This article presents an account of the methodological and ethical issues associated with a critical ethnographic study that focused on the problems of providing nondiscriminatory health care to people with HIV/AIDS. The focus is on the debates that followed the publication of the final report. The debates were centered around (a) formal objections by the chair of the institutional ethics committee to the standard procedure of a discussion of the methodological limitations imposed by the requirements of the conditions of access; (b) reactions by a small section of the medical profession to adverse findings, which were published in a professional medical journal and included an attack on both the methods used and the ethics of the researchers; and (c) the response of the media, which selectively sensationalized and distorted the findings. This discussion may provide further insight into the problems of gaining access to clinical settings for the purpose of conducting qualitative research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, H. (1970). Problems in the publication of field studies. In H. S. Becker (Ed.), Sociological work: Method and substance (pp. 105-121). Chicago: Aldine.
2.
Beecher, H. J. (1966). Ethics and clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 74, 1345-1360.
3.
Bell, C. (1977). Reflections on the Banbury restudy. In C. Bell & H. Newby (Eds.), Doing sociological research (pp. 47-62). Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.
4.
Blake, D. (1993, June). World Health Organization (Press release).
5.
Canter, D. , & Breakwell, G. (1986). Psychologists and the media. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, 281-286.
6.
Center for Disease Control . (1987). Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 36(Suppl. 2S), 1S-18S.
7.
Commonwealth of Australia . (1993). The national HIV/AIDS strategy 1993-94 to 1995-96. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
8.
Dowsett, G. W. (1992). The sociological context. In E. Timewell, V. Minichiello, and D. Plummer (Eds.), AIDS in Australia (pp. 87-107). New York: Prentice Hall.
9.
Duckett, M. , & van Reyk, P. (1992, November). AIDS: Have we got it right: A view from the trenches. National AIDS Bulletin, 44-47.
10.
Fischer, L. R. (1994). Qualitative research as art and science. In J. F. Gubrium & A. Sankar (Eds.), Qualitative methods in aging research (pp. 3-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Dadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
12.
Haslam, C. , & Bryman, A. (1994). Introduction. In C. Haslam & A. Bryman (Eds.), Social scientists meet the media (pp. 1-15). London: Routledge.
13.
Herdman, E. , & Kippax, S. (1995). Institutional discrimination: Critical ethnography of HIV/AIDS related discrimination in a hospital setting. Sydney, Australia: HIV AIDS & Society Publications.
14.
Kayser-Jones, J. , & Koenig, B. A. (1994). Ethical issues. In J. F. Gubrium & A. Sankar (Eds.), Qualitative methods in aging research (pp. 15-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Kincheloe, J. L. , & McLaren, P. L. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 260-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 31-44). London: Sage.
17.
Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London: Sage.
18.
Lipson, J. G. (1994). Ethical issues in ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 333-355). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Lloyd, G. (1990). AIDS and philosophy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 25(3), 167-176.
20.
Madjar, I. , & Higgins, I. (1996). Of ethics committees, protocols, and behaving ethically in the field: A case study of research with elderly residents in a nursing home. Nursing Inquiry, 3, 130-137.
21.
McNeill, P. (1993). The ethics and politics of human experimentation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board . (1992). Discrimination: The other epidemic (Report of the inquiry into HIV and AIDS related discrimination, Sydney). New South Wales, Australia: Author.
23.
Oyen, O. (1974). Social research and the protection of privacy: Areview of the Norwegian development. Acta Sociologica, 19, 249-262.
24.
Patton, C. (1990). Inventing AIDS. New York: Routledge.
25.
Punch, M. (1998). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 156-184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1979). Governmental regulation of scientific inquiry: Some paradoxical consequences. In C. B. Klockars & F. W. O’Connors (Eds.), Deviancy and decency: The ethics of research with human subjects (pp. 61-95). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Rothman, D. J. (1991). Strangers at the bedside. New York: Basic Books.
28.
Seiler, L. H. , & Murtha, J. M. (1980). Federal regulation of social research using “human subjects”: A critical assessment. American Sociologist, 15, 146-156.
29.
Shils, E. A. (1959). Social inquiry and the autonomy of the individual. In D. Lerner (Ed.), Meaning of the social sciences. New York: Meridian.
30.
Sieber, J. E. , & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research. American Psychologist, 43, 49-55.
31.
Thursby, P. (1996). Trust misused. The New South Wales Doctor, 1-2.
32.
Wax, M. L. (1977). On fieldworkers and those exposed to fieldwork: Federal regulations and moral issues. Human Organizations, 36, 321-328.
33.
White, K. , & Willis, E. (1992). The language of AIDS. New Zealand Sociology, 7(2), 127-149.
34.
World Health Organization . (1986). Declaration of Alma Ata, charter for health promotion. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
