You need the 'difficult to reach' participant's consent. Do she have any close person who can get her consent? Do you have any ethical committee that can advise you?

Using publicly available interviews for a research study without the subject's direct consent may violate the principle of informed consent, which is a key part of ethical research. The person's original goal in giving the interview was different from the goal of your study all together.

Another critical issue is privacy and confidentiality. Your in-depth analysis might reveal personal details or interpretations that go beyond the interview's original scope. Publishing her image or voice clips could make her easily identifiable. This could expose her to unwanted public attention or scrutiny, potentially causing harm.

Ultimately, publishing identifiable clips and images could cause the individual harm. This harm might not be physical; it could include reputational damage, psychological stress, or other negative consequences from unwanted attention. To maintain an ethical approach, you must prioritize the subject's well-being and privacy, even with publicly available materials. There should be a way of reaching this 'difficult to reach' participant for her informed consent. Or else anonymize the data. Instead of using the subject's identifiable image and voice, you must transform the material so she cannot be recognized.

@ petros Kayonga: Thank you for you informative reply

Is It Ethically Acceptable to Publish Video Clips and Images Without the Consent of a Difficult-to-Reach Participant?

By: Ndage Kizito Nji PhD Ethics and Political philosophy

Introduction

The rapid growth of digital technology and online platforms has transformed how information is gathered, stored, and disseminated. Visual content—video clips and photographs—can be recorded and shared almost instantaneously, often reaching global audiences. In academic research, journalism, and advocacy work, images and videos can be powerful tools to convey stories, highlight injustice, and inspire action. However, this same potential raises ethical questions, especially when the individuals depicted are unable to provide consent due to logistical, geographical, political, or other barriers.

The core question is whether it is ethically acceptable to publish such content without the informed consent of a "difficult-to-reach" participant. This article explores the ethical tensions involved, balancing respect for individual autonomy with broader societal benefits, and considering the special challenges posed by difficult-to-reach individuals.

Defining the Key Terms

Before delving into the debate, it is important to clarify certain concepts.

Difficult-to-reach participant refers to an individual who, due to physical remoteness, lack of communication infrastructure, political repression, conflict situations, disability, or other limitations, cannot be contacted or cannot reasonably provide informed consent within the necessary timeframe.

Informed consent is the process by which a participant voluntarily agrees to the use of their identifiable information after being fully informed of the purposes, potential uses, and consequences.

Publishing in this context refers to any public dissemination—whether through academic journals, news media, documentaries, social media, or advocacy campaigns.

The Ethical Principles Involved

Several ethical frameworks are relevant to this question:

1. Respect for Autonomy – Every individual has the right to control how they are represented and to decide whether to share their image or story.

2. Nonmaleficence – “Do no harm.” The act of publishing should avoid causing physical, psychological, or reputational harm.

3. Beneficence – The action should aim to do good, such as promoting social justice or raising awareness about critical issues.

4. Justice – Fair treatment must be ensured, and no group should bear disproportionate risk or be exploited due to their marginalization.

5. Duty to Truth and Public Interest – Journalists and researchers have an ethical responsibility to inform the public about matters of significant importance.

Arguments Against Publishing Without Consent

1. Violation of Autonomy

Publishing an image or video without consent overrides the individual's right to self-determination. Even if a person is difficult to reach, this does not nullify their ownership over their personal image and story. Autonomy is foundational in both ethical theory and international human rights frameworks, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12) which protects privacy.

2. Potential Harm

Images and videos can expose individuals to unforeseen risks—political persecution, social ostracism, harassment, or psychological distress. In sensitive contexts (e.g., refugees, victims of violence, political dissidents), such risks can be severe and even life-threatening.

3. Power Imbalance and Exploitation

Difficult-to-reach participants often belong to marginalized or vulnerable groups. Publishing their images without consent can perpetuate historical patterns of exploitation, where outsiders speak for or portray communities without their participation or control.

4. Loss of Trust

Researchers, journalists, and NGOs rely on relationships of trust with the communities they cover. If members of these communities perceive that outsiders act without consent, future engagement can be compromised, harming long-term advocacy or research goals.

Arguments in Favour of Publishing Without Consent

1. Urgency and Public Interest

In situations of humanitarian crisis, war crimes, or environmental disasters, the urgency to inform the public or document evidence can outweigh the ideal of obtaining prior consent. Delay in publication might mean loss of critical evidence or public indifference.

2. Impossibility of Obtaining Consent

If the participant cannot be contacted due to technological, geographical, or safety reasons, withholding publication could silence important stories or obscure urgent issues that need immediate attention.

3. Potential for Positive Impact

Publishing compelling images or videos can galvanize public opinion, influence policy change, or mobilize humanitarian aid. The utilitarian argument suggests that the potential benefits to many might justify the ethical compromise with one individual’s consent.

4. Legal Exceptions

In some jurisdictions, identifiable images taken in public spaces may be legally publishable without consent, especially for matters of public interest. While legality is not the same as morality, it is a factor in ethical decision-making.

Navigating the Ethical Dilemma

Ethics is rarely a matter of black-and-white rules; context matters greatly. Several approaches can help guide decision-making:

1. Contextual Risk Assessment

What is the likelihood that the individual can be harmed by the publication?

Is the context politically sensitive or dangerous?

Can identifying details be blurred or altered without losing the informational value?

2. Minimization of Harm

Use anonymization techniques: blur faces, remove distinctive clothing, change names.

Provide only as much detail as necessary to tell the story.

Store and transmit sensitive media securely to prevent misuse.

3. Proxy or Community Consent

In some cultural contexts, local community leaders or family members can provide consent when direct consent is not possible.

While imperfect, this can at least involve some form of participatory decision-making.

4. Post-Publication Consent

In ongoing projects, follow up with the participant when contact becomes possible. If they object, future use can be halted, and in some cases, already-published material can be retracted or modified.

5. Transparency and Accountability

Clearly explain in any accompanying text why consent was not obtained and what measures were taken to protect the participant’s welfare.

Subject the decision to review by an independent ethics board or editorial committee.

Case Examples

Humanitarian Crises: Photojournalists in disaster zones often face this dilemma. Images of famine in Ethiopia (1984) and war in Syria were published without consent but played pivotal roles in mobilizing international aid. However, some subjects later expressed discomfort at how they were portrayed.

Academic Research with Isolated Communities: Anthropologists working with remote indigenous groups have been criticized for publishing culturally sensitive images without permission, leading to community resentment and accusations of exploitation.

Citizen Journalism: In the age of smartphones, videos of police brutality have been shared globally without the subjects’ consent. While some argue these are vital for justice, others point out they can retraumatize victims or put them at risk.

Conclusion

The ethical acceptability of publishing video clips and images without the consent of a difficult-to-reach participant is not a matter of simple approval or condemnation. While urgency, public interest, and impossibility of contact can justify exceptions, the default ethical position should be to seek informed consent whenever feasible.

If consent cannot be obtained, the decision to publish should be made with careful consideration of potential harm, respect for the dignity of the individual, and strategies to mitigate risks. Transparency about the ethical reasoning and protective measures taken is essential.

Ultimately, the balance between respecting individual autonomy and serving the greater public good must be struck on a case-by-case basis, guided by the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and respect for persons. In our interconnected world, where images can shape narratives and influence power, this ethical vigilance is not just advisable—it is indispensable.

@Ndage Kizito Nji, thank you for this detailed, informative and well searched answer. This is very helpful.

To the best of my knowledge, it is unethical to publish videos that reveal research participants' identity without their granular consent.

IT ADELEKE

Ibrahim Taiwo Adeleke: Thank you for your answer. I suppose you are considering the normal situations, but my case is unreachable and the researcher does not know this person in particular. The researcher has watched the videos posted on social media, and did the analysis of these posted publicly

Thank you for your response.

It is however good to still state that irrespective of the situation, identity of research participants should be protected under de-identification rules.

Even in situations, when the researcher does not know the participants, the public knows!