Ethics in qualitative research

HL Paper 3: Ethical considerations

This section looks at applying ethical considerations to qualitative research. First, we will look at how to apply ethics when carrying out research by using the acronym CARDUD. Then, we will look at ethical considerations in reporting and applying findings. These two aspects of ethics address question 2 on Paper 3.

Conceptual understanding

Upon completion of this section, you should be able to discuss the following concepts:

Anonymity vs confidentiality
Epistemological reflexivity - and a sound methodology
Justice and equitable treatment
Objective approach vs the humanistic approach
Personal reflexivity

text

Task I. Applying ethics

Watch the following interviews carried out by Jimmy Kimmel. Based on your knowledge of ethical considerations, what concerns would have you have about the way they were conducted?

Concerns about Jimmy Kimmel's Interviews

Question 2 on paper 3 is always about ethics. The first question that you may be asked is:

Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied. (6 marks)

When answering this question, it is important that you use the acronym CARDUD to make sure that you address all six of the key ethical considerations:

Consent
Anonymity
Right to withdraw
Deception
Undue stress or harm
Debriefing

When answering the question, you need to make sure that you do not simply define each of the ethical consideration but instead, link them to the study. What would that look like for Jimmy Kimmel's interviews?

Ethical consideration	Link to Jimmy Kimmel's interviews
Consent	Kimmel would have to ask each person whether they would like to take part in an interview. They would have to be told about the topic of the interview and how the information will be used. If they decline, there should not be extra pressure placed on them to take part in the study.
Anonymity	This is a concern in Kimmel's interviews as they were filmed and then used on television. Since this is the case, the identities of the individuals are not kept anonymous. Kimmel would have to get permission from the participants to share the videos after they have been debriefed.
Right to withdraw	After finding out that they were deceived, some people may feel embarrassed and not want to have their videotaped interview used by Kimmel. They have the right to withdraw their data. Even if they sign that the video may be used, after talking to friends, they may decide to withdraw. The only time that you cannot withdraw is after the data has already been published.
Deception	In this case, deception by commission was used - that is, they actively deceived the participants. This may lead participants to feel "stupid" and make them feel embarrassed. This was done to see if people would respond with information in an interview to make sure that they "looked informed."
Undue stress or harm	Although there was no undue stress or harm during the interview, the embarrassment of finding out that you said that you had seen something that never happened may be rather stressful. In the case of the reporter, he may feel that this may threaten his career.
Debriefing	In the debriefing, the researchers would need to reveal what they were really doing, what they found (or promise to share that with the participants), and remind them of their rights. In this case, the deception would have to be revealed and they should explain the goal of this interview study.

Task II. Publication and applying findings

In addition to asking you about the ethics of carrying out a study, question 2 may ask you about the reporting and application of the study. The question would be:

Describe the ethical considerations in reporting the results and explain additional ethical considerations that could be taken into account when applying the findings of the study (6 marks)

Watch the following video. Pay special attention to the section on "socially sensitive research."

What is socially sensitive research?

Sieber & Stanley (1988) defined socially sensitive research is defined as "studies in which there are potential consequences or implications, either directly for the participants in the research or for the class of individual represented by the research."

Sieber & Stanley (1988) propose the following ethical guidelines for the publication and application of what they call Socially Sensitive Research.

Confidentiality

Participants should not be identified, either by name or by descriptive details that would lead to recognition in their community, potentially leading to negative outcomes.

Justice & equitable treatment

Unjust treatment includes publishing an idea that leads to prejudice against a group or withholding treatment that you believe is beneficial from some participants so that you can use them as controls.

Sound & valid methodology

When research findings are publicized, people are likely to take them as fact and policies may be based on them. It is important that the limitations of the studies are explicitly communicated to all constituents.

Deception

It is important that findings are stated precisely and cautiously to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the research. The interpretation of the findings should not be overstated. Researchers should also avoid such unethical practices as p-hacking - the misuse of data analysis by performing many statistical tests on the data and only reporting those that come back with significant results.

Any misrepresentations of the findings by policymakers or the media should be directly addressed by the researchers.

Reflexivity

Researchers should be aware of how their findings may be used by others. They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these. They should be aware of their own values and biases and how they may have influenced their findings.

Transparency

Researchers also need to be transparent about the funding of their research. It is important that researchers reflect on why the funders have funded their research and how the funders may use any findings of the research.

Applying terminology

For each of the following research scenarios, decide which of the terms above would be relevant in discuss ethics related to the publication and/or application of the findings.

1. A researcher carries out a study of former perpetrators of domestic violence to determine the health of their current relationships as well as their mental health. The finding is that the majority of the perpetrators still engaged in some forms of domestic violence.

It is important in this study that the identities of the perpetrators be confidential. This means that there should not be details that would allow readers to recognize who is in the group - e.g. mentioning that he is the president of the local bank in a specific town in upstate New York. In addition, it is important that the findings are carefully stated and the implications noted. When it says that "the majority" of the perpetrators were still violent, is that 51% or 90%? This needs to be clear and in the case of only a simple majority, then there should be some discussion about the hope for recovery. If state officials use this data in order to take some action against perpetrators - for example, lifetime restrictions of some type - psychologists should make sure that the results are correctly interpreted and that their research is not used inappropriately.

2. Researchers in a large urban area carry out a study of IQ among newly arrived immigrants. They find that many who are claiming asylum had high IQs, whereas those who had come for economic reasons had low IQs.

Justice and Equitable treatment: Research on IQ based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status is highly suspect - and should be treated with caution. This type of research can lead to discrimination against groups labeled as "low IQ." The researcher should demonstrate reflexivity - considering how this research may be used when it published. It should also be transparent who funded the research and what the goals of the research were. For example, it could be that the research was funded by a medical organization (e.g. Johns Hopkin University) in order to see how poverty and trauma affect cognitive development in immigrants. However, it could also be sponsored by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant foundation whose executive director, Dan Stein, has warned that certain immigrant groups are engaged in "competitive breeding" aimed at diminishing white power. It should also be noted what the limitations of the study would be. For example, the use of IQ testing that culturally normed or the lack of translated materials. This may skew the results and may make the findings less reliable.

3. A pharmaceutical company funds a study of how an ADHD drug actually improves memory capacity, as well as helps with attention.

In the publication of the findings, it should be clear that the study was funded by the creators of the drug. This introduces a potential bias in the research. It doesn't, however, mean that the research is fatally flawed. It would also be important that the study have a sound methodology - that is, using a double-blind control to avoid such bias. It is important that the statement of the findings is clear and that implications are discussed. The researcher should reflect on the possible use of the study - for example, the misuse of the drug if it is found to also increase memory capacity. Any misrepresentation of the data by the company should be publicly addressed by the researchers to stop any misinformation about the effects of the drug.

4. A researcher carries out a study on the link between rap music and violence among teens. The original study found no significant correlation. However, when the researcher crunched the data more carefully, he found that there was a significant correlation between rap music and violent, anti-government thinking in African American young men between the ages of 13 - 15.

There are several concerns about this study. First, there is the question of justice and equitable treatment. There is a concern that a study that shows "violence" is linked to rap music in African American males may lead to discrimination against this group. Secondly, there is some concern about the methodology. The study claims to be investigating the link between rap music and violence in teens. It is unclear whether the sample was diverse or only African Americans. If it was diverse, one has to question why African Americans were then tested separately. It is also questionable what is meant by "violent, anti-government thinking." This does not seem to be the same as "violence" and it may be that the variable was "re-operationalized" in order to find significant findings. It is also possible that the study employed p-hacking as the findings are significant only in African American boys between the ages of 13 - 15. The use of the term "men" is misleading and may actually lead to a misinterpretation of the findings. The researcher should engage in reflexivity to think about how his/her own biases may have influenced the outcome of the study.

5. A school district wants to carry out a new anti-bullying program that is being offered by a rather well-known education company. They decide to choose six schools in the district that have high levels of bullying. Three of the schools are provided with the program and the other three are used as controls. The study lasts for three years. They find that the program is "relatively successful" over the period of the study and that violence in the schools without the program actually increased.

It is a concern that the school district recognized that bullying was a serious problem and yet used some of these schools as "control groups", potentially without any consent. In addition, the publication of the findings could have an effect on the reputation of the schools in the district if the schools can be identified. In addition, since the bullying-program is for sale, there should be concern about who is funding the study. Is the program being provided for the school district for free as long as the district allows for the study to be done? And how did the study measure success? How did it control for bias? There is a real question about the methodology of the study - especially since school cohorts change every year and it may be difficult actually measure the success of the program.

Psychological terminology: Anonymous vs confidential

Two of the problematic terms for Paper 3 are "anonymity" and "confidentiality." Confidentiality and anonymity are both ethical practices designed to protect the privacy of human subjects while collecting, analyzing, and reporting data.

Note the key difference:

Anonymity: Anonymity refers to collecting data without obtaining any personal, identifying information

Confidentiality: Confidentiality refers to separating or modifying any personal, identifying information provided by participants from the data.

In the case of anonymity, the researcher is not able to match a participant with the data. This is not a "blind" study, but something different. When you ask everyone in condition A to complete a story after listening to it being with music blasting, it is not important who the participant is, only that he is in condition A.

In qualitative research, such as interviews, the researcher would know who the individual is, but keep the identity of the individual confidential. This includes not providing any information in the publication of the report that would help to identify the participant.

Exam Tip: Many students write, "It is important that the researcher keep the data confidential." If that were the case, we would not know the findings of the study! Remember, it is the identity of the participant which must be kept confidential.

Checking for understanding

Begin by reading the study below, and then write a response for each of the Paper 3 questions 2 below.

The study

A team of researchers wanted to measure the level of "psychological distress" and mental health among female partners of combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The researchers used an opportunity sample of 89 female partners of male veterans in outpatient PTSD treatment. The women were interviewed by telephone using a semi-structured interview.

The researchers found that the women self-reported high levels of psychological distress, measuring in the 90th percentile on clinical scales. Severe levels of depression and suicidal ideation were prevalent among the women. Mental health was negatively correlated with the perceived threat of partner violence and barriers to the partner's mental health treatment. These findings demonstrate that partners of veterans with combat-related PTSD experience significant levels of emotional distress that may require clinical attention.

Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied. (6 marks)

50 lines

Describe the ethical considerations in reporting the results and explain additional ethical considerations that could be taken into account when applying the findings of the study (6 marks)