Abstract
Introduction
Helen Busby, editor and contributing author of “Reframing Qualitative Research Ethics: Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity,” along with 21 contributing authors, presents compelling cases against rigid, universalist frameworks in research ethics. In Volume 12 of this book series, “Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity,” the authors argue that while guidelines like the Nuremberg Code are crucial for safeguarding participants, they are often misapplied in social sciences, where a “one-size-fits-all” approach undermines the integrity of qualitative research (p.8). The authors insist that Research Ethics Committees (RECs), also known as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), should adopt context-specific, case-by-case assessments that value researcher positionality, cultural dynamics, and relational research ethics. This call for decolonising research ethics resonates throughout the book, which critiques the “tick-box” mentality of ethical clearance and advocates for iterative, reflexive, and inclusive research ethics approaches. The book comprises 15 chapters, but due to space limitations, this review discusses only selected chapters. The omitted chapters were excluded as they present arguments similar to those already covered.
In Chapter 2, Rhonda Shaw examines an online study of fertility preservation among cisgender, transgender, and non-binary vloggers. The main ethical tension lies in whether YouTube videos should be treated as “public” data or as “human subject” research requiring consent (p.24). The REC/IRB required the researchers to obtain consent, a decision that reduced participation and potentially skewed findings. The authors argue that situational, case-based research ethics are more appropriate for digital spaces where public/private boundaries are blurred. Importantly, the chapter calls for clearer definitions of “human subjects research” in research ethics policies (p.31). While rich in reflexivity, the researchers explicitly foreground their own positionalities. For example, the author identifies as being cisgender, and her assistant, who identifies as transmasculine, reflects on their positionalities given that this study focuses on cisgender, transgender, and non-binary people for potential power imbalances (p.24). This chapter highlights a recurring problem when RECs/IRBs attempt to combine deontological and consequentialist reasoning, their decisions can paradoxically reduce inclusivity (p.32). This suggests that, because RECs/IRBs are responsible for protecting research participants, blending these two approaches can unintentionally lead to the exclusion of certain groups of people from participating in research.
In chapter 3, Nienke Boesveldt provides a reflexive account of employing peer researchers in a longitudinal study on homelessness in the Netherlands. Peer researchers brought lived expertise, improving rapport with participants and enriching the data. However, issues of power imbalance, precarious labour, and emotional burdens surfaced repeatedly (p.38). The REC’s/IRB’s rigid requirements undermined the project, such as banning follow-up interviews when peer researchers moved into the same city as participants. Such bureaucratic demands ignored the fluid realities of homelessness and weakened the collaborative ethos (p.41). The chapter argues for research ethics reviews that extend beyond protecting data to supporting the relational and emotional labour of research (p.52).
In Chapter 4, informed consent is presented not as a once-off formality but as an ongoing relational process. Using a Norwegian classroom ethnography, Fride Klykken demonstrates how students expressed consent and dissent through both dialogue and subtle actions, such as moving away from a camera (p.65). A critical issue arose when researchers inadvertently recorded on-screen activities without prior disclosure, raising serious concerns about implicit versus explicit consent (p.66). This case shows how informed consent must extend beyond compliance with privacy law to continuous negotiation throughout the research process.
Chapter 6 challenges the ethical complexities of autoethnography, where writing about oneself inevitably implicates others. Nicole Brown proposes a four-dimensional research ethics framework: contextual, relational, procedural, and self-care (p.101). A recurring problem is that RECs/IRBs may lack expertise to evaluate such work, defaulting to compliance-driven reviews (p.106). The chapter highlights the promise of social fiction, closely linked to poetic inquiry, as an ethical alternative that conveys “emotional truths” while minimising harm (p.107). However, the fictionalised research ethics application form illustrates the structural mismatch between REC/IRB procedures and arts-based methodologies. This implies that the design of the REC/IRB application form is not designed to accommodate research ethics applications for auto-ethnographic research.
In chapter 7, Hildah Mokgolodi draws on doctoral research with retired educators. This chapter explores dilemmas around subjectivity, dual roles, and cultural respect. The author describes navigating power dynamics while balancing her roles as both counsellor and researcher (p.118). The chapter foregrounds Indigenous philosophies such as Ubuntu, which frame knowledge as communal rather than individual. It argues that universal research ethics rooted in Western traditions overlook critical dimensions of Indigenous research. Importantly, the author concludes by advocating participatory methodologies that embed research ethics throughout the research process (p.123). Hildah Mokgolodi raises the questions of ‘whose ethics’ and ‘whose reality’ should the author be concerned with when conducting a qualitative study (p.121).
Chapter 8 surveys ethical dilemmas in researching User Generated Content (UGC), particularly questions of privacy, consent, and anonymity. While Helena Webb captures real tensions, the analysis is weakened by a lack of references to support some of the claims (p.128–129). For example, the statement that many usernames are false identities (p.129) would benefit from supporting literature. Helena Webb addresses the challenges of accessing research sites, drawing on examples of studies that employed both overt and covert methods. The author argues that covert approaches may at times be necessary, particularly to safeguard researchers’ identities in risky contexts. The discussion extends to online research, noting that while platform Terms of Service (TOS) often permit the use of user data for research, this does not automatically render such practices ethical (p.134). Importantly, the chapter cautions that traditional safeguards like informed consent falter in big data contexts (p.140). Introducing the concept of bots in the conclusion reduces the chapter's coherence, as it adds new material rather than synthesising the argument.
Chapter 9, using Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) to study Palestinian, Syrian, and refugee families, this chapter illustrates the potential of technology to generate rich, situated data (p.148). Benefits include reducing recall bias and capturing longitudinal patterns. Yet risks abound, such as, surveillance, privacy breaches, and spatial re-identification (p.153). The chapter capably balances benefits against risks. Bree Akesson and Karen Frensch advocate for community engagement in the design of GPS studies, ensuring participants understand and own their data (p.156). Importantly, the researchers also trained REC/IRB members and created accessible resources, modelling how dialogue between committees and researchers can strengthen ethical oversight (p.157).
Chapter 10 critiques research ethics review processes, but the chapter reads as an opinion piece with insufficient referencing. Michael Herzfeld makes compelling, but well-worn, arguments, for example, that anthropology’s ethnographic methods are disadvantaged by rigid regulations that ignore unpredictability and cultural differences (p.164), and proposes discipline-specific and consultative review. Michael Herzfeld claims that research ethics review suppresses discussion among students (p.165) and is often managed by colleagues unfamiliar with anthropology (p.166), yet these claims lack evidence. References to research ethics as an “arid exercise in legalism” (p.166) and critiques of pseudonym use (p.167) are similarly unsubstantiated. The chapter further suggests that granting minors “special treatment” is merely a legal shield for institutions (p.171), a view that overlooks minors’ recognised vulnerability and the ethical rationale for their protection. By arguing that current systems serve universities more than researchers or participants (p.169–170), the author highlights real concerns but presents them cynically. The overall call for discipline-specific research ethics is important, yet the chapter’s impact is weakened by limited evidence and broad and familiar generalisations.
Chapter 11 introduces concepts such as “field sensitivity” and “bundles of usership” (p.178). Margaret Sleeboom-Faulfner critiques the biomedical model’s dominance and highlights the European General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR’s), confusing impact on fieldwork (p.178). However, some statements risk social harm, such as suggesting that bribes are common in Chinese institutions (p.183). Despite these issues, the chapter’s argument for discipline-specific REC/IRB expertise is valuable (p.190), and common throughout the book. It also inadvertently highlights links to engaged or participatory research methods when describing participant control over data (p.186). This chapter could be shortened.
Chapter 12 reflects on community-based participatory research in Canada. Lloy Wylie and colleagues highlight recurring challenges: gaps between policy and practice (p.199), differing priorities of universities versus communities (p.201), and systemic racism in healthcare (p.204). The authors advocate tailored, co-decision-making partnerships that respect Indigenous knowledge and challenge colonial approval systems. A minor issue is inconsistency in terminology (e.g., “community-based participatory research” versus “community engagement”), which could confuse readers (p.201). Nonetheless, this chapter provides one of the book’s strongest arguments for ethical reform grounded in partnership.
In Chapter 14, Nina Peršak shifts focus to research integrity, highlighting how integrity violations are often linked to the practices of powerful figures in academia, such as senior researchers and institutional leaders (p.238). While important distinctions are raised, the chapter sometimes conflates research ethics and integrity, overlooking that not all research ethics violations constitute research misconduct (p.240). The critique that training is disproportionately aimed at junior scholars, while neglecting senior academics, is valuable. Integrity breaches such as illegitimate authorship and publishing in predatory journals (p.245) are correctly identified as misconduct, but the discussion lacks supporting literature. The statement that “a certificate… does not ‘a researcher of integrity’ make” (p.238) is awkwardly phrased and could be simplified. The conclusion reads more like an extended discussion, with digressions into personality traits of leaders (p.246) that seem misplaced. Overall, the chapter raises useful concerns about institutional accountability but would benefit from stronger evidence.
Overall, the book is a rich, multi-vocal exploration of ethical challenges in qualitative research. Its strength lies in its diversity, covering digital data, peer research, Indigenous partnerships, autoethnography, and emerging technologies. The common thread is a rejection of rigid so-called biomedical frameworks and a call for reflexive, situated, and decolonised research ethics. Some chapters, like those on UGC (Chapter 8), anthropology (Chapter 10), and data management (Chapter 11), could be strengthened by referencing. Chapters on informed consent (Chapter 4), GPS (Chapter 9), and Indigenous partnerships (Chapter 12) are exemplary, offering concrete recommendations and nuanced reflections. The two anthropology chapters are placed consecutively in the book (Chapters 10 and 11). To maintain consistency and flow, it might be worth considering whether the two online chapters (Chapters 2 and 8) should also be presented together. Given the book’s title, Reframing Qualitative Research Ethics: Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity, only one chapter (Chapter 14) directly engages with research integrity. While this chapter raises important issues, future editions could benefit from a deeper integration of research ethics and integrity across the volume, recognising their shared influence on responsible research conduct. Despite this gap, the book succeeds in provoking essential debates about how RECs/IRBs, institutions, and researchers might co-create ethical and integrity-driven practices suited to the complexities of qualitative inquiry. For future editions, the lead authors could stimulate productive debate by inviting selective responses from proponents of ‘conventional’, principle and guideline-driven research ethics positions. Without these voices, the book may be seen as one-sided.
