In this article, we report on a web-based survey of 517 qualitative researchers' perceptions of the risks inherent in qualitative unstructured interviews. Although emotions manifest during these qualitative interviews may be viewed as “natural” in the context of the types of losses experienced by the interviewees, the emotional responses cannot be identified in an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of the proposal. The mitigation of this emotional response is, however, the responsibility of the researcher, and ethics education and short courses must include such instruction. Psychological harm to the researcher, although rare, is a possibility for which researchers must be prepared. The authors conclude by suggesting six principles of ethical conduct for qualitative researchers. These principles should be useful to IRBs and included in ethics and qualitative methods courses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association of University Professors (2001). Protecting human beings: Institutional review boards and social science research.Academe, 87(3) 55–67.
American Association of University Professors (2006). Research and human subjects: Academic freedom and the institutional review boards (2006). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/A/humansubs.htm Downloaded October 3rd, 2007.
CassellJoan. (1980). Ethical principles for conducting fieldwork.American Anthropologist, 82, 28–41.
7.
ClarkM.C., and SharfB. F. (2007). The dark side of truth(s): Ethical dilemmas in researching the personal.Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 399–416.
8.
Code of federal Regulations, TITLE 45 — PUBLIC WELFARE, Department of Health and Human Services. Part 46.Protection of Human Subjects. Revised June 23, 2005. Download, October 3, 2007. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
9.
DavisD. S. (1991). Rich cases: Ethics of thick description.Hastings Center Report, 21(4), 12–17.
10.
DenzinN. (ND). IRBs and the turn to indigenous research ethics. Unpublished paper, University of Illinois, College of Communication.
11.
EllisCarolyn (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography24(1), 68–98.
12.
GunsalusC. K., BrunerE. M., BurblesN. C., DashL., FinkinM., GoldbergJ. P., GreenoughW. T., MillerG. A., PrattM. G., IriyeM., and AronsonD. (2007). The Illinois White Paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRM “mission creep.”Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 617–649.
13.
JohnsonMartin. (2007). Criticizing research from an ethical point of view. In Research ethics in the real world: Issues and solutions for health and social care. (pp. 85–102. Ed by LongT., and JohnsonM.Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston.
14.
LincolnY.S. (2005). Institutional review Boards and methodological conservatism: The challenge to and from phenomenological paradigms. (p. 165–182). In DenzonN.K., and LincolnY. S. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
LincolnY., and TierneyW. (2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards.Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 219–234.
16.
LongTony. (2007). How are these ethical issues to be resolved (pp 63–83). In research ethics in the real world: Issues and solutions for health and social care. (pp. 85–102. Ed by LongT., and JohnsonM.Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston.
17.
MorseJ. M. (2002). Emotional re-enactment. (Editorial).Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 147.
18.
MorseJ. M., BeresM., SpiersJ., MayanM., and OlsonK. (2003). Identifying signals of suffering by linking verbal and facial cues.Qualitative Health Research, 13, 821–832.
19.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. (DHEW Pub. No.(OS) 78–0008). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans should be cited thus: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1998 (with 2000, 2002 and 2005 amendments) available at: www.pre.ethics.gc.ca
23.
Van den HoonaardW. C. (2002). Walking the tightrope.Toronto, OT: University of Toronto Press.
24.
WeinbergM. (2002). Biting the hand that feeds you, and other feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. (p. 79–94). In Van den HoonaardW. (Ed). Walking the tightrope.Toronto, OT: University of Toronto Press.
