Beyond anonymity: temporality and the production of knowledge in a qualitative longitudinal study

Abstract

Anonymisation processes are an embedded, if contested, element of ethical research practice. Current debates, highlighting various challenges to anonymity, suggest the importance of situated ethics and negotiated solutions. However, the strategies adopted are necessarily mediated by the researcher's epistemological positions. Longitudinal studies with their extended timeframes and intensive research relationships tend to amplify ethical dilemmas and highlight the contingency and fluidity of ethical processes. Here we explore how temporality intersects with epistemology in a qualitative longitudinal (QL) study of organisations located in a contemporary policy context. We reflect on the confidentiality and anonymity dilemmas that develop and change over time, the strategies adopted and the implications of these for the type of knowledge produced. We suggest that QL studies entail flexibility within epistemological frameworks. These issues have particular resonance and consequences for researchers in light of contemporary pressures around public scrutiny of academic performance and wider debates around public sociology.

Researching health behaviour in ‘real time’: Methodological insights from a prospective study on Olympic hopefuls

“…While the issue of anonymity has been addressed by other qualitative researchers (Kirby et al, 2011;Woodman and Hardy, 2001), our experience with the present data indicates that protecting anonymity of high-profile persons when presenting longitudinal career development and health information is only possible at the price of withholding or disguising a considerable amount of personal and contextual details, except if participants themselves agree/wish to be named (Taylor, 2015).…”

“…Guaranteeing anonymity and protection of privacy to informants are central pillars of ethical research practice (Flick, 2012), especially when researching persons of public interest, such as elite athletes (Adler and Adler, 2003;Woodman and Hardy, 2001) and/or on sensitive matters (Bloodworth and McNamee, 2010;Kirby et al, 2011). In QLR, safeguarding participants' anonymity demands further data management measures as identifying details help to trace and situate participants in the different data waves (Taylor, 2015). In the case of the present study, the fact that data collection occurred through multiple sources and researchers, replacing identifying information (e.g.…”

“…Furthermore, engaging athletes in a prospective study spanning critical career events, such as major competitions, has been argued ethically problematic, difficult to realise and cost-intensive (Gould and Maynard, 2009;Haberl and Peterson, 2006;Jensen et al, 2014). While these problems indicate that researchers embarking on a longitudinal venture in elite sport will face methodological challenges (Corden and Millar, 2007;Taylor, 2015;Thomson and Holland, 2003), existing studies remain surprisingly silent about the navigation of the research process and the methodological insights gained.…”

No One Left Behind: Using Mixed-Methods Research to Identify and Learn from Socially Marginalised Adolescents in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

“…Both the meanings attached to data and the contexts in which they are generated will change over time. Additionally, there may be challenges in maintaining consent in participation as young people become more mobile (Taylor 2015). The richness of detail built up through longterm, repeated interactions can also cause problems in assuring anonymity, especially when those represented in reports remain involved in projects (Neale 2013;Morrow et al 2014).…”

Establishing long-term research relationships with older people: exploring care practices in longitudinal studies

“…With regard to QLR, there is a general view that ethical concerns are no different from those encountered in any qualitative research process (Lloyd et al ., 2017; Neale, 2018) but are nevertheless amplified due to the duration of the research process and intensity of the research encounters. Researchers who have engaged in QLR focus on some specific concerns: how to protect anonymity, and how far to share the more detailed individual narratives that are built up over time (Ellis, 2007; Thompson, 2007; Taylor, 2015); how researchers should seek to re-contact with participants as studies progress over time (Miller, 2015); and how researchers manage long-term relationships with research participants (Warin, 2011). The literature signals how individual projects may generate various specific concerns and challenges, some predictable, others less so, highlighting the need for ongoing reflection and sharing of concerns and potential actions both within project teams and with the wider academic community.…”