Abstract
This paper explores the human face as an important image, and as visual data, in the context of academic work. We explore its philosophical value through a discussion of testimony and witnessing, visual data through the interface between academia and social media in the broader world, and with a reflection of university-based ethics. We explore the example of academic publication of a participant’s face as presented in peer reviewed journals, online and open access, or through other academic deliverables and printed content. The question of how we as researchers and members of REBs (Research Ethic Boards) should act as protectors of participants who want to reveal their faces as image data in research is an interesting one. The paper explores the context of ‘image testimony’, in light of literature on witnessing and trends in social media. The face as an image online has become an important “voice”. The face as visual image then also emerges as relevant in ethics, through data collection, and the ongoing work of researchers. In the context of modern digital media communications, it is hard to imagine the success of social media platforms without human faces, personal choices made by individuals posting selfies while eating, demonstrating, or going on nature hikes. In the broadening cultural narrative of the face as digital image, we reflect on where the university and the REB stand. Our discussion explores ethical considerations and makes recommendations.
Introduction
The human face is a profound canvas of identity, emotion, and social interaction. It transcends mere physical features, embodying a complex interplay of personal history, cultural significance, and social meaning. When a face is presented in a peer-reviewed academic journal article (while hard copy still occurs, now this is most often digital and online), it invites a multitude of interpretations and raises critical ethical considerations, especially in the context of research involving human subjects.
This paper explores the human face as an important image, and as visual data, in the context of academic work. We propose that faces 1 as data in research are a compelling topic. We explore faces’ philosophical value through a discussion of testimony and witnessing, through the interface between academia and social media in the broader world, and with a reflection of university-based ethics. Here, this is in the example of academic publication of a research participant’s face as presented in peer reviewed journals, online and open access, or through other academic deliverables and printed content. The paper explores the context of ‘image testimony’ in light of literature on witnessing and trends in social media. The face as an image online has become an important “voice” in the context of modern digital media communications and also ethics and data collection in an academic context. In the broadening cultural narrative of the face as a digital image, we also reflect on where the university and the REB stand. Our discussion explores ethical considerations and makes recommendations.
The authors draw on many years of professional experience conducting multi-site research with vulnerable populations. This has included collecting photos as part of their data collection over years, writing about visual data (Hatala & Roger, 2025; Roger, 2017, 2023; Roger & Blomgren, 2019), communicating with Tri-Council and other governing bodies about ethics and visual data in qualitative research, reviewing related papers for international journals, and sitting on university-based Research Ethic Committees reviewing ethics protocols over time.
Background
Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research practices, ensuring that participants are fully aware of the nature of the study and the use of their interview data. When it comes to visual data, informed consent must extend beyond the general consent for participation. Researchers must explicitly inform participants about the potential publication of their identifiable images, the specific contexts in which these images will be used, and the possible reach of academic publications. This entails a thorough explanation of how the visual data which identifies their personhood will be stored, used, and shared, as well as the potential risks involved in the dissemination of their images.
As researchers, in principle, we endeavor to eliminate any potential harm to our participants. In practice, we strive to minimize harm to our participants in any way possible, asking for their consent at the beginning of research studies for use of their data. What then might a range of considerations be in publishing a participant’s face in a peer reviewed academic journal? According to guidelines in a university’s required REB forms, as well as notable ethicists, such as Beauchamp and Childress (2019), we need to protect participants of imagined and possible future harms (non-maleficence), as well as current and well-known harms. Mistakes or breaches by researchers could mean lawsuits for the university, for researchers, or for participants. It might mean regret about disclosure when a participant is revealing a personal or confidential subject, or more dramatically, result in denial of access to some resource /service due to an outed status of the participant (e.g. being seen in a queer context, or being involved in elicit behaviors now made public through an image, or, simply being seen in a protest against governments whether supportive of issue or not). Disciplinary differences emerge as we delve into this issue further. For others, it may mean a literal death sentence according to their own countries’ laws, if an image of their own face is seen in a particular setting– by way of example, a trans person engaged in affection, or a sexually explicit act in countries where being trans is considered a crime punishable by death. It all depends on the context 2 .
We might also consider an emerging online culture of online videos, A.I. creations, facial recognition and security technologies, all in which people’s visage is used for identification, advertising 3 , or for entertainment and/or sarcastic purposes. This begs deeper philosophical questions about what the image of a face actually represents or means, and how this is fluid across context, culture, space and time. What does your face mean to you if you consent to having it published? Is it like a fingerprint or a genetic code or a self-disclosure? Does it reveal agency posted online if it is a selfie, or if it is stationed on a printed page? Moore (2012) has stated that “anonymity is often taken for granted as an ethical necessity” (p. 331) by ethic review committees before any research can be conducted. This viewpoint can also be understood in the context of ‘ethical governance’ which according to Wiles, Coffey, Robison and (2012), mandates photo-anonymization.
Image Testimony
In Image Testimony, Schankweiler et al. (2019) explore this point by theorizing a phenomenon they call ‘image testimony’. Image testimony is seen to emerge as a consequence of ‘witnessing’, something we will explore in this paper, and which does not preclude the absence of language or written text (Schankweiler et al., 2019). There is a direct application between the research participant, their face as image and ethics, and the idea of witnessing and image testimony through academic work. The decision to publish their face is an example, we argue, of image testimony. The face as image online has become an important “voice” in the context of modern communications; and in fact, it is hard to imagine the success of social media platforms without human faces, personal choices made by individuals posting selfies while eating, demonstrating, or going on nature hikes. In the broadening cultural narrative of the face as a relevant digital image, where does the research participant, the researcher, the university, and the REB stand?
Given this background, we will discuss the face as image, listening to images, cultural notions of the face, and the ‘meaning-making’ of the human face according to two notable authors. One of the main goals of this paper is to discuss the proposed risks and various ranges of risk, and potential benefits or preferences of showing participant’s faces in peer reviewed publications and in the context of research ethics; while also exploring how these risks and preferences unfold within or respond to broader cultural narratives towards heightened facial self-disclosure and social media engagement outside academia. To do this, we will discuss the human face and its meaning in two examples, followed by a reflection on witnessing, being a witness, and more specifically, witnessing faces. This is followed by a discussion of research ethics on this topic, and finally, our conclusion.
Visual Image as Data
The Face
The face is a powerful text and narrative tool. Human communication has become more visual through digitization and a wide range of social media platforms, although one might argue that it has always been this way (e.g. consider Erikson’s research (Maree, 2021) on newborn baby development studied through their emerging gaze at parental faces). A modern example would include online videos, which have been discussed in the context of research in other work (Legewie & Nassauer, 2018). Given current norms around confidentiality in an academic context, publishing a facial image in a journal article can contradict the practices of self-disclosure in the public sphere. Yet, visual data in research (Margolis & Pauwels, 2011) has become more common place, and as such, the discussion of the face is a visual text, a powerful personal narrative, and as real data, is highly relevant. This is not only because a culture of online selfies has dominated our everyday, but also in the seepage that occurs between a research participant’s sense of freedom on digital media and their engagement with academia. We argue this seepage trickles into an underlying principled view of their participation in research, and the possible freedoms allowed (or not) in the context of research participation and REB consent. Finally, it is obvious that the face is becoming a tool for surveillance, airport screening and A.I. overall, and so further exploration is warranted beyond academic contexts as well regarding the moral and cultural meanings of faces in diverse settings.
Tina Campt’s “Listening to Images”
Campt (2017) provides a compelling framework for rethinking the role and ethical engagement with visual images in academic work and research. Campt’s approach, rooted in the intersection of visual culture and sound studies, emphasizes the need to move beyond passive viewing to an active, attentive engagement with images, an approach that also aligns with Levinas’s (1969) ethical philosophy regarding the face as detailed in Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority.
Campt challenges traditional visual analysis by proposing that we “listen” to images, suggesting that images, much like sound, have a haptic quality that can be felt and experienced deeply. This listening involves a multisensory engagement that acknowledges the affective power of images to evoke memory, history, and emotion. By listening to images, researchers can access a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the subjects depicted, moving beyond surface appearances to grasp the underlying resonances of their lived experiences.
One of Campt’s key suggestions is that researchers approach images with a heightened sense of ethical responsibility. This responsibility involves recognizing the historical and socio-political contexts in which images are produced and circulated. Campt urges scholars to consider the power dynamics embedded in the act of image-making and image-viewing. This aligns with Levinas’s (1969) call to acknowledge the other’s inherent dignity and vulnerability, recognizing that facial images are not merely visual data but testimonies of human experiences that demand respect and ethical engagement.
Not focusing solely on facial images, Campt (2017) also explores the politics of representation, particularly how marginalized communities are depicted in visual media. She emphasizes the need to be critically aware of how visual representations can perpetuate stereotypes, marginalization, or erasure. This critical awareness requires researchers to engage with images—and particularly facial images we would add—in ways that challenge dominant narratives and bring to light the voices and experiences of those who are often silenced or overlooked.
Clearly, as the success of social media indicates, images also attract and engage our attention, and are one of the implicit invitations to us as users to engage with digital media (Hatala & Roger, 2025). We are attracted to the face and to people’s emotions, because they are personal, human and intimate – they instantly inject character, emotion, and color into the messages, verbal and textual, that we want to convey on digital media. Faces and facial expressions are not just seen, they can be felt in multiple sense registers and form a kind of embodied engagement with someone we may not know, shown on the online ‘page’ – their sadness or rage, a look of consternation, their look of power or despair pulls us onto the virtual page (Campt, 2017).
It is apparent that faces depicted online and in academic journals can also be seen as cultural symbols, where the gaze or the ‘seeing’ by the viewer is done through the lens of gender, race, able-bodiedness, and other forms of social and historic stigmatization. Faces can be representations of constructed cultural norms and values, as well as colonization.
Cultural Norms and Colonization
Among the Navajo and other Indigenous communities, the historical view that photographs can capture a part of the soul, is connected to their broader cosmological philosophy (Lamphere, 1969). For instance, it is known that some Indigenous teachings hold that all things in the universe are interconnected, and the human spirit is intimately linked to physical representations. Therefore, a photograph might steal a piece of one’s spirit, leading to spiritual harm or imbalance. In several Australian Indigenous cultures, for example, similar beliefs exist where photographs are seen as holding a connection to the spirit (Michaels, 1994). The apprehension towards being photographed is in part tied to the idea that the image might be misused or mishandled, potentially causing spiritual harm. Aboriginal Australians also emphasize the sacredness of images and their powerful connection to the individual’s spirit.
Elizabeth Edwards (1992) and Christopher Pinney (1997) have examined how photography has been used as a tool of colonialism, often disregarding the spiritual and cultural beliefs of Indigenous populations. Their work highlights the power dynamics involved in photographic practices and the impact on Indigenous Peoples’ spiritual autonomy. Elizabeth Edwards discusses how photography has been used to objectify and dehumanize Indigenous Peoples, reducing them to mere subjects for scientific and anthropological study. This objectification is seen as a form of spiritual violence, stripping individuals of their agency and sacredness. Similarly, Christopher Pinney explores the concept of the “colonial gaze” and how photographic practices have been complicit in the colonial enterprise, often violating the spiritual and cultural beliefs of Indigenous populations.
In this vein, ethnographies have often included visual data as part of data collection and can when used appropriately, occupy a valuable position in social research (Margolis & Pauwels, 2011). Images as visual text and narrative can be essential and even critical to developing a deeper understanding of a research question. The often-cited need for triangulation, considered essential to validating diverse qualitative data (Marschall & Rossman, 2016) by having more than one form of data, strengthens the opportunity to include face images as valuable visual data, alongside other data, when participants agree / consent. Political scientists, journalists, or historians also collect and utilize imagery to declare a truth or underscore the validity of a point they want to make: for example, citizen science on pollution, activists engaged in resistance against human rights violations, or dissidents of an oppressive regime.
Thinking about Phenomenology: The Meaning of the Human Face
Philosophically as well as in daily life, the face is a focal point of our human expression and our recognition of others with whom we are in relationship. Remove the face, and what is left? Levinas posits that the face is the “epiphany” of the other, a manifestation that demands an ethical response and recognition of the other’s inherent dignity and humanity, and a revelation that transcends mere appearance (Levinas, 1969). The face communicates emotions, intentions, and vulnerabilities, serving as a conduit for empathy and understanding. In the realm of academic research, this expressive power can enhance the narrative and provide deeper insights into the subject matter, yet it also imposes an ethical obligation on researchers to treat such representations with respect and sensitivity. 4 This epiphany calls forth a profound ethical demand, compelling us to acknowledge and respond to the other’s inherent dignity and humanity.
In Levinas’s (1969) view, the face is the ultimate expression of alterity—the absolute otherness that cannot be subsumed or reduced to the self’s comprehension. The face confronts us with the presence of the other in a way that is immediate and undeniable. It is a manifestation that disrupts the ego’s self-centered worldview, insisting upon the other’s existence as a subject in their own right, not an object for our use or understanding. Again, this encounter with the face is what Levinas describes as an epiphany: a moment of revelation that exposes the ethical dimension of human existence.
The face, according to Levinas, speaks to us. This speech is not verbal; it is a primordial call to responsibility. The other, through their face, demands a response that is ethical in nature. The face reveals the other’s susceptibility to suffering, death, and injustice, thereby calling us to respond with care, respect, and protection. This demand is not contingent upon any attributes or characteristics of the face; it is inherent in the very existence of the other. The face-to-face encounter thus becomes the foundational moment of ethics. It places upon us an infinite responsibility to the other, a responsibility that precedes any social, legal, or moral norms.
Levinas’s (1969) emphasis on the ethical demand of the face challenges traditional ethical systems that are based on reciprocity or mutual benefit. For Levinas, ethics is not a matter of contractual agreements or rational calculations of self-interest. Instead, it is an asymmetrical relationship where the self is perpetually obligated to the other, regardless of whether this obligation is reciprocated.
Merleau-Ponty (1962) also discussed the face not merely as an object, but a dynamic field of expression and interaction where, “The face is the other’s body as an expressive unity. It is not simply a piece of space occupied by a foreign body, but a structure which is, through and through, inhabited by a kind of personal existence” (p. 405). Like Levinas, this perspective also emphasizes that the face is integral to how we perceive and engage with others, functioning as a medium through which emotions, intentions, and states of being are communicated. For Merleau-Ponty (1968), the face is a key aspect of our pre-reflective, lived experience: “In perceiving the face, we are not dealing with a mere physical object but with a manifestation of another consciousness, a mode of presence which reveals itself in the very act of being seen” (p. 120). This highlights the face’s role in the immediacy of human connection and communication. Merleau-Ponty’s analysis extends to the ethical implications of facial expressions whereby he suggests that our interactions with others are mediated by the expressive nature of the face, which fosters empathy and understanding. The encounter with the face of the other is the “originary event of the ethical,” he posits, indicating that the face facilitates a direct, embodied connection that underpins our moral and social relationships.
Exploring Levinas and Merleau-Ponty
Both Levinas and Merleau-Ponty provide insights into the phenomenology of the face and its significance in human communication and ethics. Levinas (1969, 1985) highlights the face as an ethical demand, calling us to recognize and respond to the Other’s humanity. In contrast, Merleau-Ponty (1968) emphasizes the face as an expressive and embodied phenomenon, integral to our perceptual and emotional engagement with the world. Together, their perspectives offer a rich understanding of how the face functions in our interpersonal encounters, bridging the gap between communication and ethics. Their insights underscore the profound impact of the face in shaping our moral and social lives, inviting us to consider the ethical dimensions of our everyday interactions.
When we publish a participant’s face, therefore, we are not merely displaying an image; we are engaging with the ethical dimensions of personhood. From this view, the face in a journal article is a testament to the participant’s humanity and a call to the reader to respect and uphold their dignity. It challenges researchers to consider the ethical implications of their work, ensuring that the portrayal of the other is done with the utmost respect and responsibility. This task extends beyond the individual encounter, influencing how we construct social systems, institutions, and practices. In the realm of research, it demands a perpetual vigilance to the ethical treatment of participants, ensuring that their faces, their epiphanies, are treated with the reverence they command. In this way, the face becomes a profound ethical symbol (Levinas, 1969). In recognizing the face, it is more than a mere physical entity, and so we embrace the ethical depth of our interactions with others, especially in the delicate context of research and representation.
Witnessing Faces and Being a Witness
What does it mean to witness an event or an incident, and how does this ‘witnessing’ build on our ethical understandings of engaging faces in academic research? The word can be a noun but also a verb (e.g. witnessing); it has been said to occur in law, theology and atrocity, and it can tie us deeply to both life and death experiences (Peters, 2001). The history of witnessing goes back to ancient times when religious communities considered ‘witnessing’ a form of recognizing and affirming their faith (Gelfert, 2014). According to Gelfert, this included the testimonial lives and deeds of martyrs and saints, which were beyond reproach but also by way of example. ‘Bearing witness’ to miracles and the existence of a higher being by martyrs and saints, but also for those who ‘witnessed’ a martyr or saints’ deeds, brought non-believers into the fold and thus into a larger body of collective testimonials. Witnessing became more relevant again in the literature around the Holocaust, in which the witness was both the survivor and someone who could give testimony in court (in the example of the famous trial of Eichmann) (Wieviorka, 1998). Being an eyewitness is another example. According to French sociologist Dulong (1998), one becomes an eyewitness ‘by way of a speech act, in which one declares having been present where events unfolded and having seen them with one’s own eyes’. A self-designation is all that is required, alongside words such as ‘I saw’.
We have also developed programs to protect witnesses, as in the ‘witness protection’ program – demonstrating that being a witness sometimes results in life and death projections. Dulong similarly suggested that it was the camera that really shaped our modern understanding of capturing what it meant to be an eyewitness (in, Schankweiler et al., 2019); and Peters (2001) suggests that “the cultural authority of mechanical recording lies in the claim to document events without the filter of subjective experience” (p716). Thus, being a witness dovetails with the historical development of camera and recording technology.
Witnessing can then apply also to the passive scroller and surfer online. How might we understand the more passive engagement with face images as a visual text online? We may post and view visual information without requiring us to interact in any way with the images or ideas of others. There is no need to make a comment or do anything but to scroll/read on, if we don’t want to. Action (e.g. clicking ‘like’) is not required. Schankweiler et al. (2019) state that images have become a dominant form of mediating being a witness, and that “image practices and politics in social media have significantly intensified the affective economies of image testimonies that are circulated in “real time” on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other social media platforms” (p. 1). We argue that the face is central to these emerging practices.
Witnessing as a verb must occur first (Wieviorka, 1998), and after some reflection or sense-making of an event we have witnessed (Gelfert, 2014, p. 17), witnessing can transform into being a noun as in, the “witness”. Then, possibly we decide to make a testimony. Through testimony, we give meaning to a collective of personal experiences which were witnessed and then synthesized, and only spoken about intentionally if we choose to make a testimony. The act of witnessing creates an imagined future possible testimony, as a witness, but this transition from verb to noun is never required and must not be actualized if not chosen. Witnessing can be a standalone act, and in a world of scrolling and social media, Schankweiler et al. (2019) state that sharing images vis a vis new technologies and mobile devices have made ‘nearly everyone a potential witness’ (p1). We all passively view images of the face online and scroll by, we reflect and engage silently and passively with the expressions on faces, without the requirement to act or even make a comment online – and this is a simple result of having our devices at our fingertips, seeing people’s image go by on each tap of a finger.
Witnessing is thus characterized by being alone with an experience at first, by our inner sense-making while being present to/at an image; it is characterized possibly by political, philosophical or religious frameworks that position us within a personal act of witnessing - and considerations of what we see and how we will make sense of our presence. Felman & Laub talk about the ‘return of the voice’ in their book on Testimony (1992). The idea of the voice, and we argue the face as voice and testimony and its return, is essential. Gelfert (2014) also discusses witnessing as separate from testimony. Wieviorka also states, ‘testimony would have to become relevant beyond its personal meanings. Its importance would have to be recognized by society’ (1998, p. 55), which witnessing alone does not. When we witness a face online, how and when are we moved to testimony?
A Brief History of Research and Compassion Fatigue Online
First, a brief note about research. Historically, the 1970s produced the ethnography of the personal story prior to the personal selfie – for example, the fisherman’s plight, the school teacher’s classroom – thereby, creating a democratization of the everyday figure in society through this focus. Ethnography made the effort as a methodology to allow the researcher to represent the ‘voice to be excluded, the unimportant, the voiceless…. The individual was placed at the heart of society and thus, retrospectively, history’ (Wieviorka, 1998, p. 97). When considering the modern-day face on digital media, the very act of anyone telling their personal story while posting an image of their face cold arguably be seen as an extension of this ethnographic history. The everyman, the voiceless finding their voice, the excluded now being seen (Bourgois & Schonberg, 2009). In one sense, everyone has become their own personal ethnographer posting their own ‘truth’ and stories along images of their face, making meaning of their particular human experience and sharing it with millions of others. As Schankweiler et al. (2019) suggested, in the same breath, this kind of ethnographic testimony of the face as image online has made witnesses of us all, as we scroll and look we become consumers and producers in the new digital affective economies.
While this was novel at the time, we can accept now that perhaps there is a new kind of compassion fatigue that may pertain to our discussion. If the face is an ethical symbol of human connection, how can we hold responsibility online for its viewing, with a nod to Levinas or Merleau-Ponty? The role of being a witness and seeing/reading everyone’s personal testimonials online every day, no longer falls on us as a call to action and maybe we cannot respond through some kind of virtual fatigue. We are not actually being called to do anything online, to have responsibility for those humans and human connection, with our thoughts or emotions as witnesses; and while there may be a tension when scrolling from site to site and face image to face image, there may also be inertia – in one moment there are a number of faces in a war far away looking worn and bloodied; but next, someone’s fantastic sandwich lunch they just ate with a happy face shows up from a different country. What are the deeper implications for these changes in understanding personhood and embodiment through the face as image? Sometimes we respond by continuous aimless scrolling. These mixed messages and tensions between possible action and inertia or fatigue probably also produces a “wary witness” 5 , not fully engaged with seeing, someone who then may not take well to action, to clicking like, or to producing any kind of valuable testimony. When then do we become an activated or credible witness moving towards testimony? This may become a key moral value in accepting research participants who want their face shown in a peer reviewed publication, as a form of testimony, and as we discuss in a later section.
Givoni (2016, p. 21) nods to the historic and complex additional issue of not trusting witnesses, in the role that the ‘new’ witness of the 17th century played in producing scientific knowledge and legal evidence. Suddenly, witnesses could be seen to lack credibility, or declared not having ‘true’ evidence. Can we not relate to this statement, in considering the many incredulous things we see online – are they really true? In Givoni’s examples, she stresses the way in which credibility and autonomy of the witness in the 17th century were deeply embedded in power relations, and the development of evidence and scientific truth. Some evidence was considered more valid while other evidence was queried. Does this not sound familiar? There is no neat and elegant way, no easy resolution, to iron out the inherent tensions in the power relations involved, but it is sufficient to understand that power relations are at play in who decides that faces may be relevant evidence, or data, as published in an academic context of a journal article. There are parallels between the 17th century witness, and the evolution of the research participant’s level of choice and autonomy in modern day data collection. Ethics committees may at times decide what style / format of data is permissible, and what is seen to be scientific, and also who is eligible to participate under which criteria. We argue there is room for discussion and exploration as each of these factors evolve.
Let us discuss two digital contexts in which the face as image occurs before returning to the research participant’s face: the common person’s face in the selfie, and the celebrity or public figure’s face.
Example #1: The Face in the Selfie
As Cambre and Lavrence (2023) discuss, performing selfies is highly gendered, but this also includes an element of making something look as ‘real’ as possible without making it look fake or as if it were performed, while being performed. The management of that performance reflects the kind of platform one is going to post the selfie on, whether this is between friends on Instagram, or for employers on LinkedIn. Having these worlds collide, in which somehow an image between friends is posted by accident on an employment related platform, is part of the challenge around decision making of the image creation. This tension of face management often leads people to have more than one persona – identifying which names are associated with which faces and on which platforms. We might consider the degree to which this kind of decision-making overlaps in principle: is posting a selfie similar to participants in research agreeing to publish their face as image? Being a participant in research and consenting to participate is also a kind of performance – much as posting a selfie is. While there are obvious differences, questioning the overlap has merit.
The selfie in itself declares the absolute need for a witness, to be seen by someone if not many people, but it is not asking for others to speak out or take action, to prepare a testimony on the content – the selfie requires an audience, even if it is only a silent and primarily ‘witnessing’ one. The selfie may invite or enjoy a ‘like’ online, but even that ‘thumbs up’ is not in itself necessarily an agreement to what is being posted. It may be more of an acknowledgement that the ‘face’ has been seen (witnessed), seen by an audience that may or may not be agreeable, the selfie has been witnessed.
Example #2: The Recognizable Public Face
While public representations of well-known faces vary, and in this section we do not refer to selfies but to images of publicly known faces, they are nonetheless a performative act in which celebrities and public figures (including politicians) respond, interact and manage popularity. The awareness of visual representations online have become an essential aspect of celebrity, and curiously of governance in some countries as well.
Navalny’s face, as one very vocal political opponent to Putin in Russia for many years, was shown smiling in his last days close up, before we knew they were his last, fingering a heart shape to his wife while behind bars. His face deliberately shown smiling in the final penal colony where he spent his final days. His face strong as if to say, “I am a threat because I am here and smiling”.
These faces could be said to be a privacy concern – a ‘reveal’. In fact, privacy concerns regarding faces are very real in airports, where face scanners may soon add to the finger print entry as relevant and common security measures.
Celebrities similarly use their face in selfies in complex ways to manage their fame. They heighten the youthfulness of their aging look (men and women alike), to demonstrate how they are happy or healthy, rich or socially conscious. The smiling, healthy, active face as image through the guise of fame is a personal signature (‘this is me’).
Finally, we cannot ignore the satirists and meme creators. Satirists comically place one face over another’s body – as if to say, by way of example, see so-and-so politician wearing a bikini, a diminishment of his power. A.I. has now become a reality for the edited, produced face.
We as the (perhaps) “wary” digital viewer, the surfer online, become an ongoing witness to all of these visual and intended performances of the face, which results in representations of the face as their own form of currency. Ideas and products are sold through a manufactured production of the face, and it becomes a currency, deepening the line of marketing options and profit making through images in an economic structure, undoubtedly enforcing new ideas which are political, cultural and social (e.g. gendered, racialized, embodied norms and values). The option of becoming a consumer (or producer) of those ideas and products remains in the arena of viewing as witnesses scrolling by, and before we purchase a product or buy into an idea (pun intended), we remain witnesses and not actors.
In the act of witnessing, we internalize and try to make sense of what we see on digital media, without requiring action but making action possible. This tense tightrope – or slow highway depending on how you see it – of being a witness virtually as we surf, is essential for this discussion.
The Research Participant’s Face Published as Image in a Peer Reviewed Publication
While there are differences, there are interesting and valuable links to be made between the nature of the research participant and the witness as we have discussed it, the interview and the testimony, the face reflected as a text or as data in a journal, and the online selfie. We assert, as others have also noted (Dhir et al., 2018; Schankweiler et al., 2019), that the global proliferation of faces on social media impacts the research participant and researcher in complex ways, through the many intertwining texts of visual imagery and the emerging use of visual data in research. Individuals who engage in research and academia similarly have fully developed private lives in which they may have Facebook / Snapchat / IG accounts, they may have children with social media accounts, or grandparents living in another country in which regular updates through social media are important. They may have important family norms and restrictions in the household regarding the number of hours a day one can (should or want to) sit surfing. Recently, the Surgeon General 6 suggested that social media requires a warning label especially for young growing minds, but perhaps too for every age group. The private and public selfie as the personal face is likely a regular ‘attendee’ in all of these virtual, visual narratives. As we have discussed, the face tells a story and evokes something in the viewer. It is thus possible to explore how this proliferation of online faces impacts us as researchers (and as people more generally), and our research participants. How can we merge these two contexts, around the following questions: the notion of what is private and what is public, what is harm and what is seen as a benefit to face as image, what may be confidential or alternatively transparent to all in both settings?
The publication of participants’ faces in academic deliverables poses significant privacy concerns. To mitigate these risks, researchers must implement robust measures to protect participants’ privacy. One approach is to anonymize visual data by blurring faces or using other techniques to obscure identifiable features, which in some cases (Allen, 2015), are seen as too provocative or even elicit. However, this can be reductive or compromise the agreement of the participants, or sublimate the value of the image data, particularly in studies where facial expressions or other visual cues are critical to the research findings. Researchers must carefully weigh the benefits of data anonymization against the potential loss of valuable information.
The Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS) makes suggestions for an adult participant agreeing to have a photo published: a full description of an image and its use must be provided to the participant, alongside how it will be communicated. An REB (University of Manitoba) allows for a specific consent form for the purpose of collecting visual data to be signed by an adult research participant, regarding the publication of their own face in a peer reviewed journal, and as part of data collection for a study. It is required that researchers outline all the ways the photo would be published and provide options for how a participant wishes their photo to be displayed. Examples such as this are increasing in some university contexts. For example, researchers must describe the known or presumed risks of a photo being published, and if / once the photo is published on the web as is often common now-a-days with digital journals, it would be impossible to guarantee whether it is taken down and copies made by readers.
However, in preparation of this paper, we also found that very few transparent articles exist describing the actual decision-making processes undertaken by individual REBs. This could be a future area of research. Our combined experiences of sitting on such REB’s over time, conducting our own ethics protocols, and reviewing papers for other journals, can only shed light on these as anecdotal accounts.
Dhir et al. (2018) talk about the privacy paradox, that while posting personal posts the online user is simultaneously assessing their own risks and benefits to doing so. They want to be public about personal details including images of their face, but they may also want to shroud their privacy and identity at the same time (by choosing their own preferred level of privacy settings). Dhir et al. describe socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. gender, our workplace) regarding who is more comfortable posting which content and where. We would suggest that academia is playing out the same kind of paradox – REBs aim to ‘protect’ individuals in publications under the ‘minimizing harm’ principle, by way of example, for the same individuals who may be posting their face image online on very personal topics daily. What is the role of REB’s and protectionism keeping in mind the privacy paradox?
Clearly, the audiences in academia and the general public on digital media are very different in size and scope. However, the same people being asked to be research participants on a wide range of topics are those engaging in digital media in their lives. Separating out a research participant by definition from a community member is a false dichotomy. Both are actually the same person with different roles and decisions to make. In essence, we can say that the community member’s witnessing of an event is the research participant’s lived experience; we can say their experience has moved to testimony if they are speaking of this in a research-based interview, and this so that we as researchers can understand certain realities related to our research questions better. Interviews are testimony! And possibly, so could images of faces also be in academic publications.
If we understand witnessing as an act which occurs prior to providing a testimonial, then the ‘minimizing harm’ principle must apply to a number of situations. Minimizing harm relates to the converse – preventing those benefits (being overprotective or too restrictive) as a form of harm. While it is our belief that the witness and the testimony are deeply mutually reinforcing concepts, it is also clear that in daily practice and through digital contexts, everyday citizens do not always move from one to the other smoothly. Givoni (2016) states that there is a ‘widening gap between the fact of witnessing...and being a witness’ (p. 9). Should we increase this gap, if and when participants wish to have their face as image published and an REB says no? Clearly, if they do not wish it then ‘do no harm’ is defined by not publishing.
Another option to that widening gap is not to participate at all – not to move to testimony. The widening gap Givoni refers to may also look like inertia, inaction or fatigue after witnessing; or, it could look like a wary witness half in and half stepping out of the realm of witnessing. You don’t need to click like on someone’s post, click like on it, nor does your like click represent full agreement or support for an issue posted; in the same vein, you do not have to participate in research. Nor does publishing an image of your face in an article as a research participant endorse the whole article, or, each point made by the authors. Thus, we might see that publishing participant’s faces in an article represents an action or agency on their part, a willingness to witness through testimony, to talk through visual data. It means participation with ideas and concepts – it means moving to testimony after being a witness – and it means finding one’s voice through the sense making of one’s witnessed event in relation to a research question.
Peters (2001) discusses that through testimony, we value caring where maybe once we did not care (p.722). Peters suggests that becoming a witness and moving to testimony is to grasp the lesson of witnessing and then to ‘live vigilantly’, and that what we notice as a witness may be the key to ‘prison or liberty’ for someone, after we speak out. Like we saw with Levinas (1969) and Merleau-Ponty (1968), in the broader cultural narrative, the face continues to bear significant ethical weight. It is a testimony to individual and collective experiences, a witness to events and histories that might otherwise be overlooked or forgotten. The internet, social and digital media amplify the voice of the face, but it also demands greater ethical vigilance to ensure that this voice is not silenced, distorted, or misused. The face and viewing or publishing it, may be an example of ‘caring’ in the way of Peter’s recognition that we ‘live vigilantly’.
Recalling Levinas’s (1969) philosophy we can thus see how he provides a critical ethical framework for navigating the complexities of modern-day media. It calls for a recognition of the face’s inherent dignity and the ethical responsibility to honor this dignity in all forms of representation. Universities and REBs, as custodians of ethical standards, must lead the way in integrating these principles into the digital age, ensuring that the face remains a respected and authentic testimony within the vast expanse of digital communications. Under Levinas’s framework, respecting the autonomy and dignity of the other is paramount. In the realm of the internet, this translates into rigorous standards for informed consent. Participants must be fully aware of how their images will be used, the potential for wide dissemination, and the long-term implications of their digital presence. This aligns with Levinas’s call for an ethical relationship that honors the other’s autonomy and vulnerability. Universities and Research Ethics Boards (REBs) are crucial in implementing Levinasian ethics in social media related practices. They must establish and enforce guidelines that protect the dignity and privacy of individuals represented online without preventing choice and autonomy at the same time. This involves educating researchers and students about the ethical implications of digital media, promoting a culture of ethical digital literacy, and ensuring that all digital representations are handled with the utmost care and responsibility. REBs should also adapt their protocols to address the unique challenges of digital media. This includes considering the potential for images to be manipulated or taken out of context, as well as the long-term accessibility of digital data. By doing so, they would /do uphold Levinas’s ethical imperative to honor the other’s humanity and dignity in all forms of representation.
In this way, cultural contexts significantly influence the ethical considerations around publishing identifiable images, and sensitivity is required. In some cultures, revealing one’s face or other identifiable features may have profound personal or social consequences (Clark, 2013). Researchers must engage with participants to understand their cultural context and the potential impact of publication on their social standing or personal well-being. Consideration must also therefore be given to the potential long-term impacts on participant welfare. This includes discussing with the participant and assessing together how the publication might affect their future opportunities, relationships, and personal security. Researchers should engage in a dialogue with participants about these potential impacts and provide ongoing support where needed (Prosser, 2013).
Finally, ethics are not stationary or uniform (Hamilton & van den Hoonard, 2016), and they cannot remain fixed over time (consider A.I.). Given the changes in technology that any contemporary university has to deal with, and the emerging discussion in this paper, ethic review committees also will change and adapt to the new world of communications. This change includes a new approach to the use of visual data, with renewed ways of considering important research relationships (with researchers as caring capable individuals, with social media and participants, with community in general). We invite stakeholders in this arena to consider integrating our global, public contexts and private practices, as these press into the world of academia in a natural and progress driven way. The practice of choosing (or not) to publish a face as a research participant as a visual image in peer reviewed publications is one such terrain.
Concluding Reflections about Researchers, Participants, and the REB
Ethics is not self-enacting, according to Dingwall (2016), and we argue it cannot be a checklist either. However, we may go one step further in our discussion, given a social scientist’s legitimate and genuine concern about their participants, to say that we as researchers (over and above an REB’s role) are capable of recognizing key and troubling ethical issues that our own research poses to participants; and that as Dehli and Taylor state (2006), we can and ought to be trusted with this by REBs.
The question of how researchers and REBs should act as protectors of participants who wish to reveal their faces as image data in research, is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of various ethical, legal, and social and personal factors. On one hand, there is a strong argument to be made for protecting the privacy and autonomy of research participants, particularly when it comes to the use and dissemination of their image (Pauwels, 2015). On the other hand, there are also compelling arguments for supporting participants who wish to share their faces as data, as this can contribute to the validity of the research, as well as to the empowerment and self-determination of the participants themselves (Pink, 2013).
One perspective on this issue is that of privacy and autonomy. From this viewpoint, researchers and REBs already have a duty to protect the privacy and autonomy of research participants, and to obtain their informed consent on any use of their name or data – clearly, this would include using their image as data and obtaining consent before use. This is particularly important in fields such as healthcare, where the publication of identifying images could potentially compromise patient confidentiality and trust. In this context, researchers and REBs should act as gatekeepers and protectors of participant privacy, ensuring that their image is not used and not shared in a responsible and ethical manner.
The image of a face holds significant weight in society and the research community. It symbolizes individuality and identity, acting as a gateway to personal narratives and social connections. To the research community, a face can provide authenticity and relatability to the data presented, enhancing the credibility and engagement of the research. However, the face also carries the potential for misinterpretation and misuse. It can be seen as a powerful identifier, akin to a fingerprint or genetic code, uniquely representing an individual (Rosenberger, 2019).
The integrity and value of the research itself must be considered. Visual data can significantly enhance the understanding and impact of research findings. However, this must not come at the expense of ethical standards. Researchers should critically assess whether the publication of identifiable images is essential to the research objectives and whether alternative methods could achieve similar outcomes without compromising participant privacy (Rose, 2016).
When we see someone’s face in a peer-reviewed journal, we gain access to more than just their physical appearance. The face can convey socio-cultural markers, such as age, ethnicity, and gender, which, in turn, influence how the subject is perceived and understood within the research context (Campt, 2017). This visual information can humanize abstract data, making the research more relatable and impactful. However, it also risks reducing the subject to a set of visible traits, potentially overshadowing the nuanced individuality of their lived experience (Barthes, 1977).
Institutions and journals often have their own policies and ethical guidelines regarding the publication of identifiable images. These policies typically require rigorous ethical review and may mandate additional safeguards such as the use of pseudonyms, blurring of faces, or restricted access to the published data (Banks, 2007). This practice of blurring faces, by way of example, is changing everyday, as REBs consider these very issues. We encourage ongoing discussions and future papers to more fully delve into the issue of blurring of faces. It may not be something used for much longer. In this vein, researchers must familiarize themselves with these policies and ensure compliance.
Another perspective is that of empowerment and self-determination. From this viewpoint, researchers and REBs should support and respect the autonomy of participants who wish to reveal their faces as data, as this can contribute to the validity of the research. This is particularly important in fields such as social sciences, where the use of visual data can help to capture the nuances and complexities of human behavior and experience. In this context, researchers and REBs should act as facilitators and advocates of participant empowerment, ensuring that their voices and perspectives are heard and respected in the research process.
Moreover, the ethical principle of justice requires that researchers consider the broader social implications of their work (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Visual data that includes identifiable faces can contribute to social inequities if misused or misinterpreted. Thus, REBs and researchers must weigh the societal risks and benefits, ensuring that the research does not inadvertently harm the participants or their communities.
The tension between protecting participants and respecting their autonomy is further complicated by the cultural context. In some cultures, revealing one’s face may have different social or personal significance, influencing how consent is understood and given (Clark, 2013). Researchers must be culturally sensitive and contextually aware, ensuring that ethical standards are appropriately applied.
Givoni (2016) has suggested that 17th century ethics included regulating what was considered true evidence or not – is this happening here? Perhaps, REBs might reduce checklists and the paperwork required moving to a more relational approach; asking participants and trusted researchers about the range of concerns they have, as these relate to a research question. Let’s ask instead about the ways in which participants and researchers see the inclusion of their own face as text or visual image as beneficial and having a voice, as well as risky and the potential for harm.
Witnessing the face is an ethical consideration for all researchers and deserving of our attention. It is set in our modern and everyday context in which the visual image is present in most of the digital world, it exists alongside our subjectivities as researchers, as participants and community members, as well as REB members. This paper has explored how the face is undeniably intertwined with the concept of witnessing an event, making sense of it, and choosing to move towards testimony as a form of action and having a voice, here by publishing that face as a visual text in a peer reviewed publication.
Limitations
This paper has addressed some philosophical considerations, but has also uncovered areas which are in need of further research. The face as a valuable visual image is key in our emerging work as academics and should be addressed in terms of its interface with social media. The literature has shown that we also require a more transparent study of what and how REBs are functioning. More reflection is needed regarding the risks and harms associated with images in academic publications, and in line with work being done by the TCP. The face as an image in any domain is powerful, and furthering this discussion is required.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
