how to write ethical considerations in qualitative research proposal

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, what is your plagiarism score.

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations in research refer to the principles and guidelines that researchers must follow to ensure that their studies are conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. These considerations are designed to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of research participants, as well as the integrity and credibility of the research itself

Some of the key ethical considerations in research include:

• Informed consent: Researchers must obtain informed consent from study participants, which means they must inform participants about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time.
• Privacy and confidentiality : Researchers must ensure that participants’ privacy and confidentiality are protected. This means that personal information should be kept confidential and not shared without the participant’s consent.
• Harm reduction : Researchers must ensure that the study does not harm the participants physically or psychologically. They must take steps to minimize the risks associated with the study.
• Fairness and equity : Researchers must ensure that the study does not discriminate against any particular group or individual. They should treat all participants equally and fairly.
• Use of deception: Researchers must use deception only if it is necessary to achieve the study’s objectives. They must inform participants of the deception as soon as possible.
• Use of vulnerable populations : Researchers must be especially cautious when working with vulnerable populations, such as children, pregnant women, prisoners, and individuals with cognitive or intellectual disabilities.
• Conflict of interest : Researchers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the study’s integrity. This includes financial or personal relationships that could influence the study’s results.
• Data manipulation: Researchers must not manipulate data to support a particular hypothesis or agenda. They should report the results of the study objectively, even if the findings are not consistent with their expectations.
• Intellectual property: Researchers must respect intellectual property rights and give credit to previous studies and research.
• Cultural sensitivity : Researchers must be sensitive to the cultural norms and beliefs of the participants. They should avoid imposing their values and beliefs on the participants and should be respectful of their cultural practices.

Types of Ethical Considerations

Types of Ethical Considerations are as follows:

Research Ethics:

This includes ethical principles and guidelines that govern research involving human or animal subjects, ensuring that the research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.

Business Ethics :

This refers to ethical principles and standards that guide business practices and decision-making, such as transparency, honesty, fairness, and social responsibility.

Medical Ethics :

This refers to ethical principles and standards that govern the practice of medicine, including the duty to protect patient autonomy, informed consent, confidentiality, and non-maleficence.

Environmental Ethics :

This involves ethical principles and values that guide our interactions with the natural world, including the obligation to protect the environment, minimize harm, and promote sustainability.

Legal Ethics

This involves ethical principles and standards that guide the conduct of legal professionals, including issues such as confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and professional competence.

Social Ethics

This involves ethical principles and values that guide our interactions with other individuals and society as a whole, including issues such as justice, fairness, and human rights.

Information Ethics

This involves ethical principles and values that govern the use and dissemination of information, including issues such as privacy, accuracy, and intellectual property.

Cultural Ethics

This involves ethical principles and values that govern the relationship between different cultures and communities, including issues such as respect for diversity, cultural sensitivity, and inclusivity.

Technological Ethics

This refers to ethical principles and guidelines that govern the development, use, and impact of technology, including issues such as privacy, security, and social responsibility.

Journalism Ethics

This involves ethical principles and standards that guide the practice of journalism, including issues such as accuracy, fairness, and the public interest.

Educational Ethics

This refers to ethical principles and standards that guide the practice of education, including issues such as academic integrity, fairness, and respect for diversity.

Political Ethics

This involves ethical principles and values that guide political decision-making and behavior, including issues such as accountability, transparency, and the protection of civil liberties.

Professional Ethics

This refers to ethical principles and standards that guide the conduct of professionals in various fields, including issues such as honesty, integrity, and competence.

Personal Ethics

This involves ethical principles and values that guide individual behavior and decision-making, including issues such as personal responsibility, honesty, and respect for others.

Global Ethics

This involves ethical principles and values that guide our interactions with other nations and the global community, including issues such as human rights, environmental protection, and social justice.

Applications of Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are important in many areas of society, including medicine, business, law, and technology. Here are some specific applications of ethical considerations:

• Medical research : Ethical considerations are crucial in medical research, particularly when human subjects are involved. Researchers must ensure that their studies are conducted in a way that does not harm participants and that participants give informed consent before participating.
• Business practices: Ethical considerations are also important in business, where companies must make decisions that are socially responsible and avoid activities that are harmful to society. For example, companies must ensure that their products are safe for consumers and that they do not engage in exploitative labor practices.
• Environmental protection: Ethical considerations play a crucial role in environmental protection, as companies and governments must weigh the benefits of economic development against the potential harm to the environment. Decisions about land use, resource allocation, and pollution must be made in an ethical manner that takes into account the long-term consequences for the planet and future generations.
• Technology development : As technology continues to advance rapidly, ethical considerations become increasingly important in areas such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and genetic engineering. Developers must ensure that their creations do not harm humans or the environment and that they are developed in a way that is fair and equitable.
• Legal system : The legal system relies on ethical considerations to ensure that justice is served and that individuals are treated fairly. Lawyers and judges must abide by ethical standards to maintain the integrity of the legal system and to protect the rights of all individuals involved.

Examples of Ethical Considerations

Here are a few examples of ethical considerations in different contexts:

• In healthcare : A doctor must ensure that they provide the best possible care to their patients and avoid causing them harm. They must respect the autonomy of their patients, and obtain informed consent before administering any treatment or procedure. They must also ensure that they maintain patient confidentiality and avoid any conflicts of interest.
• In the workplace: An employer must ensure that they treat their employees fairly and with respect, provide them with a safe working environment, and pay them a fair wage. They must also avoid any discrimination based on race, gender, religion, or any other characteristic protected by law.
• In the media : Journalists must ensure that they report the news accurately and without bias. They must respect the privacy of individuals and avoid causing harm or distress. They must also be transparent about their sources and avoid any conflicts of interest.
• In research: Researchers must ensure that they conduct their studies ethically and with integrity. They must obtain informed consent from participants, protect their privacy, and avoid any harm or discomfort. They must also ensure that their findings are reported accurately and without bias.
• In personal relationships : People must ensure that they treat others with respect and kindness, and avoid causing harm or distress. They must respect the autonomy of others and avoid any actions that would be considered unethical, such as lying or cheating. They must also respect the confidentiality of others and maintain their privacy.

How to Write Ethical Considerations

When writing about research involving human subjects or animals, it is essential to include ethical considerations to ensure that the study is conducted in a manner that is morally responsible and in accordance with professional standards. Here are some steps to help you write ethical considerations:

• Describe the ethical principles: Start by explaining the ethical principles that will guide the research. These could include principles such as respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
• Discuss informed consent : Informed consent is a critical ethical consideration when conducting research. Explain how you will obtain informed consent from participants, including how you will explain the purpose of the study, potential risks and benefits, and how you will protect their privacy.
• Address confidentiality : Describe how you will protect the confidentiality of the participants’ personal information and data, including any measures you will take to ensure that the data is kept secure and confidential.
• Consider potential risks and benefits : Describe any potential risks or harms to participants that could result from the study and how you will minimize those risks. Also, discuss the potential benefits of the study, both to the participants and to society.
• Discuss the use of animals : If the research involves the use of animals, address the ethical considerations related to animal welfare. Explain how you will minimize any potential harm to the animals and ensure that they are treated ethically.
• Mention the ethical approval : Finally, it’s essential to acknowledge that the research has received ethical approval from the relevant institutional review board or ethics committee. State the name of the committee, the date of approval, and any specific conditions or requirements that were imposed.

When to Write Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations should be written whenever research involves human subjects or has the potential to impact human beings, animals, or the environment in some way. Ethical considerations are also important when research involves sensitive topics, such as mental health, sexuality, or religion.

In general, ethical considerations should be an integral part of any research project, regardless of the field or subject matter. This means that they should be considered at every stage of the research process, from the initial planning and design phase to data collection, analysis, and dissemination.

Ethical considerations should also be written in accordance with the guidelines and standards set by the relevant regulatory bodies and professional associations. These guidelines may vary depending on the discipline, so it is important to be familiar with the specific requirements of your field.

Purpose of Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are an essential aspect of many areas of life, including business, healthcare, research, and social interactions. The primary purposes of ethical considerations are:

• Protection of human rights: Ethical considerations help ensure that people’s rights are respected and protected. This includes respecting their autonomy, ensuring their privacy is respected, and ensuring that they are not subjected to harm or exploitation.
• Promoting fairness and justice: Ethical considerations help ensure that people are treated fairly and justly, without discrimination or bias. This includes ensuring that everyone has equal access to resources and opportunities, and that decisions are made based on merit rather than personal biases or prejudices.
• Promoting honesty and transparency : Ethical considerations help ensure that people are truthful and transparent in their actions and decisions. This includes being open and honest about conflicts of interest, disclosing potential risks, and communicating clearly with others.
• Maintaining public trust: Ethical considerations help maintain public trust in institutions and individuals. This is important for building and maintaining relationships with customers, patients, colleagues, and other stakeholders.
• Ensuring responsible conduct: Ethical considerations help ensure that people act responsibly and are accountable for their actions. This includes adhering to professional standards and codes of conduct, following laws and regulations, and avoiding behaviors that could harm others or damage the environment.

Advantages of Ethical Considerations

Here are some of the advantages of ethical considerations:

• Builds Trust : When individuals or organizations follow ethical considerations, it creates a sense of trust among stakeholders, including customers, clients, and employees. This trust can lead to stronger relationships and long-term loyalty.
• Reputation and Brand Image : Ethical considerations are often linked to a company’s brand image and reputation. By following ethical practices, a company can establish a positive image and reputation that can enhance its brand value.
• Avoids Legal Issues: Ethical considerations can help individuals and organizations avoid legal issues and penalties. By adhering to ethical principles, companies can reduce the risk of facing lawsuits, regulatory investigations, and fines.
• Increases Employee Retention and Motivation: Employees tend to be more satisfied and motivated when they work for an organization that values ethics. Companies that prioritize ethical considerations tend to have higher employee retention rates, leading to lower recruitment costs.
• Enhances Decision-making: Ethical considerations help individuals and organizations make better decisions. By considering the ethical implications of their actions, decision-makers can evaluate the potential consequences and choose the best course of action.
• Positive Impact on Society: Ethical considerations have a positive impact on society as a whole. By following ethical practices, companies can contribute to social and environmental causes, leading to a more sustainable and equitable society.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews
• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework
• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Introduction

What are research ethics?

Informed consent in qualitative research, trust in the researcher-participant relationship, navigating the ethics review board.

• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Ethical considerations in qualitative research

Qualitative research often involves the researcher working with and collecting data from people. This raises critical ethical concerns that all qualitative researchers should keep in mind. This article will discuss the topic of informed consent , but other issues of privacy, confidentiality , and trust, among other considerations, also require careful consideration.

Ethics generally refer to the principles of right and wrong that guide an individual or a group. In the context of research, ethics are the standards and guidelines that dictate acceptable conduct during the research process, ensuring that researchers act in a manner that protects the rights, dignity, and welfare of the participants involved.

In qualitative research , the importance of ethics becomes more nuanced due to the deeply personal and subjective nature of the methods used. Qualitative researchers often engage in prolonged, intimate interactions with participants and immerse themselves in the participants' settings, sometimes even their lives. As such, the potential for ethical dilemmas or conflicts can be heightened, making a comprehensive understanding of ethics crucial for qualitative researchers.

What are the ethical considerations in qualitative research?

A critical aspect of research ethics is respect for persons. This principle emphasizes recognizing and respecting the autonomy of research participants, acknowledging their capacity to make decisions about their involvement in the research. It also involves providing special protection for individuals with diminished autonomy who may be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, or individuals with cognitive impairments.

Beneficence, another key ethical principle, is about maximizing potential benefits for the research participants and minimizing potential harm. In the qualitative research context, potential benefits might include contributing to new knowledge, enhancing understanding of a phenomenon, or informing policy or practice changes. Potential harm might involve psychological distress, invasion of privacy, stigmatization, or misuse of data.

Justice, a third core principle, involves ensuring a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research. This means carefully considering the selection of participants to avoid exploiting vulnerable groups or excluding others without justification.

Lastly, qualitative researchers also need to consider the principle of fidelity, which involves being honest and transparent, fulfilling promises, and establishing and maintaining trust with participants. These principles are not meant to be exhaustive, nor are they universally applicable without consideration of context. In fact, one of the complexities of qualitative research is that ethical considerations often have to be balanced and negotiated in light of the specific circumstances of each study. What's ethical in one study might not be in another, and this underpins the importance of researchers being reflective and responsive to the ethical dimensions of their work.

Why do research ethics matter?

It's important to note that ethics in qualitative research are not merely about compliance with formal ethical guidelines or approval from ethics review boards. While these are necessary, ethics in qualitative research go beyond this, requiring researchers to continually negotiate ethical issues throughout the entire research process, from design to dissemination. Understanding and adhering to ethical principles in qualitative research not only protects the participants but also enhances the quality of the research, as it encourages thoughtful and respectful engagement with the research process and its stakeholders. It is a fundamental part of responsible and credible research practice.

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research practice. In practice, consent is such a necessary practice that universities and national institutes often require it to be outlined in the research proposal before ethical approval is granted. At the same time, journals often prohibit the publication of research findings if consent is not obtained. Consent is not merely the act of simply getting a participant to sign a form. It involves a clear and detailed understanding on the part of both the researcher and research subject regarding the nature of the research and how it is to be conducted. This section will discuss the importance of informed consent, the process of obtaining it, and the challenges and strategies involved in ensuring its proper implementation.

What is informed consent?

Informed consent is the process by which a research participant voluntarily confirms their willingness to participate in a particular study after having been informed of all aspects of the research that are relevant to their decision. It is a fundamental ethical obligation for all researchers, grounded in the principle of respect for persons, which recognizes the rights of individuals to autonomy and self-determination.

Importance of informed consent

Informed consent ensures that participants are not coerced or deceived into participating in a study. It upholds the principles of autonomy and respect for persons by recognizing and affirming the right of individuals to control what happens to them. Additionally, consent helps protect the researcher and the institution conducting the research by providing evidence that participants have voluntarily agreed to participate and understand the nature of the research and how the researcher intends to conduct research.

As a matter of medical research and biomedical research, consent is an outright necessity where people's health and welfare are concerned. The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki requires research participants to be treated with respect and given opportunities to make informed decisions. The principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration prevent unscrupulous researchers and practitioners from preying on research subjects, no matter how beneficial the research aims might be.

Process of obtaining informed consent

The process of obtaining consent involves several key steps. First, researchers must provide potential participants with clear, detailed, and understandable information about the study. This includes information about the purpose of the research, what participation will involve, the potential benefits and risks, the safeguards that will be in place to protect confidentiality , the voluntary nature of participation, and the participant's right to withdraw at any time without penalty.

Once this information has been provided, researchers should give potential participants sufficient time to consider whether they wish to participate and ask the researcher any questions if they need further clarification. Researchers should then obtain explicit confirmation from participants that they have understood the information and agree to participate. This can be done verbally with an audio recording, but it is typically documented in a written consent form that the participant signs. It is important to save the documents and/or audio recordings as proof of having obtained consent (e.g., research review boards or academic journals may ask for such proof).

Challenges and strategies in ensuring consent

Obtaining consent in qualitative research can present several challenges. For instance, the iterative nature of many qualitative research designs means that the specifics of the research may evolve over time, making it difficult to provide complete information at the outset. Moreover, certain participant groups may have difficulty understanding the consent information due to language barriers, low literacy levels, or cognitive impairments.

In response to these challenges, researchers can adopt several strategies. For evolving research designs, researchers can commit to a process of ongoing consent, where they continually update participants about changes and check their continued willingness to participate.

For participant groups with comprehension difficulties, researchers can use simplified language, visual aids, or third-party intermediaries to help explain the consent information. In some cases, researchers may also need to seek consent from legally authorized representatives while still involving the participants as much as possible in the consent process.

Despite its challenges, researchers must make every effort to ensure that participants understand the research and voluntarily agree to take part. This not only respects participants' rights but also contributes to the overall quality and credibility of the research.

Powerful tools for your research in ATLAS.ti

Put your data to work with our intuitive qualitative data analysis interface. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti.

Privacy and confidentiality in qualitative research

In qualitative research, ensuring privacy and confidentiality is paramount. As researchers frequently deal with sensitive data about individuals, it's crucial to respect and protect participants' rights to privacy and ensure the confidentiality of their information. This section will detail the concepts of privacy and confidentiality, the methods to maintain them, and the associated challenges in qualitative research.

Understanding privacy and confidentiality

Privacy and confidentiality, although related, are two distinct concepts in research ethics. Privacy pertains to an individual's right to control the extent, timing, and circumstances of sharing oneself with others. It is linked to notions of personal space and seclusion.

On the other hand, confidentiality relates to the agreement between the participant and the researcher about how the participant's information will be handled, used, and disseminated. It involves an assurance that personal information shared for the purposes of the research will not be disclosed in a way that allows the identification of the participant without their permission.

Methods for maintaining privacy and confidentiality

Several methods can be employed to maintain privacy and confidentiality in qualitative research. During data collection , privacy can be respected by conducting interviews or observations in private settings where the participant feels comfortable and by asking only questions that are necessary for the research.

Personal identifiers can be removed or disguised in transcripts, reports, and publications to ensure confidentiality. Data can be securely stored, and access can be limited to only the necessary members of the research team. Additionally, researchers can use pseudonyms instead of real names in their reports to further ensure that participants cannot be identified.

In certain situations, a technique called data aggregation can be employed. This involves presenting data in a way that represents groups of people rather than individuals, thus minimizing the risk of identification.

Challenges in ensuring privacy and confidentiality

Despite these methods, ensuring privacy and confidentiality can present challenges. Given the depth and detail often involved in qualitative data, even when identifiers are removed or disguised, participants may still be recognizable based on the context or content of their information.

There's also a potential conflict between maintaining confidentiality and providing rich, detailed descriptions, which is a hallmark of qualitative research . Furthermore, in small or close-knit communities, anonymity can be particularly challenging to maintain, as participants might be identifiable simply based on the nature of their experiences or roles.

In response to these challenges, it's important for researchers to have open and ongoing discussions with participants about privacy and confidentiality issues. They should negotiate what information is off-limits and continuously seek consent as more personal or sensitive data emerges. Researchers need to strike a balance between providing a rich, detailed account of the data and protecting their participants' identities.

The establishment of trust in the researcher-participant relationship is a fundamental aspect of qualitative research. Trust can influence the quality and depth of the data gathered, as participants are more likely to share honest and detailed information if they trust the researcher.

The importance of trust in qualitative research

Trust is foundational to successful qualitative research. Researchers often delve into personal, sometimes sensitive, topics. As a result, the participants' willingness to share depends largely on the level of trust established between them and the researcher. Trust can enhance participant engagement and willingness to participate, which can, in turn, enrich the quality of the data gathered. Moreover, the ethical integrity of the research process is often judged by the degree of trust that participants place in researchers.

Strategies to build and maintain trust

Building and maintaining trust with research subjects requires careful attention and ongoing effort. The process typically begins with clear, transparent communication about the research purpose, procedures, benefits, and risks, which can foster initial trust.

A key strategy for building trust is demonstrating respect for participants and their experiences. This includes honoring their time, listening carefully to their responses, and validating their experiences and feelings. Showing empathy and understanding can also enhance trust, particularly when discussing sensitive topics.

Additionally, maintaining confidentiality , as discussed in the previous section, is crucial for building and maintaining trust. If participants are confident that their information will be kept confidential, they are more likely to trust the researcher and share openly.

Ensuring that the research benefits the participants or their community in some way can also contribute to trust. This could include producing knowledge that addresses a community concern, providing a platform for participants' voices to be heard, or translating research findings into actions or interventions that benefit the participants.

Consequences of trust violation

Violations of trust can have severe consequences in qualitative research . Participants may withdraw from the study, refuse to provide further information, or provide false or misleading information. Trust violations can also harm the reputation of the researcher and their institution, impede future research efforts, and, in some cases, could lead to formal complaints or legal action.

Thus, it's essential for researchers to be aware of the importance of trust and make conscious efforts to build and maintain it throughout the research process. By doing so, they can foster more meaningful and productive relationships with their participants, leading to richer data and more impactful research findings.

Vulnerability and power dynamics in qualitative research

In qualitative research, it is crucial to recognize and address the potential vulnerability of participants and the power dynamics that exist between researchers and participants. These issues are at the heart of many ethical considerations in research.

Vulnerable populations in qualitative research

Vulnerable populations in research refer to groups of individuals who may be at a higher risk of exploitation or harm due to certain characteristics or circumstances. These might include children, older adults, prisoners, people with cognitive or mental health impairments, people with low socio-economic status, or people experiencing homelessness, among others.

Vulnerable individuals may have limited autonomy, be less able to understand or consent to research participation, or be more susceptible to harm from the research. Researchers need to exercise particular care when including vulnerable individuals in research to ensure that they are not exploited and that their rights and welfare are protected. As a general rule, protecting the rights and agency of vulnerable groups takes priority over data collection.

Power dynamics between researchers and participants

Power dynamics in qualitative research refer to the imbalance of power that often exists between researchers and participants. Researchers usually hold a position of power in the research relationship, as they determine the research design, control the data collection and analysis process, and decide how the findings are reported. This power imbalance can influence participants' experiences and responses in the research and can potentially lead to exploitation or harm.

For instance, participants might feel pressured to participate in the research, to answer questions they are uncomfortable with, or to disclose more information than they would like, due to the perceived power of the researcher. They might also fear potential repercussions if they withdraw from the research or provide negative feedback.

Strategies for minimizing power imbalances

To minimize power imbalances, researchers can adopt several strategies. These can include involving participants in the research process, known as participatory research methods. For instance, researchers can involve participants in designing the research questions, selecting the methods, analyzing the data, or disseminating the findings.

Researchers can also aim for transparency in all research procedures, continually inform participants of their rights, and reinforce the voluntary nature of participation. It's also crucial to approach participants with respect and humility, acknowledging their expertise in their own experiences and valuing their contributions to the research.

Moreover, in the case of vulnerable populations, additional safeguards might be necessary. These could include obtaining consent from a legally authorized representative, using simplified language or visual aids to explain the research, ensuring that participation does not exacerbate the individuals' vulnerability, and providing additional support or resources as needed.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), or Ethics Review Boards, are formal ethics committees that review all research involving human subjects. The aim of these committees is to ensure that the proposed research studies adhere to ethical guidelines regarding human subjects protection. An ethics committee protects the rights, safety, and well-being of the participants in research. Navigating the review process can be complex, but understanding its purpose and procedures can help researchers to ensure their studies meet the necessary ethical standards.

Purpose of the ethics review board

The primary purpose of an ethics review board is to protect human subjects from potential harm. Boards review research proposals to ensure that the studies are designed and will be conducted ethically, respecting the principles of informed consent , confidentiality , and protection of vulnerable populations, among others. They also aim to ensure that the potential benefits of the research outweigh any risks to participants.

Getting ethical approval for your study

To prepare for a review from an institutional review board, researchers should familiarize themselves with the specific guidelines and procedures of their institution's review board. This usually involves developing a detailed research proposal that outlines the study's purpose, methods , participant recruitment, consent procedures, data handling practices, and measures to protect participants' rights and welfare.

Researchers should also prepare to address potential ethical issues that might arise in their study. This involves thinking through potential risks to participants, how these risks will be mitigated, and how any unexpected ethical issues will be handled.

The review process and responding to feedback

Once a research proposal is submitted to the ethics review board, it undergoes a process of review. The board members assess the proposal for potential ethical issues and decide whether to approve the study, request modifications, or reject the study. This process can take several weeks or months and may involve several rounds of feedback and revisions.

If the board requires modifications, researchers should carefully review the feedback, make the necessary changes to their proposal, and provide a clear rationale for these changes when resubmitting the proposal. It's important to view this process as a constructive dialogue aimed at enhancing the ethical quality of the research rather than a hurdle to overcome.

Conducting the study and post-study considerations

Once the study is approved, researchers should conduct the study as outlined in their approved proposal. Any significant changes to the study design or procedures should be reported to and approved by the review board.

After the study is completed, researchers may need to submit a final report to the review board, outlining how the study was conducted and how any ethical issues were handled. Researchers should also be prepared to address any ethical issues that arise during data analysis, reporting, or dissemination and may need to seek further guidance from the review board in these cases.

Let ATLAS.ti help you with conducting research

From proposal to findings, ATLAS.ti gives you the research instruments you need. Download a free trial today.

Principles of Social Research Methodology pp 263–277 Cite as

Designing a Research Proposal in Qualitative Research

• Md. Ismail Hossain 4 ,
• Nafiul Mehedi 4 &
• Iftakhar Ahmad 4  
• First Online: 27 October 2022

2109 Accesses

The chapter discusses designing a research proposal in qualitative research. The main objective is to outline the major components of a qualitative research proposal with example(s) so that the students and novice scholars easily get an understanding of a qualitative proposal. The chapter highlights the major components of a qualitative research proposal and discusses the steps involved in designing a proposal. In each step, an example is given with some essential tips. Following these steps and tips, a novice researcher can easily prepare a qualitative research proposal. Readers, especially undergraduate and master’s students, might use this as a guideline while preparing a thesis proposal. After reading this chapter, they can easily prepare a qualitative proposal.

• Social research
• Research proposal
• Qualitative research
• University students

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Abdulai, R. T., & Owusu-Ansah, A. (2014). Essential ingredients of a good research proposal for undergraduate and postgraduate students in the social sciences. SAGE Open, 4 (3), 2158244014548178.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad, S., Wasim, S., Irfan, S., Gogoi, S., Srivastava, A., & Farheen, Z. (2019). Qualitative versus quantitative research. Population, 1 , 2.

Google Scholar  

Al-Riyami, A. (2008). How to prepare a research proposal. Oman Medical Journal, 23 (2), 66.

Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research? Qualitative Sociology, 42 (2), 139–160.

Balakumar, P., Inamdar, M. N., & Jagadeesh, G. (2013). The critical steps for successful research: The research proposal and scientific writing (A report on the pre-conference workshop held in conjunction with the 64th annual conference of the Indian Pharmaceutical Congress-2012). Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, 4 (2), 130.

Becker, H. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby & R. A Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry .

Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research . Los Angeles Sage Publications.

Bryman, A., Bresnen, M., Beardsworth, A., & Keil, T. (1988). Qualitative research and the study of leadership. Human Relations, 41 (1), 13–29.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (2015). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Ravenio Books.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approach . London: Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th Edn.). London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Davis, B. (2021). What is the scope of the study in research proposal? Retrieved from https://www.mvorganizing.org/what-is-the-scope-of-the-study-in-research-proposal-4/#What_are_strengths_and_limitations . Accessed on August 28, 2021.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

DJS Research. (2021). Qualitative research design . Retrieved from https://www.djsresearch.co.uk/glossary/item/Qualitative-Research-Design . Accessed on September 12, 2021.

Durrheim, K. (2006). Research design. In M. T. Blanche, M. J. T. Blanche, K. Durrheim, & D. Painter (Eds.), Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 33–59). Juta and Company Ltd.

Editage Insights. (2019). How do I present the scope of my study? Retrieved from https://www.editage.com/insights/how-do-i-present-scope-of-my-study . Accessed on August 31, 2021.

Fry, J., Scammell, J., & Barker, S. (2017). Drowning in muddied waters or swimming downstream? A critical analysis of literature reviewing in a phenomenological study through an exploration of the lifeworld, reflexivity and role of the researcher. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology , 17 (1).

Grove, S. K., Burns, N., & Gray, J. (2012). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence . Elsevier Health Sciences.

Islam, M. R. (2019). Designing a Ph.D. proposal in qualitative research. In Social research methodology and new techniques in analysis, interpretation, and writing (pp. 1–22). IGI Global.

James, N., & Busher, H. (2009). Epistemological dimensions in qualitative research: The construction of knowledge online. SAGE Internet Research Methods , 5–18.

Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods. Second . Oxford University Press.

Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1996). The purpose of qualitative research. In Nursing research (pp. 1–17). Springer.

Mouton, J., & Marais, H. C. (1990). Basic concepts in the methodology of the social sciences (Revised). Human Sciences Research Council.

Parahoo, K. (2014). Nursing research: principles, process and issues (3rd ed.). Palgrave.

Pathak, V., Jena, B., & Kalra, S. (2013). Qualitative research. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4 (3), 192. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.115389

Patton, A. J. (2001). Modelling time-varying exchange rate dependence using the conditional copula.

Pietilä, A. M., Nurmi, S. M., Halkoaho, A., & Kyngäs, H. (2020). Qualitative research: Ethical considerations. In The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 49–69). Springer.

Rosenthal, M. (2016). Qualitative research methods: Why, when, and how to conduct interviews and focus groups in pharmacy research. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8 (4), 509–516.

Russell, C. K., & Gregory, D. M. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research studies. Evidence-Based Nursing, 6 (2), 36–40.

Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 781–820.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research . Sage publications.

Walker, W. (2007). Ethical considerations in phenomenological research. Nurse researcher , 14 (3).

Wilson, A. (2015). A guide to phenomenological research. Nursing Standard, 29 (34), 38–43.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh

Md. Ismail Hossain, Nafiul Mehedi & Iftakhar Ahmad

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md. Ismail Hossain .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

M. Rezaul Islam

Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Niaz Ahmed Khan

Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rajendra Baikady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Hossain, M.I., Mehedi, N., Ahmad, I. (2022). Designing a Research Proposal in Qualitative Research. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_18

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• The Open University
• Guest user / Sign out
• Study with The Open University

My OpenLearn Profile

Personalise your OpenLearn profile, save your favourite content and get recognition for your learning

Addressing ethical issues in your research proposal

This article explores the ethical issues that may arise in your proposed study during your doctoral research degree.

What ethical principles apply when planning and conducting research?

Research ethics are the moral principles that govern how researchers conduct their studies (Wellcome Trust, 2014). As there are elements of uncertainty and risk involved in any study, every researcher has to consider how they can uphold these ethical principles and conduct the research in a way that protects the interests and welfare of participants and other stakeholders (such as organisations).  

You will need to consider the ethical issues that might arise in your proposed study. Consideration of the fundamental ethical principles that underpin all research will help you to identify the key issues and how these could be addressed. As you are probably a practitioner who wants to undertake research within your workplace, consider how your role as an ‘insider’ influences how you will conduct your study. Think about the ethical issues that might arise when you become an insider researcher (for example, relating to trust, confidentiality and anonymity).  

What key ethical principles do you think will be important when planning or conducting your research, particularly as an insider? Principles that come to mind might include autonomy, respect, dignity, privacy, informed consent and confidentiality. You may also have identified principles such as competence, integrity, wellbeing, justice and non-discrimination.  

Key ethical issues that you will address as an insider researcher include:

• Gaining trust
• Avoiding coercion when recruiting colleagues or other participants (such as students or service users)
• Practical challenges relating to ensuring the confidentiality and anonymity of organisations and staff or other participants.

(Heslop et al, 2018)

A fuller discussion of ethical principles is available from the British Psychological Society’s Code of Human Research Ethics (BPS, 2021).

You can also refer to guidance from the British Educational Research Association and the British Association for Applied Linguistics .

Ethical principles are essential for protecting the interests of research participants, including maximising the benefits and minimising any risks associated with taking part in a study. These principles describe ethical conduct which reflects the integrity of the researcher, promotes the wellbeing of participants and ensures high-quality research is conducted (Health Research Authority, 2022).  

Research ethics is therefore not simply about gaining ethical approval for your study to be conducted. Research ethics relates to your moral conduct as a doctoral researcher and will apply throughout your study from design to dissemination (British Psychological Society, 2021). When you apply to undertake a doctorate, you will need to clearly indicate in your proposal that you understand these ethical principles and are committed to upholding them.  

Where can I find ethical guidance and resources? 

Professional bodies, learned societies, health and social care authorities, academic publications, Research Ethics Committees and research organisations provide a range of ethical guidance and resources. International codes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights underpin ethical frameworks (United Nations, 1948).  

You may be aware of key legislation in your own country or the country where you plan to undertake the research, including laws relating to consent, data protection and decision-making capacity, for example, the Data Protection Act, 2018 (UK).  If you want to find out more about becoming an ethical researcher, check out this Open University short course: Becoming an ethical researcher: Introduction and guidance: What is a badged course? - OpenLearn - Open University  

You should be able to justify the research decisions you make. Utilising these resources will guide your ethical judgements when writing your proposal and ultimately when designing and conducting your research study. The Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (British Educational Research Association, 2018) identifies the key responsibilities you will have when you conduct your research, including the range of stakeholders that you will have responsibilities to, as follows:   

• to your participants (e.g. to appropriately inform them, facilitate their participation and support them)
• clients, stakeholders and sponsors
• the community of educational or health and social care researchers
• for publication and dissemination
• your wellbeing and development

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (no date) has emphasised the need to promote equality, diversity and inclusion when undertaking research, particularly to address long-standing social and health inequalities. Research should be informed by the diversity of people’s experiences and insights, so that it will lead to the development of practice that addresses genuine need. A commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion aims to eradicate prejudice and discrimination on the basis of an individual or group of individuals' protected characteristics such as sex (gender), disability, race, sexual orientation, in line with the Equality Act 2010.  

The NIHR has produced guidance for enhancing the inclusion of ‘under-served groups’ when designing a research study (2020). Although the guidance refers to clinical research it is relevant to research more broadly.  

You should consider how you will promote equality and diversity in your planned study, including through aspects such as your research topic or question, the methodology you will use, the participants you plan to recruit and how you will analyse and interpret your data.    

What ethical issues do I need to consider when writing my research proposal?

You might be planning to undertake research in a health, social care, educational or other setting, including observations and interviews. The following prompts should help you to identify key ethical issues that you need to bear in mind when undertaking research in such settings.  

1.     Imagine you are a potential participant. Think about the questions and concerns that you might have:

• How would you feel if a researcher sat in your space and took notes, completed a checklist, or made an audio or film recording?
• What harm might a researcher cause by observing or interviewing you and others?
• What would you want to know about the researcher and ask them about the study before giving consent?
• When imagining you are the participant, how could the researcher make you feel more comfortable to be observed or interviewed? 

2.     Having considered the perspective of your potential participant, how would you take account of concerns such as privacy, consent, wellbeing and power in your research proposal?  

[Adapted from OpenLearn course: Becoming an ethical researcher, Week 2 Activity 3: Becoming an ethical researcher - OpenLearn - Open University ]  

The ethical issues to be considered will vary depending on your organisational context/role, the types of participants you plan to recruit (for example, children, adults with mental health problems), the research methods you will use, and the types of data you will collect. You will need to decide how to recruit your participants so you do not inappropriately exclude anyone.  Consider what methods may be necessary to facilitate their voice and how you can obtain their consent to taking part or ensure that consent is obtained from someone else as necessary, for example, a parent in the case of a child. 

You should also think about how to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden or costs on your participants. For example, by minimising the length of time they will have to commit to the study and by providing travel or other expenses. Identify the measures that you will take to store your participants’ data safely and maintain their confidentiality and anonymity when you report your findings. You could do this by storing interview and video recordings in a secure server and anonymising their names and those of their organisations using pseudonyms.  

Professional codes such as the Code of Human Research Ethics (BPS, 2021) provide guidance on undertaking research with children. Being an ‘insider’ researching within your own organisation has advantages. However, you should also consider how this might impact on your research, such as power dynamics, consent, potential bias and any conflict of interest between your professional and researcher roles (Sapiro and Matthews, 2020).  

How have other researchers addressed any ethical challenges?

The literature provides researchers’ accounts explaining how they addressed ethical challenges when undertaking studies. For example, Turcotte-Tremblay and McSween-Cadieux (2018) discuss strategies for protecting participants’ confidentiality when disseminating findings locally, such as undertaking fieldwork in multiple sites and providing findings in a generalised form. In addition, professional guidance includes case studies illustrating how ethical issues can be addressed, including when researching online forums (British Sociological Association, no date).

Watch the videos below and consider what insights the postgraduate researcher and supervisor provide  regarding issues such as being an ‘insider researcher’, power relations, avoiding intrusion, maintaining participant anonymity and complying with research ethics and professional standards. How might their experiences inform the design and conduct of your own study?

Postgraduate researcher and supervisor talk about ethical considerations

Your thoughtful consideration of the ethical issues that might arise and how you would address these should enable you to propose an ethically informed study and conduct it in a responsible, fair and sensitive manner. 

British Educational Research Association (2018)  Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research.  Available at:  https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

British Psychological Society (2021)  Code of Human Research Ethics . Available at:  https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/BPS%20Code%20of%20Human%20Research%20Ethics%20%281%29.pdf  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

British Sociological Association (2016)  Researching online forums . Available at:  https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/24834/j000208_researching_online_forums_-cs1-_v3.pdf  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Health Research Authority (2022)  UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research . Available at:  https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/policies-standards-legislation/uk-policy-framework-health-social-care-research/uk-policy-framework-health-and-social-care-research/#chiefinvestigators  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Heslop, C., Burns, S., Lobo, R. (2018) ‘Managing qualitative research as insider-research in small rural communities’,  Rural and Remote Health , 18: pp. 4576.

Equality Act 2010, c. 15.  Available at:   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/introduction   (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

National Institute for Health and Care Research (no date)  Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) . Available at:  https://arc-kss.nihr.ac.uk/public-and-community-involvement/pcie-guide/how-to-do-pcie/equality-diversity-and-inclusion-edi  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

National Institute for Health and Care Research (2020)  Improving inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research: Guidance from INCLUDE project.  Available at:   https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/improving-inclusion-of-under-served-groups-in-clinical-research-guidance-from-include-project/25435  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Sapiro, B. and Matthews, E. (2020) ‘Both Insider and Outsider. On Conducting Social Work Research in Mental Health Settings’,  Advances in Social Work , 20(3). Available at:  https://doi.org/10.18060/23926

Turcotte-Tremblay, A. and McSween-Cadieux, E. (2018) ‘A reflection on the challenge of protecting confidentiality of participants when disseminating research results locally’,  BMC Medical Ethics,  19(supplement 1), no. 45. Available at:   https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-018-0279-0

United Nations General Assembly (1948)  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Resolution A/RES/217/A. Available at:  https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Drafted%20by%20representatives%20with%20different,all%20peoples%20and%20all%20nations . (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

Wellcome Trust (2014)  Ensuring your research is ethical: A guide for Extended Project Qualification students . Available at:  https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtp057673_0.pdf  (Accessed: 9 June 2023).

More articles from the research proposal collection

Writing your research proposal

A doctoral research degree is the highest academic qualification that a student can achieve. The guidance provided in these articles will help you apply for one of the two main types of research degree offered by The Open University.

Level: 1 Introductory

Defining your research methodology

Your research methodology is the approach you will take to guide your research process and explain why you use particular methods. This article explains more.

Writing your proposal and preparing for your interview

The final article looks at writing your research proposal - from the introduction through to citations and referencing - as well as preparing for your interview.

Free courses on postgraduate study

Are you ready for postgraduate study?

This free course, Are you ready for postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and ensure you are ready to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

Succeeding in postgraduate study

This free course, Succeeding in postgraduate study, will help you to become familiar with the requirements and demands of postgraduate study and to develop the skills and confidence to pursue your learning further.

Applying to study for a PhD in psychology

This free OpenLearn course is for psychology students and graduates who are interested in PhD study at some future point. Even if you have met PhD students and heard about their projects, it is likely that you have only a vague idea of what PhD study entails. This course is intended to give you more information.

Become an OU student

Ratings & comments, share this free course, copyright information, publication details.

• Originally published: Tuesday, 27 June 2023
• Body text - Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 : The Open University
• Image 'Pebbles balance on a stone see-saw' - Copyright: Photo  51106733  /  Balance  ©  Anatoli Styf  |  Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Camera equipment set up filming a man talking' - Copyright: Photo  42631221  ©  Gabriel Robledo  |  Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Applying to study for a PhD in psychology' - Copyright free
• Image 'Succeeding in postgraduate study' - Copyright: © Everste/Getty Images
• Image 'Addressing ethical issues in your research proposal' - Copyright: Photo 50384175 / Children Playing © Lenutaidi | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Writing your proposal and preparing for your interview' - Copyright: Photo 133038259 / Black Student © Fizkes | Dreamstime.com
• Image 'Defining your research methodology' - Copyright free
• Image 'Writing your research proposal' - Copyright free
• Image 'Are you ready for postgraduate study?' - Copyright free

Rate and Review

Rate this article, review this article.

Log into OpenLearn to leave reviews and join in the conversation.

Article reviews

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Statistics for the Public Good

Ethical considerations associated with Qualitative Research methods

Introduction.

This high-level guidance has been developed by the UK Statistics Authority’s Centre for Applied Data Ethics (CADE), and the UK Government Data Quality Hub (DQHub), based at the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The guidance can be used as a practical resource to help researchers identify different ethical issues when conducting qualitative research.  

This guidance is not exhaustive but aims to support researchers navigating the ethical issues surrounding qualitative research projects (particularly in relation to primary data collection). It brings together existing literature on qualitative research methods and their ethical concerns. Links to further resources are provided if you would like to read about aspects in more detail.  

The guidance has been created for researchers using qualitative methods within the ONS . However, the ethical considerations discussed, and the mitigations for these, can be more widely applied to all types of qualitative research.  

The guidance is divided into several parts.    

• An introduction to qualitative research and why ethics matters in this space.   
• An overview of some of the ethical considerations associated with qualitative research methods, and some potential mitigations for these issues. This includes an overview of some of the qualitative methods used within the ONS.  
• An ethics checklist which summarises the main points covered in this guidance.    
• A list of helpful links to further resources.   

No internet connection.

All search filters on the page have been cleared., your search has been saved..

• All content
• Dictionaries
• Encyclopedias
• Expert Insights
• Foundations
• How-to Guides
• Journal Articles
• Little Blue Books
• Little Green Books
• Project Planner
• Tools Directory
• Sign in to my profile My Profile

• Sign in Signed in
• My profile My Profile

• FOUNDATION ENTRY Transparency in Qualitative Research
• FOUNDATION ENTRY Vulnerable Informants
• FOUNDATION ENTRY Dangerous Fieldwork
• FOUNDATION ENTRY Access to Information and Freedom of Information Requests as Social Science Data
• FOUNDATION ENTRY Ethics of Qualitative Research
• FOUNDATION ENTRY Covert Research

Discover method in the Methods Map

Ethics of qualitative research.

• By: Martin Tolich & Ron Iphofen | Edited by: Paul Atkinson, Sara Delamont, Alexandru Cernat, Joseph W. Sakshaug & Richard A.Williams
• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Publication year: 2019
• Online pub date: September 17, 2019
• Discipline: Anthropology , Business and Management , Communication and Media Studies , Computer Science , Counseling and Psychotherapy , Criminology and Criminal Justice , Economics , Education , Engineering , Geography , Health , History , Marketing , Mathematics , Medicine , Nursing , Political Science and International Relations , Psychology , Social Policy and Public Policy , Science , Social Work , Sociology , Technology
• Methods: Qualitative data collection , Research ethics , Quantitative data collection
• Length: 10k+ Words
• DOI: https:// doi. org/10.4135/9781526421036745030
• Online ISBN: 9781529745092 More information Less information
• What's Next

Qualitative research ethics are more complex than biomedical research ethics. Qualitative research’s starting point is not found in implied informed consent and ethical assurances that limit a researcher/subject relationship to the few moments beyond completing a survey. Quite the opposite: when subjects agree to participate in a qualitative research project, either by signing a consent form or by consenting orally, they establish a convoluted set of ethical assurances that are not fleeting. By signing a consent form to take part in a qualitative research project, the subject accepts a set of ethical assurances offered by the researcher that are enduring; these assurances are diverse and technique-specific, each with their own variant of ethical issues. Two of the most common techniques qualitative researchers use are one-to-one unstructured interviews and focus groups . Both techniques ask open-ended questions and often collect data via audio recording, yet their ethical practice is dissimilar. Whereas one-on-one interviews can offer strong ethical assurances since the interviewee has opportunities to withdraw remarks during the interview, focus group participants’ opinions are made in public and cannot be unsaid. Qualitative research’s unique emergent research design and diversity of practice (e.g., photovoice, autoethnography, narrative) are so individualised they prove problematic for how institutional review boards appraise them, evaluating only the procedural ethical considerations of a project, not its emergent ethics in practice. The immersive nature of their research requires emotional, political and personal responsiveness often expressed by the exhortation to “reflexivity.”

Introduction: Qualitative Research as Necessarily Ethical

In some respects, the very phrase qualitative research is misleading. It is an umbrella term that relates to specific methods for accessing information (or data) which needs manipulating in some way so that it (they) can be used to enhance understanding or for social action. Qualitative research refers to the methods by which those data are interpreted qualitatively —generated, coded, and analysed in a subjectively meaningful way. The data of interest include observed behaviour, norms, customs, attitudes, habits, communications forms, stated opinions, and so on. This kind of research relates to qualitative data analysis that distinguishes it from quantitative research. Instead of counting—turning the data into numbers—the aim is to remain close to the “quality” of those data, their subjective meanings, and the authentic meanings such data have for the people who generated or used them. It is that “closeness” to the subject, its meaningful nature, that makes qualitative research essentially ethical. Such data are valued by the people who “made” them and if researchers are to honour those values, their work must remain fundamentally ethical—those values must be to some degree shared with their subjects.

Qualitative data analysis might focus on description and/or explanation or on theory emergence or testing. There is a wide range of theoretical approaches and methods available to qualitative data analysis from ethnography, anthropology, ethology, phenomenology, hermeneutics, to symbolic interactionism, among others. The choice of the approach will be based on factors such as the precise research focus, the researcher’s abilities and background, the time available, and, possibly, the funders’ priorities. Decisions have to be made about the particular questions the researcher is interested in and the depth of the analysis that is required. At each stage of data collection and analysis, key ethical questions must be addressed: Why this group or this person rather than another? What elements of discourse should be attended to—talk or text or both? What rhetorical strategies are in operation to achieve what ends? How visible are such strategies or themes and how visible should the research process make them? How different are the researcher’s codes, concepts, categories, or themes from the people who generated them? All of these are both methodological and ethical issues.

The distinctions often assumed between qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis are crude. Certainly qualitative research demands more subtle, sustained, and humanistic consideration of ethical issues. But it is dangerous to assume that quantitative approaches have less reason to be concerned about, say, the vulnerability of their subjects, their sensitivity to certain issues, the complex distinctions between anonymity and confidentiality and being ready for unanticipated events during the research engagement. Both approaches must remain alert to these concerns. Nonetheless this article seeks to outline the main ethical challenges to be confronted by qualitative research in particular, some of the noted “scandals” it has generated and some of the proposed solutions to the challenges. Qualitative research is complex, multilayered, and nonlinear—much more interactive in relation to its subjects, that is, the people from whom the data are sought.

Subjects, Informants, Participants, Respondents, or Coresearchers

Using the term subject here, for the people being studied, may be seen as controversial by many qualitative researchers. Its use is a political act. The usual label applied to those being studied in qualitative research is permissive—either “informant” or “participant”—drawing attention to the participatory nature of qualitative research data collection. Using the term subject takes as a starting point the power inequality that exists between a researcher and those who volunteer to be studied, and given this assumption, the qualitative researcher is responsible for protecting the subject from harm for an unspecified period of time. Judy Stacey (1988, p. 24) captures this precarious uncertainty profoundly as:

[T]he irony I now perceive is that ethnographic method exposes subjects to far greater danger and exploitation than do more positivist, abstract, and “masculinist” research methods. The greater the intimacy, the apparent mutuality of the researcher/researched relationship, the greater is the danger.

Stacey’s admission that qualitative research poses a greater threat than more positivist methods is prescient; yet the danger is manageable if further unique qualities of how qualitative researchers practice their ethical responsibilities are acknowledged. Usually they are not, and qualitative researchers are at times subsumed within generic, biomedically inspired research ethics that colonise key ethical concepts like informed consent or confidentiality and anonymity. How these concepts are practiced by qualitative researchers is uniquely different. For example, recurrent dangers exposed when examining the history of qualitative research cohere around its failure to exact the nuances of how qualitative researchers practice confidentiality and informed consent. Confidentiality can be a stout concept yet easily undermined by the recruitment of persons relational to each other. Much of the danger that Stacey warns of is embedded in a protracted, flexible, and dynamic consent process.

In quantitative data collection (such as in a questionnaire-based survey), a participant information sheet advises respondents that completing the questionnaire implies informed consent. As there is no written consent form for the respondent to sign to identifiably archive their participation, the data provided to the researcher for analysis come from sources that become “unknown” and thus, in this context, the absence of an ongoing relationship between the parties is seen to be a sound ethical assurance. Once the survey is submitted online or via mail, neither the researcher nor the respondent can retract data that have now become impersonal.

Qualitative research ethics is more complex. Qualitative research’s starting point is not found in implied informed consent and ethical assurances that limit a researcher–subject relationship to the few moments beyond completing a survey. Quite the opposite: When subjects agree to participate in a qualitative research project, either by signing a consent form physically or by consenting orally, they are given a sophisticated array of ethical agreements that endure. These assurances include confidentiality and a promise to do no harm that remain valid for as long as each party is alive. When orally consenting, a bond of mutual trust is established between them both. And if the subjects’ participation is so comprehensive that they can be deemed a coresearcher, they must assume a mutual responsibility for the intellectual property entailed and ensuring outcomes.

Some Background Historiography

Many of the issues adumbrated in the previous section can be seen in the early developments of qualitative enquiry. The positivist approach that came to dominate the social and behavioural sciences towards the end of the 19th and into the early 20th century grew from an attempt to secure their respectability and credibility within the academic and scientific community. Positivism emulated the assumptions and methods of the natural sciences. More humanistic approaches were pushed into the background. It was seen to be important to measure, count, and statistically test phenomena and to conduct experimental or quasi-experimental studies to further replicate the procedures of the natural sciences. Economics and psychology adopted positivism readily, while sociology had some ambivalence throughout the 20th century. In terms of research ethics, this led to assumptions that quantitative and experimental methods could be more detached and objective and less prone to “intruding” into the communities and societies under study.

Revivals in more humanistic social science supporting more qualitative enquiry have taken place periodically through the 20th century as it became appreciated that, unless research “intrudes,” the more meaningful aspects of people’s lives are missed or misunderstood. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Chicago School made a profound contribution to this approach. The late 1950s to early 1980s saw a growth of theoretical perspectives that required qualitative research methods—ethnography, ethnomethodology, and phenomenology. Erving Goffman’s 1956 ethnography of the Shetland Islands and Howard S. Becker’s 1963 study of dance band musicians and their marijuana use became classic examples of qualitative research. The researcher’s personal investment in the research engagement can vary greatly in qualitative research. But all require some element of intrusion. Ann Oakley’s 1999 critique of positivism led to a more egalitarian, participant-led research, allowing an emergent research problem to develop that eventually generated its own ethical assurances as an ethics of care. From a feminist perspective, it became important to show that women’s lives were not invisible and inconsequential. Employing in-depth interviewing Oakley, in The Sociology of Housework (1974), had generated personal narratives about experiences which, at the time, were viewed within mainstream social science (and society more generally) as unimportant, being private, domestic, and belonging to women’s lives. This work fed into an emerging and highly vocal literature on social science and women, within which qualitative research came to be highlighted quite unambiguously as the preferred paradigm.

From a range of theoretical perspectives, then, the emergent methods favourable to qualitative enquiry were all ones that increasingly posed ethical challenges: face-to-face unstructured interviewing, participant and/or covert observation, group interviews/focus groups, conversation analysis, discourse and narrative analysis, and life history—all required an intimacy with, and a proximity to, research subjects’ lives that positivist methods renounced. When you ask someone what their words and/or their actions mean, or even when you observe and attempt to interpret such actions without asking them, you are taking several major ethical steps.

Qualitative Research Ethics

Unique history, unique concepts.

Promoting qualitative research as a unique entity entails treating its history as sufficiently robust that its historical missteps are self-representative. Ironically, in her text on qualitative research ethics, Rose Wiles (2013) benchmarks Stanly Milgram’s obedience to authority studies (1974), Philip Zimbardo’s prisoner experiments (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973) and Laud Humphreys’s (1970) study of homosexual encounters in public places as the classic horror stories, yet only Humphreys could be designated a fully qualitative researcher because the other studies had an experimental design. Other than his covert collection of licence plates used to track down the home address of these men, there is much to applaud the ethics in Humphreys’ research (Babbie, 2004). Many of the problems identified later in examining ethical dilemmas historically in qualitative research are linked to confidentiality and naive attempts by sociologists and anthropologists to anonymise data using pseudonyms. Invariably when these qualitative researchers fell afoul ethically, they misread the concept of confidentiality and groups of subjects (i.e., workplaces, villages, friends) were harmed. To that end, some have asserted that the concept of anonymity should be deleted from the qualitative research ethics lexicon, arguing that the use and advocacy of pseudonyms is reckless and unethical.

A review of other missteps in the history of qualitative research reveals that breaches of confidentiality are not uncommon especially when reliant on pseudonyms (see Ellis, 1995; Vidich & Bensman, 1968). In Whyte’s original research on street corner life in an Italian slum (1943/1981), pseudonyms were given to the region (Cornerville) and its inhabitants (e.g., “Doc”) in an attempt to promote confidentiality. The appendix of his 1981 edition captures the everyday world of doing ethnographic study but also provides an insight into the harm caused by breaches of confidentiality. Participants told Whyte about how insiders recognised themselves and other insiders in the pseudonyms used in the text:

Pecci (Doc) did everything he could to discourage local reading of the book for the possible embarrassment it might cause a number of individuals, including himself. (1981, p. 347)

Despite promises of confidentiality, when his participants read the book they saw themselves and those close to them in it. A similar breach of confidentiality occurs in an anthropological study in a rural U.S. town caused anger and dissension among those whom they studied. James Muchmore (2002) reports:

When the [anthropology] book was published, many townspeople were highly disturbed to see some of the most intimate details of their lives recorded in print. Even though the author had attempted to protect his informants by using pseudonyms, their true identities were easily recognizable to anyone familiar with the area. Fifteen years later, another anthropologist who visited the town was surprised to discover that the local library’s copy of the book had the real names of all the individuals pencilled in next to their pseudonyms. Even after all those years, some of the community members were still visibly upset about the ways in which they had been portrayed.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes (1979) studied the mental health of people in an isolated Irish village. The author found on her return to the village some years later that her use of pseudonyms had not been an effective form of confidentiality. Eventually the villagers “ran her out of town.” Scheper-Hughes (2000) reminisces:

I would be inclined to avoid the “cute” and “conventional” use of pseudonyms. Nor would I attempt to scramble certain identifying features of the individuals portrayed on the naive assumption that these masks and disguises could not be rather easily de-coded by villagers themselves. (p. 128)

Confidentiality refers to both the identity of the person and the information disclosed. However, there is a major relational caveat that undermines this assurance and it involves how other participants share a relationship to the person being interviewed. Distinguishing between external confidentiality and internal confidentiality, Martin Tolich (2004) reveals a major threat to confidentiality in qualitative research ethics. External confidentiality is traditional confidentiality: The researcher knows the name of the quoted person and what they said but promises not to tell other persons the identity of the person when reporting this information. But if a researcher interviews friends of the participant, family members, fellow workers or a member of their small town—as Whyte and Scheper-Hughes did—the threat to confidentiality is sourced not by strangers but fellow residents/occupants/workers. Each of these can identify themselves and by default others. Such individuals might not have agreed to nondisclosure.

Similar Techniques, Diverse Practices

Two of the most common techniques qualitative researchers use are one-to-one unstructured interviews and focus groups . Both techniques ask open-ended questions and often collect data via audio recording, yet their ethical practice is dissimilar. One-on-one interviews can offer strong ethical assurances since the interviewee has opportunities to withdraw remarks during the interview or if the participant reads a postinterview transcript, they can ask for deletions of their remarks. As the researcher is the only person present, they can more readily promise confidentiality not to tell another person either that the participant took part in the research or what the participant said. In focus groups, verbal statements cannot be taken back since they were evoked in the presence of others—in some sense already in a public domain. Thus, to use the word confidentiality without clarification may be taken as offering a participant layperson more than the concept can deliver.

Focus group researchers routinely offer participants other ethical assurances they cannot deliver. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) may be a more useful tool for those involved in focus group research: That is, let the researcher, the subjects, and the reviewing ethics committee beware that the only ethical assurance that can be given to focus group participants is that there are few if any ethical assurances. These ethical dilemmas are not sufficiently realised in the literature or by research ethics committees (Carey & Asbury, 2012), and if researchers address them they are assumed to be dealt with at the last moment within the focus group moderator’s preamble to the group discussion. David Morgan (1998) concedes that relatively little had been written about ethical issues involved in focus groups. This view reflects a consensus that focus groups are innocuous, yet Martha Ann Carey and Jo-Ellen Asbury (2012, p. 22) suggest that research “for very sensitive topics and for some studies with people with specials needs, the focus group facilitator needs skills to monitor the level of discomfort or distress.”

Beyond this courtesy, focus group researchers are limited in what ethical assurances they can offer participants. Confidentiality is outside of their control: Researchers can place few restrictions on focus group members. They hold no sanction over a participant should they reveal outside the focus group what was disclosed by another focus group member. Thus, promises of confidentiality must be limited to the researcher’s commitment that they will not identify any participant or what a particular individual said in any publication. Focus group ethics are contextual. If focus group participants are known to each other—for example, if they are drawn from within the same organization—confidentiality is even more problematic, setting up particular ethical issues. Expect anything said in the focus group to be gossiped outside the focus group. In short, focus groups pose more substantial ethical problems than one-on-one interviews. The following is an example of a warning in a focus group participant information sheet:

Please note there are limits on confidentiality as there are no formal sanctions on other group participants from disclosing your involvement, identity or what you say to others in the focus group. There are risks in taking part in focus group research and taking part assumes that you are willing to assume those risks. (Tolich, 2009)

Reassurances about confidentiality are as limited as assurances about informed consent. Focus groups are unwieldy and chaotic. Keeping the group to the original topic or research question may be difficult to sustain, as the questions a researcher asks focus group members are not necessarily the questions that participants answer or wish to answer. During group discussion, people’s views and understandings are shared, debated, challenged, and changed and initial questions recrafted by the group. The group effect means the sheer weight of numbers of those who participate in focus groups can challenge the researcher’s or moderator’s power to set the agenda for debate. Taking part in focus groups involves risk and the participants must have these risks identified for them, explicitly, and then be willing to absorb those risks. To be this honest with subjects would go some ways towards creating a more robust informed consent process. Treating a focus group discussion as a public meeting has yet to become mainstream advice or practice, but it may be good advice given these reservations. In public meetings, participants must take responsibility for their actions.

Narrative researchers also have unique ethical issues and are similar to those of community-based participatory researchers . For example, in both cases when a subject consents to take part in a research project what are they consenting too? Narrative researchers invariably uncover the research problem during, not before, the interviews or the informed consent process as they conduct multiple interviews with the subjects. These staged data collections manifest unique ethical issues for narrative research, few of which researchers can address ahead of time in a fulsome participant information sheet. Ruthellen Josselson (1996, pp. xii–xiii) astutely limits the narrative researchers’ informed consent process warning that “the concept of informed consent is a bit oxymoronic, given that participants can, at the outset, have only the vaguest idea of what they might be consenting to.” Neither researchers nor ethics committees can predict the ethical issues that will develop. Not only does the research question and the ethical issues evolve so too do the roles of the subject from supplier of the data to coauthor.

A fully developed informed consent process with an extensive information sheet and a formalised interview guide may not be in the best interests of narrative researchers who seek a minimalist informed consent process. Justification for this stance is multifaceted: Narrative researchers desire to establish a tabula rasa setting (Sikes, Troyna, & Goodson, 1996), amplifying this uncertainty is the practice of not fully describing the research topic to the participant in advance for fear of producing a leading question; they use the initial interview to vet persons’ capacities to take part in a collaborative multistage research process without describing the process in great detail and routinely they work with a research design where the research question emerges inductively. This minimalist initial informed consent process comes close to a deliberate deception, but it is not an unfathomable problem if the researcher acknowledges the necessary ruse, knowing this omission can be rectified later in the collaborative stages of the research—when all are revealed.

The standard notion of informed consent may need to be nuanced as broad consent. A subject who gives broad consent gifts their data (or human tissue) to the researcher for this immediate research and for any unspecified research in the future. Once donated, the participant abdicates their rights to the data. Broad consent or blanket consent comes close to the ethical guidelines on narrative research put forward by Josselson (2007). Josselson’s (2007, p. 543) practice of informed consent is ephemeral rather than minimalist, given she claims the participant can withdraw from the project at any time. She is candid in her response to this procedure, claiming the subject’s right to withdraw from the research “strikes terror into researchers because it means just what it says.”

Implications for Research Ethics Review

Issues entailed in negotiated relationships with subjects coalesce in terms of the researcher’s relationship with the “procedures” of research ethics review. D. Jean Clandinin and F. Connelly’s (2000) ethics guidelines are widely cited in the narrative literature and are close to Marilys Guillemin and Lynn Gillam’s (2004) views on “ethics in practice” claiming ethical considerations can and must be negotiated throughout the research process. This practice is how Carolyn Ellis (2007, p. 24) defines process consent as when a researcher checks at each stage to make sure participants still want to be part of the project. Process consent is an active form of consent and takes the subject’s right to withdraw beyond a passive construction. Rather than leaving it up to the subject to withdraw at any time, the narrative researcher can repeatedly invite the subject to volunteer to be part of the next phase of the project. Without process consent the right of a subject to withdraw from the research project initially written in a consent form appears to be written in disappearing ink.

As neither an ethics committee nor a researcher can predict the ethical issues arising from narrative research, any risks associated with participation in narrative inquiry need to be borne equally by the researcher and the participant to level the playing field. Accordingly, the use of either broad consent or process consent equalises risk between the researcher and the participant, addressing the unique ethical considerations required by a research discipline that deliberately seeks, for genuine reasons, to establish a passive minimalist informed consent process in recruitment and initial interview phase.

The details of this relationship are embedded in a “fourth question” that ethics review committees should ask but research governance often prohibits for liability reasons. In exploring this relationship, Martin Tolich and Maureen Fitzgerald (2006) claim that ethics review fails to recognise the unique epistemological features of qualitative research. They suggested ethics committees repeatedly attempt to jemmy a square peg into a round hole. A remedy to this epistemological impasse Tolich and Fitzgerald suggest is, if in the formal ethics review process, the researcher is allowed to assume the role of being the expert and the committee adopts the traditional qualitative learner perspective, the review process can be guided by four core open-ended questions that facilitate a fuller and richer exchange of information. The first three standard learner questions an ethics committee must act ask a qualitative researcher are:

• 1. What is the research project about?
• 2. What ethical issues does the researcher believe are raised by this project?
• 3. How does the researcher plan to address these ethical problems?

Question 4 is an open-ended question put to the applicant based on the assumption that the research problem is emergent and many of a qualitative researcher’s ethical issues are unknown at the point of final ethics approval:

• 1. What contingencies are in place if the research project changes its focus after the research has been approved and has begun?

This builds on the assumption that a qualitative research project is not linear but iterative and evolving. Question 4 embeds the assumption that qualitative research is highly likely to change in design as the research problem develops and asks how the researcher plans to modify or adapt the research as it unfolds. Ethics committees self-censor themselves from asking that question since it qualifies the answers to the first three questions and challenges their accountability. It is for such reasons that it has been argued that research ethics review committees should be more transparent about their limitations and should ensure their membership includes researchers with some insight into the exigencies of the qualitative research process: “Ethics committees can tend to become principlist in their approach to ethics—adopting certain moral philosophies or standpoints in a ‘purist’ manner instead of the more pragmatic ethical pluralism required of empirical research” (Iphofen, 2011, chapter 13, p. 170).

Like narrative research, community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a chicken-and-egg situation that does not neatly fit within a procedural ethics temporal dimension. The conundrum here is who has the ability and the insights to create and modify the research question? In CBPR, does the researcher seek ethics review from an ethics committee with a fully elaborated research question or does the researcher wait to meet the community and together they begin this enhanced collaboration to decide the nature of the research question. In CBPR, this is a pivotal question and the source of its chief grievance with ethics committees and vice versa.

Challenges of Methodological Innovation

Photovoice (Wang, Burris, & Xiang, 1996) is a powerful inductive medium generating rich data from naive participants, sometimes children, who are asked to characterise their world through photographs, and later give voice or meaning to what those photographs represent to them. It is a relatively novel participatory action research method enabling researchers to assess the strengths and concerns of their community and communicate their views to policy makers. Photovoice recruited participants as young as 12 years old—yet Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris (1994) provided unequivocal ethical advice for those wanting to participate. Before those recruited photograph their world, photovoice researchers anticipate ethics: They explain the power of the camera (deemphasizing the necessity of spontaneous photographs) and the camera’s ability to invade others’ privacy—not just the recruits’. Photovoice’s bottom line ethical consideration is that no photograph is worth harming others, and all steps to recognise and minimise potential harm should occur prior to commencement of the research. Like CBPR and narrative research, photovoice routinely acts independently, beyond the bounds of procedural ethics yet these techniques make use of its guidance, no matter how partial or overly biomedically inspired a review. Yet the next three exemplars eschew ethics committee’s oversight, to the detriment of their subjects.

Autoethnography is a qualitative technique that would benefit from the partial benefits of ethics review. Joan Sieber and Tolich (2013) claim autoethnography represented a natural experiment of researching without ethics review. Many who champion autoethnography (Ellis, 2007) vehemently declare autoethnography exempt from procedural ethics. Even though Sieber and Tolich were critical of ethics committee review processes for the social sciences, they saw benefit from ethics oversight as this initial review acknowledged that autoethnographers needed to plan to be ethical in the field. Authoethnographers were not always aware that they do not own their story just because they lived it or authored it. Others mentioned in the story—family, friends, and coworkers—also have rights to ethical assurances, and autoethnographers must anticipate ethical questions on behalf of these others. Heewong Chang’s Autoethnography as Method raises the same concern about autoethnography’s unique ethical position claiming that protecting the privacy of others in autoethnographic stories is much more difficult than in other studies involving human subjects. She stated:

Since most auto ethnographers focus primarily on self, they may feel that ethical issues involving human subjects do not apply to their research design. This assumption is incorrect. Whichever format taken researchers need to keep in mind that other people are always present in self-narratives, either as active participants in the story or as associates in the background. (Chang, 2008, p. 68)

Chang promotes ethics committees as dispassionate bodies capable of protecting both research participants and the researcher themselves—that will depend, of course, on their constituencies and their standard operating practices. Others have made other ethics in practice suggestions for autoethnographers such as not publishing anything they would not show to the other persons mentioned in the text. A second suggestion from Tolich (2010) is for autoethnographers to treat all the persons mentioned in their text as vulnerable including the researcher. Novice autoethnographers should be aware that the topics they choose might harm people, if not immediately, perhaps some time in the future. Like an inked tattoo, posting autoethnography to a website or making it part of curriculum vitae, the marking is permanent. There are no future skin grafts for autoethnographic doctors of philosophy (PhDs), anticipating these types of vulnerability to self is a foundational guideline for autoethnographers.

Autoethnography as Contemporary Exemplar

If autoethnography is one reason to defend the need for research ethics committee review, a second is found in the critique of two recent bestselling ethnographies that took qualitative research sociology into the wider public realm. Although ethics review tends to misunderstand qualitative epistemology and procedural ethics and is, at best, partial and distorted by a devotion to research governance, procedural ethics can provide initial assistance if only to require researchers to practice some form of safe ethics, usually beginning with informed consent. Two ethnographies, by Sudhir Venkatesh (2008) and Alice Goffman (2014), would have benefited from ethics committee review, if only to highlight the expectation that those who are involved in research are informed of the research and given the autonomy to consent. In many ways, these two ethnographies share similarities with autoethnographers who claim they own the story because they write it. Apparently Venkatesh and Goffman own their data, not because their subjects consented to its sharing, but because they collected it. Moreover, these two ethnographies may be indicative of a trend whereby postgraduate students arrive at graduate school with their data already collected, ready to write a dissertation with no evidence of following ethical guidelines.

In 1988, Venkatesh was a postgraduate student in his first semester of graduate school at the University of Chicago when he began studying inner city poverty without any apparent ethical considerations. He turned up one night in a South Chicago high rise and was confronted at knifepoint before being incarcerated by members of the Black Knights gang in a urine-soaked stairwell. Venkatesh was released only when the local drug lord named JT listened as Venkatesh misrepresented his research plans. Venkatesh was writing neither a book nor a dissertation. At the time, Venkatesh was a first-year graduate student completing course work, 4 years away from assembling a dissertation committee and 7 years away from becoming a sociologist with a PhD.

Venkatesh is not an isolated incident. Through On the Run , Goffman (2014) also began her research of inner city residents without explicitly gaining their informed consent or seeking ethics oversight. Her account provides a graphic account of her living in primarily Black neighbourhoods in Philadelphia for 6 years, collecting field notes on their lives, especially about the young men who lived on Sixth Street. As her research evolved from an undergraduate senior thesis to a PhD, the data collection targeted these men’s lives and how the Philadelphia police department deal with inner city Black youth. Goffman describes the ongoing harassment, with the men 24/7 dipping and dodging the police. Collectively, these field notes provided the data for her PhD awarded at Princeton University. The resulting book, published by University of Chicago, was later presented to a mass market by Picador.

Ethical issues do not feature either formally or informally in Goffman’s book. There is no explicit mention that either her undergraduate thesis or her PhD dissertation was reviewed by an institutional review board or ethics committee. Writing in the new inquiry blog ( http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/black-life-annotated/ ), Christina Sharpe (2014) records her concerns about Goffman’s ethical dilemmas.

I am concerned about the risks Goffman’s presence posed to her subjects—increased attention by the police, undue stress on personal lives etc. I am concerned that there is no IRB protocol on file for her undergraduate thesis at the University of Pennsylvania. And while the Princeton IRB protocol on file may be backdated to include the research Goffman did as an undergraduate, that’s an exceptional procedure. I am concerned, but not surprised, that critics have overwhelmingly embraced this book as it abets fantasies of black pathology.

Yet she and Venkatesh and their research subjects would have benefited from ethics review. Postgraduate students have already benefited from these two books (Tolich et al., 2017). Without any formal instruction on research ethics and relying on their own moral compass, postgraduate students read and dissected these two books, identifying where and why the books’ subjects should have been given more ethical assurance than they were given.

A particularly challenging immersive ethnographic/autoethnographic study was the work of Bradley Garrett in studying urban exploration or “place hacking” (e.g., Garrett, 2011). Garrett’s research involved joining (in order to study) a group of place hackers who “invaded” storm drains, sewer networks, cranes, construction scaffolding, derelict mental asylums, decaying Soviet military bases, catacombs not open to the public (Paris and London), tall buildings without permission (the Shard in London and disused Battersea power station chimneys), and the underground transport infrastructure. The methodological justification for joining such a group of urban explorers would be that, given the extent to which their activity involves lawbreaking, the only way to find out more about them (in the interest of advancement of knowledge) would be to actively participate with the group. And there is a lengthy history of such ethnographic engagement and a justificatory rationale which includes the breaking of law—particularly in the case of studying criminal and or socially deviant activity. Much like Goffman and Venkatesh, Garrett appears to adopt a variety of roles in conducting his research—academic, journalist, research student/researcher, author, “reformed archaeologist”—all of them potentially have conflicting motives, goals, and aims.

Garrett was prosecuted for trespass and criminal damage and complained that his research institution had approved, via ethical review, his proposed research. However, approval from an ethics committee, supervisors and examiners does not remove the burden of ethical responsibility from the researcher. Such advisers can only be such since they were not conducting the research in the field and cannot know all that may be occurring in the necessarily fluid research setting. More seriously, all of the work of these adventurous ethnographers excite curiosity above and beyond their intellectual value. The problem arises when the adventure takes on more import than the insights, knowledge, scientific advances to be gained or benefits to society or the community under study. The primary motives for research in social science hold the justifications of advancement of knowledge and the benefits of society and constituent communities. The balance between these is crucial: If knowledge is advanced to the detriment of societal consequences, one would have to judge the value/worth of that knowledge relative to the societal harms caused. Research ethics committees alone may not be best placed to assess that balance.

Codes and Committees

Ethics committees can provide partial assistance when researchers enter the field, but until they ask the fourth question (about what will happen if the research question changes) and, importantly, assume responsibility that unknown ethical issues emerge as “ethics in practice,” qualitative researchers must retain autonomy for the ethical considerations for those who volunteer to take part in their research. Until recently, qualitative researchers would have had little support from formal codes of ethics. For example, the paradigm-making Belmont Report (National Institutes of Health, 1979) was not written with qualitative research in mind. Qualitative research is a nonexistent form of research if “‘research’ designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis, permit conclusions to be drawn, and thereby to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Under this definition, nongeneralizable qualitative research’s emergent research design is not research. In the first Australian National Statement in 1999, qualitative research was defined in terms of what it was not: “Any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification.”

More recently, the 2010 Canadian Second Tri-Council Statement (TCPS 2) on research ethics is more inclusive of qualitative research. TCPS 2 legitimises qualitative research first by recognizing its long history, its theoretical and methodological diversity, and how its domain assumptions are different from those of quantitative research (i.e., generalizability of results is not a concern). Its three-part guidelines begin with a thorough overview of qualitative research epistemology, using terms that are relevant to qualitative research. Part 2 outlines the nature of qualitative research. Part 3 provides an introduction to research ethics review of qualitative research.

The guidelines do not explicitly state that ethics committees find qualitative research difficult to review, but they implicitly led to that conclusion. The inductive nature of qualitative research makes it difficult to describe in advance the scope of the research, as compared to quantitative research which is linear and deductive. To that end, the Canadian guidelines speak directly to two constituencies, researchers and ethics committee members, hinting in nonexplicit terms about the notion of ethics in practice as a responsibility for researchers.

In many cases, despite in-depth, advance preparation, a researcher may not know until the actual data collecting starts just where the search will lead. Indeed, the emergent nature of many qualitative studies makes the establishment of rapport with participants and feelings of interpersonal trust crucial to the generation of questions considered important or interesting by both parties and to the collection of dependable data. Research often becomes a collaborative process negotiated between the participants and the researcher, requiring considerable time spent initially to simply figure out the focus of the research.

The code’s apparent familiarity with the nuances of qualitative research is shown in the start and end points of the research. Research may begin before ethics approval is sought, during an exploratory period when setting up relationships to discuss the feasibility of the research. Additionally, the guidelines break new ground with retrospective approval; data collected during this initial period can be retrospectively approved. This is a radical departure from the norm, as traditional ethics guidelines do not mention this.

The 2012 Ethics Rupture Summit held in Fredericton, New Brunswick (Eastern Canada), involved a gathering of 35 researchers from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, who were committed to enhancing ethical research practice and supporting innovative alternatives to the regulation of research ethics that might achieve this end. Those present wrote the New Brunswick Declaration ( http://the-sra.org.uk/research-ethics/the-new-brunswick-declaration/ ) inclusive of Article 5, which called on signatories to recognise exemplary contributions to research ethics. It states that signatories are committed to ongoing critical analysis of new and revised ethics regulations by highlighting exemplary and innovative research ethics review processes, identifying tensions and contradictions among various elements of research ethics governance, and seeing that every venue devoted to discussing proposed ethics guidelines includes critical analysis.

TCPS 2 may represent the type of ethical guidelines that is applicable for researchers and ethics committees alike, but how important are ethics codes? What is the evidence that other countries will follow the Canadian lead? More importantly, what is the evidence that ethics committees will use them or any code of ethics for that matter? Thus, praise for TCPS 2 should be treated with some caution. The learning from Laura Stark’s (2012) being “behind closed doors” demonstrates how oversight committees are idiosyncratic. In practice, ethics committee members employ warrants and precedents, not ethics codes, to make their decisions. Thus, ethics codes may be exemplary and oversight committees idiosyncratic, but for the most part qualitative researchers must take full responsibility for ethics in practice.

Virtue Ethics in Qualitative Research

Qualitative research depends upon an emergent, subject-led, iterative epistemology whereby research questions develop during, rather than before, the research process. A second core concept is confidentiality. This concept addresses either a robust or a fragile ethical assurance protection. In larger samples, external confidentiality is robust, but in relational groups internal confidentiality’s weakness is acute. The historic missteps discussed herein all demonstrate how when researching villages, workplaces or communes, the publication of qualitative research can lead to embarrassment for subjects with researchers burned in effigy (Vidich & Bensman, 1968) or run out of town (Scheper-Hughes, 1979). The recurrent error these researchers made was believing pseudonyms were a qualitative researcher’s route to anonymity. Yet anonymity is an ephemeral quantitative concept. The relationship between researcher and subject in qualitative research is everything but ephemeral. In small groups, the relationship is in Stacey’s (1988) words The greater the intimacy, the apparent mutuality of the researcher/researched relationship, the greater is the danger .

Qualitative research is unique but its practices are diverse and these lead to individualizsed ethical practice. Photovoice has developed exemplary ethical considerations but others like focus groups are ethical sieves offering many promises but capable of few protections. Autoethnographers do not own their story just because they lived it. Nor do postgraduate students who arrive at graduate school with their data collected own their data. Multistage narrative research’s research design is based on an unfolding research question. CBPR presents as a chicken-and-egg situation: What comes first, the research governance of ethics review or consultation with participants generating the research question? Given the diversity of techniques and how these manifest differently, these ethical considerations must be customised. For example, in focus groups, like any public meeting, it is the speaker who must take responsibility for what they publicly disclose.

Qualitative researchers can never be disinterested—nor should they be. The immersive nature of their research requires emotional, political, and personal responsiveness often expressed by the exhortation to reflexivity. Doing that well requires courage and it requires the ability to assess the full impact of one’s presence on those being studied. That courage is embodied in an honest and transparent commitment to the topic and the subjects in their care. It is clearly both exciting and challenging to conduct qualitative research well. But the temptations of enduring friendships with subjects, as sense of “doing good” and the esteem from political advocacy must all be balanced against the seeking of valid, robust and sustainable knowledge. No one ever said that would be easy.

The definition of qualitative research ethics suggests they draw from the same ethics well that biomedical researchers do but how these considerations are made manifest, recognised and resolved makes them essentially unique. While procedural research ethics review processes may offer useful anticipatory considerations … (an) emergent epistemology makes the researcher not only the research instrument but the person responsible for ethics and the protection of those that volunteer to take part in research. (Iphofen & Tolich, 2018)

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day free trial, more like this, sage recommends.

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

• Sign in/register

Navigating away from this page will delete your results

Please save your results to "My Self-Assessments" in your profile before navigating away from this page.

Sign in to my profile

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Learning Resources have to offer.

You must have a valid academic email address to sign up.

Get off-campus access

• View or download all content my institution has access to.

Sign up for a free trial and experience all Sage Research Methods has to offer.

• view my profile
• view my lists

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on 7 May 2022 by Pritha Bhandari .

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviours, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to:

• Protect the rights of research participants
• Enhance research validity
• Maintain scientific integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research aims with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process, so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

• What the study is about
• The risks and benefits of taking part
• How long the study will take
• Your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information – for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymise data collection. For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymisation is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants, but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study, as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources, counselling, or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine scientific integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information – for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2022, May 07). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 25 March 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/ethical-considerations/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, data collection methods | step-by-step guide & examples, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources.

Join thousands of product people at Insight Out Conf on April 11. Register free.

Insights hub solutions

Analyze data

Uncover deep customer insights with fast, powerful features, store insights, curate and manage insights in one searchable platform, scale research, unlock the potential of customer insights at enterprise scale.

Featured reads

Inspiration

Three things to look forward to at Insight Out

Tips and tricks

Make magic with your customer data in Dovetail

Four ways Dovetail helps Product Managers master continuous product discovery

Events and videos

© Dovetail Research Pty. Ltd.

A guide to ethical considerations in research

Last updated

12 March 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

Whether you are conducting a survey, running focus groups , doing field research, or holding interviews, the chances are participants will be a part of the process.

Taking ethical considerations into account and following all obligations are essential when people are involved in your research. Upholding academic integrity is another crucial ethical concern in all research types. 

So, how can you protect your participants and ensure that your research is ethical? Let’s take a closer look at the ethical considerations in research and the best practices to follow.

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• The importance of ethical research

Research ethics are integral to all forms of research. They help protect participants’ rights, ensure that the research is valid and accurate, and help minimize any risk of harm during the process.

When people are involved in your research, it’s particularly important to consider whether your planned research method follows ethical practices.

You might ask questions such as:

Will our participants be protected?

Is there a risk of any harm?

Are we doing all we can to protect the personal data and information we collect?

Does our study include any bias?

How can we ensure that the results will be accurate and valid?

Will our research impact public safety?

Is there a more ethical way to complete the research?

Conducting research unethically and not protecting participants’ rights can have serious consequences. It can discredit the entire study. Human rights, dignity, and research integrity should all be front of mind when you are conducting research.

• How to conduct ethical research

Before kicking off any project, the entire team must be familiar with ethical best practices. These include the considerations below.

Voluntary participation

In an ethical study, all participants have chosen to be part of the research. They must have voluntarily opted in without any pressure or coercion to do so. They must be aware that they are part of a research study. Their information must not be used against their will. 

To ensure voluntary participation, make it clear at the outset that the person is opting into the process.

While participants may agree to be part of a study for a certain duration, they are allowed to change their minds. Participants must be free to leave or withdraw from the study at any time. They don’t need to give a reason.

Informed consent

Before kicking off any research, it’s also important to gain consent from all participants. This ensures participants are clear that they are part of a research study and understand all of the information related to it.

Gaining informed consent usually involves a written consent form—physical or digital—that participants can sign.

Best practice informed consent generally includes the following:

An explanation of what the study is

The duration of the study

The expectations of participants

Any potential risks

An explanation that participants are free to withdraw at any time

Contact information for the research supervisor

When obtaining informed consent, you should ensure that all parties truly understand what they are signing and their obligations as a participant. There should never be any coercion to sign.

Anonymity is key to ensuring that participants cannot be identified through their data. Personal information includes things like participants’ names, addresses, emails, phone numbers, characteristics, and photos.

However, making information truly anonymous can be challenging, especially if personal information is a necessary part of the research.

To maintain a degree of anonymity, avoid gathering any information you don’t need. This will minimize the risk of participants being identified.

Another useful tool is data pseudonymization, which makes it harder to directly link information to a real person. Data pseudonymization means giving participants fake names or mock information to protect their identity. You could, for example, replace participants’ names with codes.

Confidentiality

Keeping data confidential is a critical aspect of all forms of research. You should communicate to all participants that their information will be protected and then take active steps to ensure that happens.

Data protection has become a serious topic in recent years and should be taken seriously. The more information you gather, the more important it is to heavily protect that data.

There are many ways to protect data, including the following:

Restricted access: Information should only be accessible to the researchers involved in the project to limit the risk of breaches.

Password protection : Information should not be accessible without access via a password that complies with secure password guidelines.

Encrypted data: In this day and age, password protection isn’t usually sufficient. Encrypting the data can help ensure its security.

Data retention: All organizations should uphold a data retention policy whereby data gathered should only be held for a certain period of time. This minimizes the risk of breaches further down the line.

In research where participants are grouped together (such as in focus groups), ask participants not to pass on what has been discussed. This helps maintain the group’s privacy.

Data falsification

Regardless of what your study is about or whether it involves humans, it’s always unethical to falsify data or information. That means editing or changing any data that has been gathered or gathering data in ways that skew the results.

Bias in research is highly problematic and can significantly impact research integrity. Data falsification or misrepresentation can have serious consequences.

Take the case of Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk, for example. Woo-suk, once considered a scientific leader in stem-cell research, was found guilty of fabricating experiments in the field and making ethical violations. Once discovered, he was fired from his role and sentenced to two years in prison.

All conflicts of interest should be declared at the outset to avoid any bias or risk of fabrication in the research process. Data must be collected and recorded accurately, and analysis must be completed impartially.

If conflicts do arise during the study, researchers may need to step back to maintain the study’s integrity. Outsourcing research to neutral third parties is necessary in some cases.

Potential for harm

Another consideration is the potential for harm. When completing research, it’s important to ensure that your participants will be safe throughout the study’s duration. 

Harm during research could occur in many forms.

Physical harm may occur if your participants are asked to perform a physical activity, or if they are involved in a medical study.

Psychological harm can occur if questions or activities involve triggering or sensitive topics, or if participants are asked to complete potentially embarrassing tasks.

Harm can be caused through a data breach or privacy concern.

A study can cause harm if the participants don’t feel comfortable with the study expectations or their supervisors.

Maintaining the physical and mental well-being of all participants throughout studies is an essential aspect of ethical research.

• Gaining ethical approval

Gaining ethical approval may be necessary before conducting some types of research. 

The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advise that approval is likely required for studies involving people.

To gain approval, it’s necessary to submit a proposal to an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The board will check the proposal and ensure that the research aligns with ethical practices. It will allow the project to proceed if it meets requirements.

Not gaining appropriate approval could invalidate your study, so it’s essential to pay attention to all local guidelines and laws.

• The dangers of unethical practices

Not maintaining ethical standards in research isn’t just questionable—it can be dangerous too. Many historical cases show just how widespread the ramifications can be.

The case of Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk shows just how critical it is to obtain information ethically and accurately represent findings.

A case in 1998, which involved fraudulent data reporting, further proves this point.

The study, now debunked, was completed by Andrew Wakefield. It suggested there may be a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children. It was later found that the data was manipulated to show a causal link when there wasn’t one. Wakefield’s medical license was removed as a result, but the fraudulent study was still widely cited and continues to cause vaccine hesitancy among many parents.

Large organizational bodies have also been a part of unethical research. The alcohol industry, for example, was found to be highly influential in a major public health study in an attempt to prove that moderate alcohol consumption had health benefits. Five major alcohol companies pledged approximately $66 million to fund the study.

However, the World Health Organization (WHO) is clear that research shows there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. After pressure from many organizations, the study was eventually pulled due to biasing by the alcohol industry. Despite this, the idea that moderate alcohol consumption is better than abstaining may still appear in public discourse.

In more extreme cases, unethical research has led to medical studies being completed on people without their knowledge and against their will. The atrocities committed in Nazi Germany during World War II are an example.

Unethical practices in research are not just problematic or in conflict with academic integrity; they can seriously harm public health and safety.

• The ethical way to research

Considering ethical concerns and adopting best practices throughout studies is essential when conducting research.

When people are involved in studies, it’s important to consider their rights. They must not be coerced into participating, and they should be protected throughout the process.

Accurate reporting, unbiased results, and a genuine interest in answering questions rather than confirming assumptions are all essential aspects of ethical research.

Ethical research ultimately means producing true and valuable results for the benefit of everyone impacted by your study.

What are ethical considerations in research?

Ethical research involves a series of guidelines and considerations to ensure that the information gathered is valid and reliable. These guidelines ensure that:

People are not harmed during research

Participants have data protection and anonymity

Academic integrity is upheld

Not maintaining ethics in research can have serious consequences for those involved in the studies, the broader public, and policymakers.

What are the most common ethical considerations?

To maintain integrity and validity in research, all biases must be removed, data should be reported accurately, and studies must be clearly represented.

Some of the most common ethical guidelines when it comes to humans in research include avoiding harm, data protection, anonymity, informed consent, and confidentiality.

What are the ethical issues in secondary research?

Using secondary data is generally considered an ethical practice. That’s because the use of secondary data minimizes the impact on participants, reduces the need for additional funding, and maximizes the value of the data collection.

However, secondary research still has risks. For example, the risk of data breaches increases as more parties gain access to the information.

To minimize the risk, researchers should consider anonymity or data pseudonymization before the data is passed on. Furthermore, using the data should not cause any harm or distress to participants.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 17 February 2024

Last updated: 19 November 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Ethics Hist Med

Ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: the necessity to develop a specific guideline

Mahnaz sanjari.

1 Nursing PhD Candidate, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Fatemeh Bahramnezhad

Fatemeh khoshnava fomani, mahnaz shoghi.

2 Assistant Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Mohammad Ali Cheraghi

3 Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Considering the nature of qualitative studies, the interaction between researchers and participants can be ethically challenging for the former, as they are personally involved in different stages of the study. Therefore, formulation of specific ethical guidelines in this respect seems to be essential. The present paper aimed to discuss the necessity to develop explicit guidelines for conducting qualitative studies with regard to the researchers’ role. For this purpose, a literature review was carried out in domestic and international databases by related keywords.

Health care providers who carry out qualitative research have an immense responsibility. As there is no statistical analysis in qualitative studies, the researcher has to both evaluate what he or she observes and to interpret it. Providing researchers with the necessary skills and applying stringent supervision can lead to better extraction of reliable information from qualitative studies. This article presents a debate in order to illustrate how researchers could cover the ethical challenges of qualitative studies and provide applicable and trustworthy outcomes.

Researchers face ethical challenges in all stages of the study, from designing to reporting. These include anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent, researchers’ potential impact on the participants and vice versa. It seems of paramount importance that health care providers, educators and clinicians be well informed of all the different aspects of their roles when acting as qualitative researchers. Hence, these adroit roles need to be well defined, and the use of practical guidelines and protocols in all stages of qualitative studies should be encouraged.

Introduction

In the recent millennium, the constant trend of change in the demands of the community as well as transforming the trend of knowledge production has highlighted the necessity for researchers to adopt a more comprehensive approach. Increasingly, many academic disciplines are utilizing qualitative research (QR) as the qualitative method investigating the why and how of the process of a developed concept ( 1 , 2 ). Qualitative research is sometimes defined as interpretive research, and as interpretations can be incorrect or biased, the findings may be controversial ( 3 ). However, qualitative research is not only useful as the first stage of quantitative research, but can also play a key role in ‘validating’ it or in providing a different viewpoint on the same social phenomena ( 4 ).

Qualitative studies tend to use methods that result in text production rather than numerical outputs. Given that the researcher is considered to be the research instrument, and the plan of inquiry needs to be developed and altered as the study progresses, a qualitative researcher cannot depend upon traditional approaches to address certain concerns such as bias and credibility. Therefore, learning from a series of mistakes is often considered an integral part of qualitative research ( 5 , 6 ).

In this study, a literature review was carried out in international electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Sciences, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Ebsco, EMBASE and Science Direct without any time limitation, using the search terms “qualitative research”, “researchers’ role”, “ethical challenges” and “ethical guidelines”. These keywords were also searched on national electronic databases including Scientific Information Database (SID), Iran Medex and Medical Articles Library (Medlib) using the same strategy.

Authors of the present article endeavor to shine a light on the ethical issues affecting researchers and propose strategies to face the ethical challenges of qualitative studies, so as to provide applicable and trustworthy outcomes. This could be the basis for the formulation of specific ethical guidelines in this regard.

An overview on qualitative research in health care

Up to the 1970s, qualitative research was solely employed by anthropologists and sociologists. During the 1970s and 1980s, however, it was favored by various disciplines and experts of different branches of science and humanity such as health care, psychology , nursing, management, political science , education, and communication studies ( 2 , 7 ).

Qualitative research has been conducted in the field of nursing in order to identify, describe and explain related concepts, experiences and phenomena and to develop the nursing knowledge. Nursing professionals simultaneously introduced qualitative research to their peers. Since 1970, qualitative research has been performed to achieve the concepts of patient care and other main perceptions in the nursing profession. Qualitative studies provide nurses with sensitivity to the lived experiences of individuals from different nursing care aspects ( 4 , 8 ).

Role of researchers in qualitative studies

In the case of nurses who perform qualitative research, ethical issues are raised when the nurse-patient relationship in the research area leads to some degree of therapeutic communication for the participants ( 9 ). Thus, nurse researchers must be aware of the impact of the questioning on the participants, and in order to decrease such harmful effects on human subjects, the “reflexive approach” is recommended ( 10 ).

In qualitative studies researchers are often required to clarify their role in the research process ( 11 ). In the QR procedure the researcher is involved in all stages of the study from defining a concept to design, interview, transcription, analysis, verification and reporting the concepts and themes. Therefore, whenever instruments are involved in qualitative research, a human being will be an integral part of the process ( 12 ).

It is argued that humans have increasingly become the “instrument of choice” for naturalistic research due to certain characteristics: they are highly responsive to environmental stimuli, have the ability to interact with the situation, pull together different pieces of information at multiple levels simultaneously, and perceive situations holistically; moreover, they are able to process findings the instant they become available, can present immediate feedback, and feel unusual responses. Nevertheless, researchers need to improve the abilities that make them appropriate human instruments and consequently, their interpersonal skills are of major importance in natural settings and study processes ( Table 1 ) ( 13 , 14 ).

Researcher’s role in qualitative methods at a glance

Ethical challenges in qualitative studies:

The researcher-participant relationship.

The relationship and intimacy that is established between the researchers and participants in qualitative studies can raise a range of different ethical concerns, and qualitative researchers face dilemmas such as respect for privacy, establishment of honest and open interactions, and avoiding misrepresentations ( 19 ). Ethically challenging situations may emerge if researchers have to deal with contradicting issues and choose between different methodological strategies in conflict arises. In such cases, disagreements among different components such as participants, researchers, researchers’ discipline, the funding body and the society may be inevitable ( 20 , 21 ). Some important ethical concerns that should be taken into account while carrying out qualitative research are: anonymity, confidentiality and informed consent ( 22 ).

According to Richards and Schwartz’ findings ( 22 ), the term ‘confidentiality’ conveys different meanings for health care practitioners and researchers. For health care practitioners, confidentiality means that no personal information is to be revealed except in certain situations. For researchers, however, the duty of confidentiality is less clear and involves elaboration of the form of outcome that might be expected from the study ( 22 , 23 ).

The researcher must endeavor to minimize the possibility of intrusion into the autonomy of study participants by all means. When highly sensitive issues are concerned, children and other vulnerable individuals should have access to an advocate who is present during initial phases of the study, and ideally, during data gathering sessions. It is sometimes even necessary that the researcher clarify in writing which persons can have access to the initial data and how the data might be used ( 24 , 25 ).

Informed consent has been recognized as an integral part of ethics in research carried out in different fields. For qualitative researchers, it is of the utmost importance to specify in advance which data will be collected and how they are to be used ( 26 ). The principle of informed consent stresses the researcher’s responsibility to completely inform participants of different aspects of the research in comprehensible language. Clarifications need to include the following issues: the nature of the study, the participants’ potential role, the identity of the researcher and the financing body, the objective of the research, and how the results will be published and used ( 27 ).

Informed consent naturally requires ongoing negotiation of the terms of agreement as the study progresses ( 26 ). Many people consider it necessary to participate in research that their peers, community and/or society may benefit from. Therefore, qualitative health researchers need to clarify that the research they carry out will benefit science and can contribute to the improvement of health policy ( 5 ).

Research design

The qualitative method is utilized to explain, clarify and elaborate the meanings of different aspects of the human life experience. Therefore, researchers can interpret people’s experiences because they are involved in human activities. The principle of ‘no harm’ to participants ought to be considered by researchers, who should be aware of the potential harms that might be inflicted upon study subjects. Obviously, sometimes a conflict between the right to know (defended on the basis of benefits to the society) and the right of privacy (advocated based on the rights of the individual) may happen ( 27 , 28 ).

There are several effective strategies to protect personal information, for instance secure data storage methods, removal of identifier components, biographical details amendments and pseudonyms (applicable to names of individuals, places and organizations) ( 27 ). Researchers have the responsibility of protecting all participants in a study from potentially harmful consequences that might affect them as a result of their participation. It is getting increasingly common for research ethics committees to seek documented proof of consent in a written, signed, and ideally, witnessed form. Researchers can only do their best to protect their respondent’s identity and hold the information strictly confidential as there would be no guarantee for it otherwise ( 29 ). Furthermore, in investigations of sensitive topics where written consent puts the informants at risk, audio recorded oral consent would be more appropriate ( 30 ).

Development of personal relationships with participants may be inevitable while collecting certain data. Therefore, researchers should seriously consider the potential impact they may have on the participants and vice versa, and details of such interactions should be clearly mentioned in research proposals ( 23 ). Overall, the role of the researcher as (a) stranger, (b) visitor, (c) initiator, (d) insider-expert or other should be well defined and explained ( 3 ). As Brenner quoted Kvale state that, preparing an ethical protocol can cover issues in a qualitative research project from planning through reporting ( 30 ).

Data gathering and data analysis

In qualitative research, data are collected with a focus on multifaceted interviews and narratives to produce a description of the experiences. The researchers, therefore, play the role of a mediator between the experiences of the respondents and the community of concerned people ( 28 , 31 ). The post-interview comment sheet could assist the researcher to note the feelings of informants, as well as interpretations and comments that occurred during the interview ( 32 ).

Data collection needs to be as overt as possible, and findings should be recorded. Although there is no guarantee of absolute confidentiality, openly recording field notes assists participants to decide what they wish to have on the record. In health care research, the problem may be even more exaggerated as the researcher is sometimes the health provider as well ( 33 ).

In comparison with other research methods, ethnography has singular characteristics. When a researcher aims to study the culture of certain people, living amongst them is inevitable. This method of collecting data is a subject of debate from an ethical point of view. Long presence of the researcher amongst people of a particular culture necessitates informed consent. Participants should always be aware of the information that has been obtained and is being recorded, and consent to it. Sometimes this cannot be achieved easily and conflicts may happen, as in studies of cultural and ethnic characteristics ( 18 ).

The physical presence of the researchers within the culture requires them to be responsible for their role and potential consequences on the field. For instance, when criminals or a group of war veterans suffering from a disease are the subject of a study, the risks involved in living amongst them should be considered. Ethnographers must be vigilant about any distractions stemming from close interactions that can be potentially harmful to participants in the long run ( 33 , 34 ). Researchers can benefit from supervision sessions directed at learning, mentoring and skill development, all of which can foster their ability to carry out research without risking their health. Adequate professional supervision (which may be outside of the university) can be of service to researchers in dealing with the potential stress associated with the study ( 35 – 37 ).

In order to gain explicit data, ethnographers need to know the role of instrument details. There are eleven steps defined in ethnography which are meant to assist researchers. These steps include participant observation, ethnographic record, descriptive observation, taxonomic analysis, selected observation, componential analysis, discovering the cultural theme, cultural inventory, and finally writing ethnography ( 38 , 39 ).

Researchers should always be aware of the precise reason for involvement in a study in order to prevent undesirable personal issues. The probability of exposure to vicarious trauma as a result of the interviews needs to be evaluated. Interviewers should be properly scheduled to provide the researcher with sufficient recovery time and reduce the risk of emotional exhaustion, while allowing ample time for analysis of the objective and emotional aspects of the research. It is also necessary for the researcher to be familiar with signs of extreme fatigue and be prepared to take necessary measures before too much harm is done ( 40 – 42 ).

In qualitative studies, researchers have a great responsibility and play many different roles. It is argued that qualitative research that deals with sensitive topics in depth can pose emotional and other risks to both participants and researchers. Clear protocols for dealing with distress should be in place so that both parties involved in research can use them if necessary. It is not usually easy to predict what topics are likely to lead to distress, and researchers should therefore receive sufficient training in predicting traumatic situations.

Preventive measures for researchers who carry out sensitive qualitative studies should include official arrangements for a peer support program consisting of a list of researchers who are involved, or a constellation of researcher support activities aiming at improving psychological fitness in the form of a professional confidence building module. Other such measures include offering adequate supervision to provide opportunities for self-development and self-care, and facilitating the process of self-reflection and self-monitoring.

Strategies for emotional distancing need to be considered and adopted if the research topic or participants have the potential to be emotionally challenging. An appropriate planning should be in place before the commencement of the fieldwork, and it must be perfectly clear how the study should be conducted and what level of relationship development is necessary. Measures must also be taken so that levels of self-disclosure, objective displays of emotion during the interviews, and strategies to end the relationships are well defined and communicated.

One of the most prominent tasks of qualitative researchers is to minimize the flaws in observation and endeavor to gain truthful knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to continuously update their investigation skills in terms of methodology and find novel techniques to better carry out studies in the field of health and sociology.

As explained before, qualitative research is carried out in natural settings, which requires researchers to work in close collaboration with other members of the team and under direct supervision to discuss and resolve issues as they arise. Therefore, development of practical strategies and communicating them to researchers can be of great benefit and assist them in conducting more perceptive qualitative studies. It is noteworthy that such research should be directed towards making a difference in people’s lives, improving care delivery in different settings and at all levels, and providing a framework for health sciences without any ethical disturbances.

As a result of the extensive body of research in the field of medical sciences, patients comprise a large proportion of the public who are frequently subjects of studies. Research Ethics Committees are formed to provide independent advice to participants, researchers, funders/sponsors and healthcare organizations on the extent to which research proposals comply with universally endorsed ethical standards.

In the history of social and medical science, there have been a few research studies that seriously injured people, and many more in which their welfare was not sufficiently protected. Nations and research associations have taken steps to prevent hurtful and intrusive research. To return to the matter of privacy, the researcher should not rely solely on the informant to identify possible intrusion, but needs to work at anticipating it in advance. Confidentiality does not necessarily preclude intrusion, as anonymity by itself is not enough to protect a person’s privacy or prevent disclosure of personal issues. Investigators should refrain from soliciting private information that is not closely related to the research question.

Considering the aforementioned challenges, it is recommended to conduct further research in order to provide meticulous and explicit ethical protocols, guidelines and codes with respect to qualitative studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to offer special thanks to Dr. Ali Tootee for his assistance in the language editing of this article.

Ethical considerations in research: Best practices and examples

To conduct responsible research, you’ve got to think about ethics. They protect participants’ rights and their well-being - and they ensure your findings are valid and reliable. This isn’t just a box for you to tick. It’s a crucial consideration that can make all the difference to the outcome of your research.

In this article, we'll explore the meaning and importance of research ethics in today's research landscape. You'll learn best practices to conduct ethical and impactful research.

Examples of ethical considerations in research

As a researcher, you're responsible for ethical research alongside your organization. Fulfilling ethical guidelines is critical. Organizations must ensure employees follow best practices to protect participants' rights and well-being.

Keep these things in mind when it comes to ethical considerations in research:

Voluntary participation

Voluntary participation is key. Nobody should feel like they're being forced to participate or pressured into doing anything they don't want to. That means giving people a choice and the ability to opt out at any time, even if they've already agreed to take part in the study.

Informed consent

Informed consent isn't just an ethical consideration. It's a legal requirement as well. Participants must fully understand what they're agreeing to, including potential risks and benefits.

The best way to go about this is by using a consent form. Make sure you include:

• A brief description of the study and research methods.
• The potential benefits and risks of participating.
• The length of the study.
• Contact information for the researcher and/or sponsor.
• Reiteration of the participant’s right to withdraw from the research project at any time without penalty.

Anonymity means that participants aren't identifiable in any way. This includes:

• Email address
• Photographs
• Video footage

You need a way to anonymize research data so that it can't be traced back to individual participants. This may involve creating a new digital ID for participants that can’t be linked back to their original identity using numerical codes.

Confidentiality

Information gathered during a study must be kept confidential. Confidentiality helps to protect the privacy of research participants. It also ensures that their information isn't disclosed to unauthorized individuals.

Some ways to ensure confidentiality include:

• Using a secure server to store data.
• Removing identifying information from databases that contain sensitive data.
• Using a third-party company to process and manage research participant data.
• Not keeping participant records for longer than necessary.
• Avoiding discussion of research findings in public forums.

Potential for harm

​​The potential for harm is a crucial factor in deciding whether a research study should proceed. It can manifest in various forms, such as:

• Psychological harm
• Social harm
• Physical harm

Conduct an ethical review to identify possible harms. Be prepared to explain how you’ll minimize these harms and what support is available in case they do happen.

Fair payment

One of the most crucial aspects of setting up a research study is deciding on fair compensation for your participants. Underpayment is a common ethical issue that shouldn't be overlooked. Properly rewarding participants' time is critical for boosting engagement and obtaining high-quality data. While Prolific requires a minimum payment of £6.00 / $8.00 per hour, there are other factors you need to consider when deciding on a fair payment.

First, check your institution's reimbursement guidelines to see if they already have a minimum or maximum hourly rate. You can also use the national minimum wage as a reference point.

Next, think about the amount of work you're asking participants to do. The level of effort required for a task, such as producing a video recording versus a short survey, should correspond with the reward offered.

You also need to consider the population you're targeting. To attract research subjects with specific characteristics or high-paying jobs, you may need to offer more as an incentive.

We recommend a minimum payment of £9.00 / $12.00 per hour, but we understand that payment rates can vary depending on a range of factors. Whatever payment you choose should reflect the amount of effort participants are required to put in and be fair to everyone involved.

Ethical research made easy with Prolific

At Prolific, we believe in making ethical research easy and accessible. The findings from the Fairwork Cloudwork report speak for themselves. Prolific was given the top score out of all competitors for minimum standards of fair work.

With over 25,000 researchers in our community, we're leading the way in revolutionizing the research industry. If you're interested in learning more about how we can support your research journey, sign up to get started now.

You might also like

High-quality human data to deliver world-leading research and AIs.

Follow us on

All Rights Reserved Prolific 2024