Introduction
Qualitative researchers encounter various ethical issues due to the closeness and trust developed between them and the participants in their studies. These dilemmas include maintaining confidentiality, fostering open and honest communication, and guarding against misrepresentation. Ethically challenging circumstances may arise whenever investigators have to handle opposing concerns and consider distinct procedural solutions in conflict creation. In such cases, clashes with multiple constituents such as partakers, scholars, the funding agency, and the community may be unavoidable. A project’s how and why can be uncovered through qualitative data collection methods and the emic perspective. A plan’s strategy, implementation, outcomes, and even its impact can be gathered from this information. Several ethical factors must be considered while using qualitative data collection methods. The paper discusses ethical issues from qualitative research and strategies for addressing such challenges.
Ethical Issues Arising from Qualitative Research
In qualitative research, anonymity, confidentiality, and informed consent are the most crucial ethical considerations to keep in mind. Researchers have discovered that confidentiality has various connotations for medical professionals and scientists. When it comes to healthcare professionals, confidentiality means that no individual information about patients should be shared with them unless necessary (Jowett, 2020). On the other hand, researchers have a more complex obligation to maintain secrecy, which requires an explanation of the study’s results. It is common to spend significant time with study subjects while employing qualitative data collection methods (Fletcher et al., 2019). Researchers work with people on a local level, and when one gets to know someone, one might discover a lot about their personal life. Qualitative research has its own set of ethical challenges as surveyors want to create a relationship with people to get them to communicate delicate or contentious facts concerning a project that they may not be contented with sharing with others (Reid et al., 2018). Developing connections needs cross-cultural communication competencies, but everyone must also be trusted by and respected by the project population.
A project population must be able to share personal information freely, and researchers must be able to keep this information confidential. Throughout the investigation, interviewers must maintain participants’ privacy in the project. This extends beyond obtaining the informed consent of study subjects (Reid et al., 2018). In some cases, researchers may have to cover an individual’s identity, disclose sensitive information, or create a diplomatic approach to distribute study results—the investigator conducting the evaluation influences the general public (Pietilä et al., 2020). A project’s funder or implementer frequently provides the evaluators. For example, project partners may want to show interviewers what they need or what the project is all about to secure further funds. A solid evaluation design may avoid some of these issues (Jowett, 2020). However, investigators must understand that their reports have the potential to influence a project and the lives of its participants. It is something that implementers and community members are well aware of, which researchers should consider.
The interviewer’s impact on data collection is an essential consideration for qualitative researchers because they are the study instruments. Their own biases and mental processes will influence the questions they ask, and the observations researchers make. Their prejudices influence perceptions and conclusions (Reid et al., 2018). Interviewers may have a high chance of searching for information and identifying potentially problematic areas surrounding gender or environmental concerns if they are aware of and interested in them. The thinking processes are generally shaped by previous experiences, which affects the quality of research (Fletcher et al., 2019). The characteristics of a researcher, including their sex, gender, dialectal, age, race, and marital status, may also influence the information they have access to it. The conduct of researchers, including how they dress and their approachability, may also influence the data they have access to. Therefore, interviewers should be able to decide what the locals think of them and how this affects their work (Pietilä et al., 2020). The endeavor and the data they need to collect necessitate a careful evaluation of these ethical issues in qualitative research.
Cultural aspects may impact the data interviewers collect and the data they have admittance to in qualitative research, which is reflective. Researchers who conduct qualitative research are aware that their collected information is filtered through biases and interpretations while better understanding their subjects (Jowett, 2020). Researchers use a variety of qualitative methodologies to collect data to build robust study designs to determine if the mindset on a given day affected the data they obtained. For example, if they are working on a project with gender implications, they might build a location that allows for many researchers (Pietilä et al., 2020). As part of gathering reliable data utilizing qualitative data collection methodologies, it is critical to build trust and confidentiality with the population, learn about the local culture, and be aware of their own biases as they engage in the research process.
Participants in focus groups should be made aware of the possibility of interruptions and the presence of others, which depending on the topic and the setting, may or may not be an issue. Participants in research on wellness and parenting during the pandemic may be sympathetic to disturbances from the children of other participants, but less so if the problem is drug use (Reid et al., 2018). Amid work and pay losses during the epidemic, many people lack access to private rooms in constricted households. When conducting online research, it is critical to be aware of potential privacy breaches and plan for various scenarios. In addition to possible concerns, online platforms can also offer participants and researchers a false sense of privacy and security, which can be dangerous (Fletcher et al., 2019). Participants should be reminded to use a pseudonym and not mention anyone else’s full name in their responses. Individuals should be told to change their display name to a pseudonym to avoid being identified before logging in to an online community. Some video conferencing programs offer the use of a virtual background, which may alleviate any anxiety participants or researchers might feel about peering into their area at home.
Participants must be fully informed of all relevant features of the study, including any potential dangers to themselves, to consent to engage in research. Lenton et al. (2021) note that it is a requirement recognized by ethical bodies worldwide. The subject of considerable discussion is what constitutes enough information, who can provide consent, and how consent should be sought and comprehension assessed in research conducted across cultures (Jowett, 2020). Specific ethics boards, including those with whom authors have worked, have eliminated the need for signed consent forms in particular circumstances to ensure the safety of the participants. This helps protect those discussing prohibited activities such as the use of illegal drugs or the risk of contracting HIV, both of which are illegal in many places (Pietilä et al., 2020). Many jurisdictions still require participants to sign a written consent form before conducting social and behavioral research.
Qualitative research’s relational and emergent nature has been critiqued as at odds with contractual techniques for acquiring consent. Some examples of this include unexpected interactions and conflicts in interviews, focus groups, and unanticipated outcomes. It is also possible that contracting methods are not culturally appropriate (Reid et al., 2018). The oral and practice-based norms of engagement and the traumatic histories of contracts, for example, are common among some Indigenous peoples and other exploited populations.
Informed consent has long been accepted as an essential aspect of ethical research. Qualitative researchers must specify what data will be collected and how it will be used in advance. Conscientious consent places a high value on researchers providing participants with clear and understandable explanations of all study components (Reid et al., 2018). Questions that need to be clarified include the following: the scope of the study, the contributors’ potential roles, the investigator’s and funding organization’s identities, the purpose, and the publication and application of the results. Negotiating the terms of the agreement as the study advances naturally necessitates informed consent. Many people believe that participating in research that could benefit their colleagues, community, and society is necessary (Jowett, 2020). Since their study can enhance science and improve health policy, qualitative health researchers must clarify that their work is worthwhile.
Strategies to Address Such Challenges
There are various successful tactics to guard individual information, such as protected data storage approaches, erasing of identifying apparatuses, factual facts updates, and pennames applicable to individuals, locations, and firms. Scholars have the accountability of shielding all participants in a study from possible detrimental repercussions that might impact them due to their involvement (Reid et al., 2018). It is progressively typical for study morals committees to request verifiable evidence of consent in a written, signed, and preferably perceived form. Investigators can only do their utmost to secure their respondent’s individuality and retain the material private as there would be no assurance otherwise (Jowett, 2020). Besides, audio-recorded oral consent might be more acceptable in surveys of delicate themes where inscribed agreement puts the informers at risk.
During gathering specific data, participants may develop personal relationships with each other. As a result, researchers should consider the potential influence on participants and the other way around while putting together research proposals. The researcher’s function should be clearly defined and articulated. According to Pietilä et al. (2020), a moral procedure can cover all aspects of a qualitative investigation project, from planning to reporting. The researcher shall make every effort to ensure that study participants’ privacy and freedom of choice are not violated. Individuals should have admittance to an activist during the study’s earliest phases and, preferably, during data collection gatherings when handling highly subtle problems (Ciuk & Latusek, 2018). In other cases, the researcher may need to define who can access and utilize the initial data in writing.
Researchers in qualitative lessons have a lot of accountabilities and play a variety of tasks. Researchers and participants may be exposed to emotional and other dangers while conducting qualitative research that focuses on sensitive issues in depth. If the need arises, both parties involved in the study should have access to established processes for dealing with distress (Pietilä et al., 2020). Researchers need to be well-versed in anticipating stressful events because it is difficult to foresee what subjects will cause anxiety. Researchers who conduct sensitive qualitative studies should have access to a formal peer provision program, such as a list of participating scholars to improve mental fitness, such as a professional confidence-building module (Jowett, 2020). Offering proper supervision and encouraging self-reflection and monitoring are two more examples of actions that can be taken to ensure that people can create their own sense of self-worth and self-care.
Emotional distancing strategies must be explored and used for research that may be emotionally hard. Before beginning the fieldwork, there is a need to make sure one has a solid plan in place and understands precisely how the study will be done and what kind of relationships will need to be built (Fletcher et al., 2019). Defining and communicating the appropriate stages of self-disclosure, neutral exhibitions of emotion during interviews, and techniques for ending romantic relationships are essential steps in the interview process. Qualitative research uses interviews and narratives to get information about people’s experiences (Pietilä et al., 2020). Therefore, the researchers serve as a bridge between the respondents’ experiences and the communities. Using a post-interview comment sheet, the researcher can keep track of the informants’ emotions, interpretations, and comments. As much data as possible should be gathered, and discoveries should be documented (Reid et al., 2018). Openly registering field notes lets participants determine what they want to include on the record, even though there is no assurance of total confidentiality. The difficulty may be exacerbated even further in healthcare research since the researcher is often a healthcare provider.
Researchers should constantly know the real reason for participation in a study to avoid unwanted individual problems. Ciuk & Latusek (2018) argue that indirect trauma can occur due to the interviews, which should be considered. Schedule interviews so that the researcher has enough recuperation time to avoid emotional weariness and has enough time to examine both the objective and emotional components of the study (Jowett, 2020). The researcher must also be aware of the warning indications of excessive exhaustion and be ready to take action before any damage is done.
Reflection
Ethics promote the purpose of the research, such as truth, knowledge, and error avoidance. Therefore, I advocate that knowing about ethical challenges in interviews, such as consent and confidentiality, can help evade fabrication, falsification, and misrepresentation of research. Interviewers should seek permission from the participants before engaging them in the study to avoid bias and ethical challenges arising. It is unethical for an interviewer to seek information from a respondent about personal life, such as salary, when the individual is unwilling to share it.
Conclusion
For qualitative investigators, minimizing observational defects and striving for accurate knowledge are two of their most important responsibilities. Research in health and sociology necessitates that scholar constantly update their methods and create new approaches for conducting investigations. The researcher should not rely exclusively on their informant to detect potential intrusions into their privacy but rather take proactive steps to foresee these intrusions in advance. A person’s privacy cannot be guaranteed by confidentiality alone, as anonymity alone is insufficient to preserve their privacy or avoid revealing their difficulties. The investigators should not collect private evidence that is not directly relevant to the study question.
References
Ciuk, S., & Latusek, D. (2018). Ethics in qualitative research. In Qualitative methodologies in organization studies (pp. 195-213). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Fletcher, F. E., Rice, W. S., Ingram, L. A., & Fisher, C. B. (2019). Ethical challenges and lessons learned from qualitative research with low-income African American women living with HIV in the South. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 30(4 Suppl), 116.
Jowett, A. (2020). Carrying out qualitative research under lockdown-practical and ethical considerations. Impact of social sciences blog.
Lenton, L. A., Smith, V., Bacon, A. M., May, J., & Charlesford, J. (2021). Ethical considerations for committees, supervisors, and student researchers conducting qualitative research with young people in the United Kingdom. Methods in Psychology, 5, 100050.
Pietilä, A. M., Nurmi, S. M., Halkoaho, A., & Kyngäs, H. (2020). Qualitative research: Ethical considerations. The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 49-69). Springer, Cham.
Reid, A. M., Brown, J. M., Smith, J. M., Cope, A. C., & Jamieson, S. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on medical education, 7(2), 69-75.