The suggestion to use hypothetical or 'made-up' names is good; indeed, using any possible identifying characteristics of research respondents expecting anonymity is a 'no-no'; suggest that you mention respondent anonymity measures that you have taken, in an 'Ethics' sub-section of Research Design section.

Sanam - yes- you can (and would be encouraged) to use pseudonyms. Your ethics consent should be based on privacy, respect and anonymity in most cases. You state that you have used focus groups. If you have used several - you can use a different technique i.e. number the group - and then number the participant i.e. group 3, participant 4 - but in many different formats to make it easier to navigate and reduce the word count i.e. G3 - P4. Somewhere in your thesis/manuscript - you will need to identify what the 'codes' mean - and why you have used them. 

Yes Dean is right and be explicit in your writing of the ethical procedures. 

The best thing would be to mention the setting and the personal characteristics like age, sex and profession. This should not again disclose the identity

I am grateful for your answers and suggestions. Finally found answer to my question. Stay blessed

Go well with your research.

I agree with Dean Whitehead's advice.

Hi Sanam

The use of pseudonyms (fictitious names) in qualitative research is quite typical, as is asking if participants can choose their own pseudonym.  However, this would have to be done before the process of collecting data (conducting focus groups).  Alternatively (before collecting data), you could allocate participants a number (keep it simple, # 1, 2, 3...) and ask them to say this number before speaking.  This makes transcription (and subsequent analysis) easier.

You may have to think about how you link pseudonyms (or participant numbers) to their actual identity that you would have obtained from the consent forms (kept separate during transcription and analysis).  In our own qualitative study, we have asked participants to state their full name alongside their chosen pseudonym on the informed consent form, and this has been ethically approved.

Maintaining anonymity is essential in qualitative research (by using a pseudonym).  Maintaining confidentiality is somewhat more challenging, however.  I think it is good practice to provide participants with their transcribed interview data so that they can read through and highlight any areas that they feel require editing or removing.  It might be the case that they want to clarify certain aspects that were stated during the interview, or have since felt uncomfortable with something that was said being reported/published.  For focus groups, I guess you would need to have the whole group agree to having their (focus group) transcript shared between participants, and perhaps highlight the areas of the focus group transcript (that was relevant for each participant), to aid reading/checking.

Adam

I think these answers are good and I'd like to add a note of caution about using pseudonyms. It is really easy to slip and leave an actual name in the text (I've seen this in marking otherwise very careful graduate students' work), so it's important to double check, such as by using a search for the original names in your document, even if you think you're sure.

Anonymising is also more than changing names, as with qualitative data, there can be other identifying information. This includes demographic and other data. For example, in a location where I was researching, the research participant was the only one person of their gender in a particular professional group, working for a particular organisation and could be clearly identified by anyone who works in this area and knows all of the local people.

Wendy

Indeed; anonymising can be a 'minefield if one is not careful. In my recent MSc. research at a drug rehab agency, I didn't even use pseudonyms and just referred post facto to clients respondents by gender and roughly-guessed age (deliberately didn't ask age as another protection of anonymity) e. g. male, mid-thirties.

However, I still had to be careful in the writing-up that I did not broadcast details by which respondents might be identified by other clients at the agency; for instance, some respondents revealed that they had been in particular institutions in particular places---so I had to generalise these details.

And another strategy for maintaining anonymity is to summarise data rather than using direct quotations when the material is very explicit.

Yes indeed; summarising data from a number of like- respondents can add weight to the few quotes that you may use.

Using hypothetical name is one of the ways. If the number of participants are small, the first letter of their name can be used with capitals. Another way is to develop some kind of categorical 'code/id' for all participants, and use those codes to refer to that group of participants. For example, if the participants are children, their gender and age (such as, G/11) might be used to refer to the statement of a participant who is an eleven years old girl. I bilieve it depends on the writing style of the researcher. 

Yes good answers - and sometimes participants wish to choose their own name.

We also use scenarios to capture data especially when we are presenting our data in oral presentations.

Yes a good strategy and one we have used.

In a previous research study on youth homelessness, I was allowing youth to choose a name, but quickly found that they were choosing names with meaning to them that others might recognize - or choosing nicknames that they used with peers on the street. Some also requested to use their actual names without fully appreciating the potential impact. I stopped offering the choice as a protection for participants - especially since the study included data on victimization and offending.

I agree with Benjamin that participants should not be offered a choice of pseudonyms. I prefer using a code/ID to denote each participant rather than a pseudonym. I also strongly advocate that every participant should be accorded anonymity whether they ask for it or not.

In my research, all potential participants were allocated a code and confirmed participants given pseudonym. I gave each the possibility of choosing a name but only a few gave me a name to use which was usually their mother or sister’s names.

In qualitative researc, particularly phenomenology, the data is very personal therefore, using the code name might appear cold and impersonal to the reader.

I agree with others who have mentioned the need for awareness with all aspects of the transcript, anonymising all data which might identify the participants. For example, a rare illness, a specialist clinic, a pattern of movement. Using general headings such as neurological disease rather than saying someone has multiple sclerosis (MS) utylise more general context. unless of course MS is the focus of the study and is a study requirement.

I hope this helps.

I would like to add that often its not just about the names. We should check very carefully how the totality of data we provide might lead to the identification of participants.

I generally have had participants choose their own pseudonyms in my research (focus groups and interviews). Especially in focus groups this can be a fun way to break the ice when participants see what they have chosen. Having them choose is also a way for me to avoid inadvertently ascribing certain identities, and also would allow them to potentially recognize themselves if they ever read one of my articles. I would avoid summarizing data if you can safely use their own words as this can preclude your readers from assessing your interpretation. In order to avoid or minimize potential for deductive identification I limit the amount of cited text to what is necessary to illustrative and have at times chosen to alter some details that are less relevant to the particular point or "close enough" to the detail but just off (so maybe if someone says they are 45, I could say they are 47)

Psuedonyms are fine depending on how many participants you have. I find codes better if there are a lot of participants. Also, depending on who the participant group is, I would let them choose their own pseudonyms.

Using direct quotes makes your write-up more engaging and authentic and aids in establishing trustworthiness. My participants chose a pseudonym, or sometimes they asked me to choose one. Additionally, to be sure their identity is anonymized as much as possible, if they mentioned any other people's names in their transcribed data, I chose pseudonyms for those people also. If they mentioned their employer's name, I changed the name and put it in brackets. I didn't even identify their state, instead saying "a southern state" or "small town in the northeastern United States." I shared each participant's transcript with them so they could correct inaccuracies if they found any, and also shared the analysis with all of them after each participant had approved his or her individual transcript.

In addition to the use of pseudonyms, you can choose a code for each of your participants. Nonetheless, when you present your quotes in a paper it could be impersonal for your informants to be codes. For this reason, most qualitative researchers use pseudonyms to cover the identity of their informants and present a more humanistic approach to their data.

I used pseudonyms but tried to keep them reflective of the person. I also used direct quotes as my data for my qualitative research, especially if you are using a coding technology to organize your data - the narratives they provide are interesting peeks into their experiences and connects your reader in a more immediate way to your research. Also as others have mentioned, you want to enhance the trustworthiness of your information and be as unbiased as possible so summarizing may leave out some important components, editing the information is also something that needs to be done with care.

I use pseudonyms, but out of respect for the personhood of co-researchers/participants, I ask them to select their own pseudonym. I am not a proponent of summarizing narratives as it creates opportunities for me to impose my own perceptions of the meanings of those narratives. I believe it's important to allow the actual voices of your co-researchers/participants to be heard. If you send transcripts back to them and invite them to make edits as they see fit, this offers them the opportunity to remove any material that they may have shared but later decided they would like to omit.

Good to read this - all the answers have a common theme - that of ethical research practice and keeping the rights of participants at the centre.

As my experiences and knowledge, I suggest to use hypothetical names in lieu of actual identity . I think that it's valid and as researcher one should follow ethical perspectives and maintain privacy of participants.

This question also highlights the ethics challenges that one faces when conducting a study with illiterate and/or poorly educated participants who are not aware of all the ins and outs of scientific research. This limits their opportunities to be fully involved in every aspect of the research, e.g reviewing the transcripts. In these situations, we use pseudonyms for the names and check very carefully through the entire material any evidence that could lead to identify a participant. We believe that such precautions allow us to use direct quotes without putting the participants in jeopardy.

This is extremely useful! Thank you so much all of you for your contribution

This has helped me a great deal and I appreciate you all.

interesante todas estas respuestas, yo agrupo las narrativas desde las sub categorías y le doy un código a los participantes o simplemente se generaliza como participantes del grupo focal

Code name could be hepful, but I woould advise you allow the participant decide what code name to adopt. Besides, I commend the scholarly insights.