First do no harm: using ‘ethical triage’ to minimise causing harm when undertaking educational research among vulnerable participants

Abstract

Although educational researchers will acknowledge that they have a moral imperative to avoid harming their participants whilst carrying out research, it does not necessarily mean that they can describe the nature of what this harm might be or how it can be recognised and so avoided. This is particularly important for those working with vulnerable participants, yet there is limited specificity within the educational literature as to what constitutes harm in such a setting. The article addresses this by de-constructing ethical dilemmas that arose during a research study that was carried out among adult students who had mental health problems, in England. The article outlines how these dilemmas were resolved safely due to preparation before the interviews; the 'ethical triage' employed in the interviews; and the reflexivity practised after the interviews. The article proposes that the issue of defining harm and how to recognise and avoid it, needs to be discussed more among educational researchers and those writing ethical guidelines, especially in relation to interviewing vulnerable participants. Not only will this help to better prepare researchers for when ethical dilemmas arise, but will also promote equity and access to participating in research, for those considered to be vulnerable.

Strategies employed in coping with physical disabilities acquired during adulthood in rural South Africa

“…The investigation was carried out in a rural real-life situation and no attempt was made to manipulate the phenomenon of interest (Kobus 2010 ). It employed ethical triage to avoid harm to participants, such as prioritising events as they occur and paying attention to the interviewees’ visual expressions (Buchanan & Warwick 2021 ). As a result of the sensitivity of the research topic, the author arranged counselling sessions for participants who required the service because of the potential of interviews resulting in psychological discomfort.…”

Distress Protocol for a PhD study exploring the Implementation of the Pregnancy Re-entry Policy among Stakeholders at Primary school level in Chongwe District, Zambia

“…It has been argued that the fact that the topic is rated as medium risk does not necessary imply that all participates will be harmed. Harm is subjective (Buchanan & Warwick, 2021). Harm is perceived to be the likelihood of the risk manifesting which is unique to individual participates (Bates, 2020).…”

Advances in Research in STEM Education

“…Harm was avoided by explaining that the study had no impact on their academic performance and that learners could at any time withdraw from the interviews [74,75]. Member check was performed with the participants to ensure that the captured information correctly reflected their views [76].…”