Is there a right not to be researched? Is there a right to do research? Some questions about informed consent and the principle of autonomy

‘Pretty cathartic actually’: Reflections on the attempt to reduce re‐traumatization of researchers and nurses taking part in a longitudinal interview study

“…As others have highlighted (e.g. Traianou & Hammersley, 2021) participant autonomy is sometimes viewed as key in the pursuit of ethical research with the participant given the ability to choose when and where to take part in the research, how to tell their story and what happens to their data. As we have previously argued Conolly (2008), rather than consisting of an objective process, qualitative data are produced and collected through inter‐subjectivity between researcher, respondent and other significant individuals and institutions.…”

Covert Research Ethics

“…From this perspective, it is argued, covert and overt research cannot be seen as easily identifiable and distinguishable entities (Calvey, 2017;McKenzie 2009)) and even in the best overt research there are inevitably many opaque elements, ambiguities and a lack of transparency and clarity. In this respect, the informed consent practices now widespread do not avert doubt and confusion (Marzano, 2012;Traianou & Hammersley, 2020) and would frequently seem, beyond significantly limiting research freedom, to serve more to defend the interests and reputation of academic institutions than to protect the people studied (Hedgecoe, 2016;Murphy & Dingwall, 2007;Van den Hoonard, 2011).…”

“…This is the case of ethnographic work done in public places such as town squares, open air markets, football stadiums and so on. In such situations, it is obviously impossible for ethnographers to inform everyone they meet of the fact that research is underway (Traianou & Hammersley, 2020). In any case, those going to public places know that they are exposing themselves to the public gaze and thus any social analysts that could be present.…”

“…In certain situations working undercover is not an independent or free choice and it is researchers' gatekeepers who require this as a precondition for allowing them access to the field (Traianou & Hammersley, 2020). This has happened to me twice (Marzano, 2018): the first time when I was studying people dying of cancer and the head of the hospital's oncology ward whom I had contacted through a common friend told the doctors and nurses on the ward who I was and then that if I wanted to observe what went on there all I needed to do was to put on a white coat and tell patients and their relatives that I was a trainee.…”

“…The fact is that, in the groups and organisations we study there are significant power imbalances and these can be visible not only in the decisions of the organisation's heads to impose the researcher's presence (disregarding the consent of the others) but also, in some cases, not revealing the presence of the researcher to those involved. In such cases, challenging this norm, making one's identity explicit, would mean challenging the hierarchy, casting doubt on the right of the heads to decide (Traianou & Hammersley, 2020).…”