Exceptions to blanket anonymity for the publication of interviews with refugees: African refugees in Israel as a case study

Abstract

Literature on the ethics of researching refugees, both as participants and partners, presents strong arguments for why anonymity is the safer option in the event of questionable consent. However, blanket anonymity, without asking refugee interviewees if they wish to be anonymous, may cause more harm than good in certain contexts. One such context which this article will explore is the context of Israel, where a working Refugee Status Determination (RSD) system has yet to be established. This case study highlights that, even in extreme circumstances where identity exposure can create risks, there may be a case for allowing identity exposure and perhaps an obligation on the part of the researcher to publish a name if this is the strong wish of the interviewee. This article builds on literature addressing confidentiality of identities (Duvell et al.

Ethics in Political Science Research

“…In that context, there was in any case a very high risk that the names of interviewees were going to be leaked by the press independently of the safety measures put in place by researchers; at the same time, revealing the name of interviewees would assist them in spreading their stories as refugees and the actual contexts in which they took shape (Gerver 2013). In other contexts, anonymity is instead particularly important and so are the consent forms in which researchers explain how they intend to secure it.…”

A Rose By Any Other Name Is Still a Rose? Problematizing Pseudonyms in Research

“…In research practice, the terms anonymous and confidential are related, but frequently confused (Grever, 2013). Given the potential vulnerability of any participant, we take a firm stance for numerous instances where pseudonyms are a vital part of increasing confidentiality in human research.…”

Faceless, voiceless child – Ethics of visual anonymity in research with children and young people

“…However, as Gerver (2013) points out, blanket anonymity – automatic anonymisation of participants without asking their opinion about it – lacks contextual consideration. Achieving complete anonymity is impossible in many types of ethnographic, participatory and emancipatory approaches due to their methodological design (Walsh et al, 2008; Tilley and Woodthorpe, 2011).…”

“…Walsh et al (2008) considered the artwork produced for the research by young people to be already public. Furthermore, in her study on Israeli refugees, Gerver (2013) shows that in the case of vulnerable groups, the exposure of a ‘real name attached to a real story’ can, in fact, be more ethical than anonymity, as it provides benefits relating to livelihoods, self-empowerment and advocacy (see also Tilley and Woodthorpe, 2011). Hence, the expectation that anonymity should be maintained throughout the research process can serve to create further ethical challenges (Nespor, 2000: 550).…”

“…In the first example, we had to consider the wishes of the participating asylum-seeking young people of how they should be seen, while we also had to critically evaluate how these images would be received by their audiences. The Finnish teacher’s response was an indicator that blanket anonymity is not always the most ethical practise (also Gerver 2013). In the Australian example, the participants wanted not only to see but also to share and to claim ownership of their contributions, but they could not do that because claiming and sharing the videos revealed their identities.…”