Dignity and ethics in research photography

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide new conceptual and practical insights about the issues associated with ethics and dignity when undertaking research involving the collection of photographic data. Case studies of photographs taken as part of a research project in Chennai, India are employed to illuminate the significance of dignity. The case studies reveal that dignity-in-context provides a useful conceptual tool that encapsulates the range of ethical issues that might be encountered. This concept has two dimensions. The first, dignity-in-outcome, assists deciding what and whether to photograph by drawing attention to the need for those being researched to benefit from the research, to present an authentic view of the situation, and to ensure that participants are not demeaned or reduced. The second is dignity-in-process that helps researchers decide why and how to photograph in terms of involving those being researched in the way an image is captured, choosing the right angle for the image, and the impression the image will give if and when it is published.

A Photovoice study of user experiences of an occupational therapy department within an acute inpatient mental health setting

“…This approach to research is congruent with an occupational justice approach, seeking perspectives of occupation through marginalised eyes, and using occupation as a means for expression, engagement and collaboration (Durocher et al., 2013). A ‘practice-near’ account, that is, understanding the service users’ experience in a clinical practice setting (Pilgrim, 2009), has been achieved here while also maintaining the dignity of the participants, a key issue when using a visual method (Langmann and Pick, 2014).…”

“…The consent procedures and research design addressed specific issues arising from the use of photography. Photography is potentially intrusive and so it was important to pay attention to the dignity of participants, and avoid adding to the challenges they faced (Langmann and Pick, 2014). For example, prior to taking photographs, participants regularly discussed being photographed and agreed if they wanted to be in the pictures.…”

The Murky Ethics of Visual Qualitative Methods: Picturing a Clear Path Forward

“…Despite claims that information on visual ethics is lacking (e.g., Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016), there are dozens of articles that address ethics and provide visual ethics guidelines (e.g., Cox et al, 2014;Papademas & International Visual Sociology Association, 2009). This list is brief, and nonexhaustive, but existing ethical analyses address: using visual methods with communities who experience multiple forms of oppressions and/or who may need special protections for visual research (e.g., refugees, sexual minorities, people with HIV, people with disabilities, youth, and substance users; e.g., Boxall & Ralph, 2009;Drew, Duncan, & Sawyer, 2010;Pittaway, Bartolomei, & Hugman, 2010;Teti, Murray, Johnson, & Binson, 2012), potential for visuals to compromise people's safety via increased visibility (e.g., Black, Alun, Dalis, & Chambers, 2018;Harley, 2012;Holtby, Klein, Cook, & Travers, 2015;Joanou, 2009), risks posed by online dissemination (e.g., uncontrolled, permanent) of photos (e.g., Creighton et al, 2018), rights of those photographed by participants (e.g., Teti et al, 2012;Wang & Redwood-Jones, 2001), challenges of using IRBs in visual research (e.g., Flicker, Travers, Guta, McDonald, & Meagher, 2007;Khanlou & Peter, 2005;Mok, Flora, & Tarr, 2015), problematic misinterpretation of images by the public including reinforcement of negative stereotypes about marginalized groups (e.g., Langmann & David, 2014;Quaylan, 2012), lack of social justice or social change via PAR visual methods like Photovoice that promise those outcomes or undue pressure on participants to make broader changes happen (e.g., Evans-Agnew & Rosemberg, 2016;Johnston, 2016;Liebenberg, 2018;Mitchell, 2011;Prins, 2010), too much researcher control over analysis and interpretation of images (e.g., Guillemin & Drew, 2010;Liebenberg, 2018), and confusion over who owns the images (e.g.,…”

Exposure: the ethics of making, sharing and displaying photographs of human remains

“…In this there was, to borrow a concept from Sten Langmann and David Pick, a 'dignityin-process' , by virtue of the fact that the research participants were involved 'in the way images are captured, for example, choosing the right angle for an image, the right time to capture an image and the impression it will give if and when it is published' . 60 Human Remains and Violence 4/1 (2018), 3-24 Similar considerations have informed discussions of the ethics of clinical photography, particularly in the context of the proliferation of digital technologies. 61 As Ian Berle argues, photographs, in their depictive transparency, are of epistemic value in the clinical context.…”