Research Participants' Views on Ethics in Social Research: Issues for Research Ethics Committees

Lewis, Jane; Graham, Jenny

doi:10.1177/174701610700300303

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many observational studies take place in semi-public places (including the internet). It is not practicable to control the movement of people entering and leaving the field, or to ensure that everyone who does so has been adequately informed about the study and given their consent [29,30,41,123]. Researchers simply do not have the control over the research field which is predicated in formal ethical approval.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research

Pollock

2012

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundResearch is fundamental to improving the quality of health care. The need for regulation of research is clear. However, the bureaucratic complexity of research governance has raised concerns that the regulatory mechanisms intended to protect participants now threaten to undermine or stifle the research enterprise, especially as this relates to sensitive topics and hard to reach groups.DiscussionMuch criticism of research governance has focused on long delays in obtaining ethical approvals, restrictions imposed on study conduct, and the inappropriateness of evaluating qualitative studies within the methodological and risk assessment frameworks applied to biomedical and clinical research. Less attention has been given to the different epistemologies underlying biomedical and qualitative investigation. The bioethical framework underpinning current regulatory structures is fundamentally at odds with the practice of emergent, negotiated micro-ethics required in qualitative research. The complex and shifting nature of real world settings delivers unanticipated ethical issues and (occasionally) genuine dilemmas which go beyond easy or formulaic ‘procedural’ resolution. This is not to say that qualitative studies are ‘unethical’ but that their ethical nature can only be safeguarded through the practice of ‘micro-ethics’ based on the judgement and integrity of researchers in the field.SummaryThis paper considers the implications of contrasting ethical paradigms for the conduct of qualitative research and the value of ‘empirical ethics’ as a means of liberating qualitative (and other) research from an outmoded and unduly restrictive research governance framework based on abstract prinicipalism, divorced from real world contexts and values.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research

Pollock

2012

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All Natsal-3 participants were given an information leaflet to read prior to participation. In line with standard practice for UK surveys, and in response to evidence suggesting that signing a consent form might lead to a greater sense of obligation to complete the interview, we obtained verbal rather than written consent [79]. We ensured procedures for obtaining verbal informed consent via our interviewer training and protocols: interviewers were trained to make sure that participants had read the information leaflet and had the opportunity to discuss the study fully before the interview began; and at the beginning of each interview, interviewers were prompted (on screen) to remind participants that they could choose not to answer any question.…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latent class analysis of sexual health markers among men and women participating in a British probability sample survey

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite known associations between different aspects of sexual health, it is not clear how patterning of adverse sexual health varies across the general population. A better understanding should contribute towards more effective problem identification, prevention and treatment. We sought to identify different clusters of sexual health markers in a general population, along with their socio-demographic, health and lifestyle correlates. Methods: Data came from men (N = 5113) and women (N = 7019) aged 16-74 who reported partnered sexual activity in the past year in Britain's third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, undertaken in 2010-2012. Latent class analysis used 18 self-reported variables relating to adverse sexual health outcomes (STI and unplanned pregnancy, non-volitional sex, and sexual function problems). Correlates included socio-demographics, early debut, alcohol/drug use, depression, and satisfaction/distress with sex life. Results: Four classes were found for men (labelled Good Sexual Health 83%, Wary Risk-takers 4%, Unwary Risktakers 4%, Sexual Function Problems 9%); six for women (Good Sexual Health 52%, Wary Risk-takers 2%, Unwary Risk-takers 7%, Low Interest 29%, Sexual Function Problems 7%, Highly Vulnerable 2%). Regardless of gender, Unwary Risk-takers reported lower STI/HIV risk perception and more condomless sex than Wary Risk-takers, but both were more likely to report STI diagnosis than Good Sexual Health classes. Highly Vulnerable women reported abortion, STIs and functional problems, and more sexual coercion than other women. Distinct socio-demographic profiles differentiated higher-risk classes from Good Sexual Health classes, with depression, alcohol/drug use, and early sexual debut widely-shared correlates of higher-risk classes. Females in higher-risk classes, and men with functional problems, evaluated their sex lives more negatively than those with Good Sexual Health. Conclusions: A greater prevalence and diversity of poor sexual health appears to exist among women than men in Britain, with more consistent effects on women's subjective sexual well-being. Shared health and lifestyle characteristics of higher-risk groups suggest widespread benefits of upstream interventions. Several groups could benefit from tailored interventions: men and women who underestimate their STI/HIV risk exposure, women distressed by low interest in sex, and women experiencing multiple adverse outcomes. Distinctive sociodemographic profiles should assist with identification and targeting.

show abstract

“…However, appropriate sensitivity and adherence to everyday conversational norms is certainly necessary for any successful interview, and this is especially apposite in relation to household surveys conducted in respondents’ homes. Research by Lewis and Graham ( 2007 ) shows that, because being interviewed is an unfamiliar experience, respondents look to interviewers to help them feel ‘comfortable’. Being at ease is important for data quality, helping interviewees to answer honestly and openly (ibid) and to understand information and remember accurately (Ghosh et al 2013 ).…”

Section: Building Rapport In Structured Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Johnson 2002 ). Others have found that, research participants, while finding it helpful if the interviewer’s personality comes across, do not want the interviewer to share personal information with them (Lewis and Graham 2007 ). In the latter study, respondents to household surveys felt that knowing something personal about the interviewer might influence the answers they gave; and increase their desire to withhold information.…”

Section: Revealing Personal Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantitative conversations: the importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When developing household surveys, much emphasis is understandably placed on developing survey instruments that can elicit accurate and comparable responses. In order to ensure that carefully crafted questions are not undermined by ‘interviewer effects’, standardised interviewing tends to be utilised in preference to conversational techniques. However, by drawing on a behaviour coding analysis of survey paradata arising from the 2012 UK Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey we show that in practice standardised survey interviewing often involves extensive unscripted conversation between the interviewer and the respondent. Whilst these interactions can enhance response accuracy, cooperation and ethicality, unscripted conversations can also be problematic in terms of survey reliability and the ethical conduct of survey interviews, as well as raising more basic epistemological questions concerning the degree of standardisation typically assumed within survey research. We conclude that better training in conversational techniques is necessary, even when applying standardised interviewing methodologies. We also draw out some theoretical implications regarding the usefulness of the qualitative–quantitative dichotomy.

show abstract

Research Participants' Views on Ethics in Social Research: Issues for Research Ethics Committees

Abstract: 1 Although it would have been desirable to follow up interviews carried out by other research teams and organizations to reflect a wider range of approaches, data protection requirements would have made access to a sample and the approach process much more problematic.

Cited by 16 publications

References 7 publications

Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research

Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research

Latent class analysis of sexual health markers among men and women participating in a British probability sample survey

Quantitative conversations: the importance of developing rapport in standardised interviewing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About