked to use pseudonyms of their choice. In Phases 2 and 3, anonymity will not be possible because the meetings will be in person. However, the participants will be requested to maintain confidentiality. The data will be stored in compliance with the research ethics committee’s guidelines. The findings of the study will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals. The preparation of this manuscript followed the standards for reporting qualitative research 46 and the guidelines for reporting observational studies. 47

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The manuscript was written during a writing retreat that was funded by the National Research Foundation through the Ubuntu Community Model of Nursing Project at the University of Pretoria in South Africa. We also thank Dr Cheryl Tosh for editing the manuscript.

• Cassidy CE ,
• Sackett DL ,
• Rosenberg WM ,
• Gray JA , et al
• World Health Organization
• Bassendowski S
• Republic of South Africa
• ↵ South African nursing Council . In : Continuing professional development framework for nurses and midwives in South Africa . Pretoria : South African Nursing Council , 2021 .
• Ramsbotham J ,
• Yanbing S ,
• Chao L , et al
• Dempsey O , et al
• Efgivia MG ,
• Adora Rinanda RY , et al
• Baral KP , et al
• Thabrew H ,
• Fleming T ,
• Hetrick S , et al
• Slattery P ,
• Mulaudzi FM ,
• Anokwuru RA ,
• Mogale R , et al
• Coetzee SK ,
• Ellis SM , et al
• Statistics South Africa
• Mutyambizi C ,
• Pavlova M ,
• Hongoro C , et al
• Abdullah F ,
• Basu D , et al
• Shrestha S ,
• Bradshaw C ,
• Atkinson S ,
• Sefcik JS ,
• O.Nyumba T ,
• Derrick CJ , et al
• Hsieh H-F ,
• MacPhail C ,
• Abler L , et al
• Korstjens I ,
• Olmos-Vega FM ,
• Stalmeijer RE ,
• Varpio L , et al
• Sarmah HK ,
• Hazarika BB ,
• Choudhury G
• Fernandez A ,
• Sadownik L ,
• Lisonkova S , et al
• Peachey AA ,
• Janssen J ,
• Mirfin-Veitch B , et al
• Kuliukas L , et al
• Langley GC ,
• Berg-Weger M ,
• Tebb SS , et al
• Chirwa E , et al
• Cunningham JB ,
• McCrum-Gardner E
• Nyirenda T , et al
• Kasprowicz VO ,
• Chopera D ,
• Waddilove KD , et al
• O’Brien BC ,
• Harris IB ,
• Beckman TJ , et al
• von Elm E ,
• Altman DG ,
• Egger M , et al

Contributors RG and MFM conceptualised the study, developed the proposal, drafted and revised the manuscript.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Welcome to “The Qual Report,” the podcast that delves deep into the captivating world of qualitative research. Join us on an intellectual journey as we unravel the rich tapestry of human experiences, perspectives, and stories that shape our understanding of the world. In each episode, different hosts from The Qualitative Report (TQR) will guide you through thought-provoking discussions, revealing the inner workings of qualitative research and TQR.

The Qual Report: Exploring the Depths of Qualitative Research Adam Rosenthal

• Wissenschaft
• 30. OKT. 2023

Qualitative Renaissance: Envisioning the Future with Large Language Models at the Helm Featuring Jessica Parker and Veronica Richard

In this podcast episode, we unravel the ramifications of employing large language models like ChatGPT to bolster qualitative research. Orchestrated through a ‘Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow’ lens, we delve into the complex mechanics of LLMs, underscore the imperative for transparency, and explore the necessity for robust evaluative frameworks to assess the quality of generated output. Highlighting the principle of augmentation over automation in research methodologies, the dialogue cultivates a perspective of embracing technological advancements as a means to enrich the tapestry of qualitative research. Jessica Parker's and Veronica Richard's Recently Published Paper in TQR Jessica Parker's and Veronica Richard's Pre-Conference Workshop in February 2024 Academic Insights Lab

• 22. MAI 2023

Qualitative Research in Education with Marilyn Lichtman

In this podcast, Marilyn Lichtman talks to Marti Snyder about the 4th edition of her book, Qualitative Research in Education: A User's Guide. The podcast begins with a brief historical context about Marilyn's experience with qualitative research and TQR. Next, she describes what inspired her to write this fourth edition and what readers can expect. She discusses the various types of qualitative research and what defines quality and rigor as well as current issues in education and how qualitative research methods can be used to address them. Finally, she shares her thoughts about technology and the future of qualitative research.

• 23. MÄRZ 2023

Participatory Action Research: Ethics and Decolonization with Caroline Lenette

In this podcast you will hear a conversation among Caroline Lenette, author of the book, Participatory Action Research: Ethics and Decolonization (see Review by Sally, called Thank you, Caroline in The Qualitative Report, 27(11), 2668-2670 https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.6063) and Sally St. George and Dan Wulff, Co-Editors-in-Chief of TQR. They discuss ethics and decolonizing principles and processes to move our research into more just and relevant spaces for participants, researchers, and consumers. In addition, Caroline eloquently shares ideas that she has added and refined since the publication of her book. We hope that you be stimulated and encouraged to stretch your own research and reporting of your research!

• 9. MÄRZ 2023

TQR Ready Review Comments: Introduction and Review of the Literature

Having problems crafting your research paper’s introduction or perhaps a review of the literature? No worries, Sally, Dan, and Ron provide helpful writing tips and guidance from TQR’s Ready Review Comments resource. You may access the TQR Ready Review Resource below: https://sites.nova.edu/tqr/files/2021/05/TQR_Ready_Review_Comments_Compliments_050721.pdf 

• 20. FEB. 2023

TQR 14th Annual Conference - The Qualitative Report in a Post-Covid World - Ronald J. Chenail, Sally St. George, Dan Wulff, and Adam Rosenthal

Since 2019, we at TQR have published 114 articles in which authors have reported experiences of others as well as their own living and working in a Covid-19-affected world. In the third day opening plenary, as TQR’s Co-Editors-In-Chief and Managing Editor / Community Director we reflect on what we have learned from our authors, editors, reviewers, and conference participants, and share how the TQR community will continue to develop in a Post-Covid World.

• 17. FEB. 2023

TQR 14th Annual Conference - Qualitative Data Analysis in a Post-Covid World – Stacy Penna, Daniel Turner, and Julia Gerson

Since 2019, we have been living in a world-wide pandemic of Covid with the hope soon we may see the passing of the disease. Now, in 2023, as the virus continues to affect our lives, our qualitative data analysis efforts to generate, collect, process, analyze, synthesize, display, and report play an important role in this new world. In our second day opening panel, three representatives from leading qualitative data analysis software companies share their pre-, peri-, and post-Covid experiences and offer insights on qualitative data analysis’ present and future.

• © Adam Rosenthal

Top‑Podcasts in Wissenschaft