Becoming an Ethical Subject as a Counselor in Qualitative Research Ethics

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-95
Author(s):  
Soyeon Kim ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Subject

scholarly journals “Just Chatting”: Research Ethics and Cyberspace

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen Whiteman
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Internet Research ◽  
Research Ethic ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Changing Role

Research conducted through computer-mediated communication is challenging traditional definitions of what is ethical research. In this article the author examines the changing role of assent/consent, confidentiality, and participant observation in qualitative research conducted in cyberspace. She concludes that REBs (research ethic boards) might be becoming more conservative in their decisions at the very moment that Internet research requires more flexibility and broader ethical definitions.

Uneasy Relations: Crime Ethnographies and Research Ethics

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-59
Author(s):  
Kevin D. Haggerty
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethical Conduct ◽  
Ethics Framework ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

This chapter accentuates some of the reasons why crime ethnographies can face difficulties with the ethics review process, including prominent issues relating to informed consent, risk and harm, anonymity, and criminal behavior. Universities in most Western countries have established research ethics boards over the past twenty years responsible for assessing the ethical conduct of research. Qualitative research can fit poorly into the largely positivist ethics framework, resulting in an often-frustrating situation for ethnographers seeking to move ahead with their research. One paradox of this situation is that the ethics process itself seems poised to give rise to a subset of academic deviants in the form of crime ethnographers who may find that they are obliged to circumvent or disregard some formal ethical strictures in order to engage in ethnographic practices that otherwise seem uncontroversial or even innocuous.

Ethics in Qualitative Research

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Human Research ◽  
And Control

This chapter exposes readers to practical techniques of handling ethics in qualitative research projects. Researchers will be able to understand qualitative research ethics for human and non-human research projects. The intellectual property discussion is central to qualitative research projects; readers will be exposed to the steps of undertaking intellectual property rights discussion. The chapter is divided into five sections; readers will be able to experience the dangers of overlooking ethics when undertaking qualitative research projects, and the chapter suggests possible solutions to reduce and control risks that are connected to the violations of research ethics.

scholarly journals “Only Applies to Research Conducted in Sweden…”: Dilemmas in Gaining Ethics Approval in Transnational Qualitative Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 160940691986944
Author(s):  
Gabriele Griffin ◽  
Doris Leibetseder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
European Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ethical Conduct ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

Transnational research funders such as the European Commission and NordForsk increasingly require researchers to conduct transnational research. Yet, there is little research on what this means for seeking ethics approval, not least for qualitative researchers. Much work on ethics approval comes from Canada, the United States, and other Anglophone countries, often in a health-related context, and centers on issues between researchers and research ethics boards (REBs), or on inconsistent or inappropriate decision-making by REBs. Ethical conduct within research has, of course, generated a rich literature but not on gaining ethics approval when conducting qualitative transnational research. Rather, the underlying situation usually is that the research is conducted in the same geopolitical space as where the REB is located. Drawing on two cases studies, in which researchers located in one country, Sweden, sought ethics approval to conduct research in other European countries, we explore some of the challenges that we faced in gaining such approval and provide some suggestions how this process might be made both more efficient and more productive for researchers and research funders alike.

scholarly journals Negotiating Responsibility for Navigating Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research: A Review of Miller, Birch, Mauthner, and Jessop’s (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research, Second Edition

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle McCarron
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

Ethics in Qualitative Research (Miller, Birch Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012), now in its second edition, uses a feminist framework to present a variety of issues pertinent to qualitative researchers. Topics include traditional challenges for qualitative researchers (e.g., access to potential participants, informed consent, overlapping roles), as well as those that have garnered more attention in recent years, particularly with regard to uses and consequences of technological advances in research. The book is critical of committees whose function it is to review proposed research and grant research ethics approval (e.g., University Research Ethics Committees [URECs], Research Ethics Boards [REBs], and Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]). The authors of this book are situated within the United Kingdom. The editors take the position that ethics oversight by the researchers themselves is preferable and that such boards and committees are not well equipped to review qualitative research. A rebuttal to this position is presented within this review. Ethics in Qualitative Research provides a good overview of ethical issues that researchers face and is effective in merging theory with practice. It would be strengthened by avoiding the debate over URECs or by offering concrete suggestions for how URECs can improve their reviews of qualitative research.

scholarly journals How to navigate the application of ethics norms in global health research: reflections based on qualitative research conducted with people with disabilities in Uganda

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muriel Mac-Seing ◽  
Louise Ringuette ◽  
Kate Zinszer ◽  
Béatrice Godard ◽  
Christina Zarowsky
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Research ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Global Health Research ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Research Ethics Boards ◽  
Study Participants

Abstract Background As Canadian global health researchers who conducted a qualitative study with adults with and without disabilities in Uganda, we obtained ethics approval from four institutional research ethics boards (two in Canada and two in Uganda). In Canada, research ethics boards and researchers follow the research ethics norms of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2), and the National Guidelines for Research Involving Humans as Research Participants of Uganda (NGRU) in Uganda. The preparation and implementation of this qualitative research raised specific ethical issues related to research participant privacy and the importance of availability and management of financial resources. Main body Our field experience highlights three main issues for reflection. First, we demonstrate that, in a global health research context, methodological and logistic adjustments were necessary throughout the research implementation process to ensure the protection of study participants’ privacy, especially that of people with disabilities, despite having followed the prescribed Canadian and Ugandan ethics norms. Data collection and management plans were adapted iteratively based on local realities. Second, securing financial support as a key aspect of financial management was critical to ensure privacy through disability-sensitive data collection strategies. Without adequate funding, the recruitment of research participants based on disability type, sex, and region or the hiring of local sign language interpreters would not have been possible. Third, although the TCPS2 and NGRU underscore the significance of participants’ privacy, none of these normative documents clearly express this issue in the context of global health research and disability, nor broadly discuss the ethical issue related to financial availability and management. Conclusions Conducting research in resource limited settings and with study participants with different needs calls for a nuanced and respectful implementation of research ethics in a global health context. We recommend a greater integration in both the TCPS2 and NGRU of global health research, disability, and responsible conduct of research. This integration should also be accompanied by adequate training which can further guide researchers, be they senior, junior, or students, and funding agencies.

scholarly journals Experience of Negotiating Access in the “Field”: Lessons for Future Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. p503
Author(s):  
Siyabulela C. Fobosi
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Global South ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Simple Process ◽  
Key Informants ◽  
Access To The Field ◽  
Conducting Research

Accessing the field for the purposes of conducting research often starts with negotiation and engagement with gatekeepers. This is the first requirement for the research to be conducted; however, this step has challenges. While research has been conducted on negotiating access and research ethics, very little is known about the experiences of doctoral students from the Global South on negotiating access in fieldwork, and thus giving an account of what it entails conducting qualitative research from the Global South. As such, this article engages with the challenges of negotiating access to the field for my PhD studies. Due to the nature of research for my thesis, I conducted interviews with key informants from the departments and participants from the taxi ranks. In this article, I problematize the view that gaining access to the field is a simple process, by exposing my own uncomfortable encounters during the process.

Qualitative research ethics on the spot

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 455-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Øye ◽  
Nelli Øvre Sørensen ◽  
Stinne Glasdam
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethical Dilemmas ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Review Boards

Background: The increase in medical ethical regulations and bureaucracy handled by institutional review boards and healthcare institutions puts the researchers using qualitative methods in a challenging position. Method: Based on three different cases from three different research studies, the article explores and discusses research ethical dilemmas. Objectives and ethical considerations: First, and especially, the article addresses the challenges for gatekeepers who influence the informant’s decisions to participate in research. Second, the article addresses the challenges in following research ethical guidelines related to informed consent and doing no harm. Third, the article argues for the importance of having research ethical guidelines and review boards to question and discuss the possible ethical dilemmas that occur in qualitative research. Discussion and conclusion: Research ethics must be understood in qualitative research as relational, situational, and emerging. That is, that focus on ethical issues and dilemmas has to be paid attention on the spot and not only at the desktop.

scholarly journals ‘You're in Cruel England Now!’: Teaching Research Ethics through Reality Television

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viv Burr ◽  
Nigel King
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Reality Television ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Big Brother ◽  
Teaching Research ◽  
Qualitative Work ◽  
One Year ◽  
Familiar Material

This article reports findings from a one-year research project funded by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) Psychology Network. The research aimed to explore the use of ‘reality’ television in teaching research ethics to psychology undergraduates and this article reports on those findings that have particular relevance for qualitative research methods. Experience of teaching research ethics suggests that students can find the process of thinking through ethical issues in qualitative work quite challenging. Ethical issues in qualitative research can be subtly different from, or more complex than, those raised by quantitative studies, and yet most textbooks that deal with research ethics tend to focus on the latter. This article presents findings from a research project by the authors, which suggest that using familiar material such as TV programmes, and in particular ‘reality’ TV, can be effective in helping students address ethical issues in qualitative research. Fifteen second-year psychology undergraduates were shown an extract from an episode of Big Brother (Channel 4). They were then asked to discuss in small groups the ethical issues they felt it raised, and these discussions were audio-recorded. Subsequently, they were asked to apply their thinking to a research brief by discussing the ethical issues it raised, suggesting ideas for design and then writing a research proposal. This article reports findings from the first stage of the project. It presents evidence from the discussion groups indicating that the TV material had promoted an in-depth consideration of some ethical issues that can be challenging for students to address in relation to qualitative work, notably informed consent, confidentiality and risk of harm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document