Many field-based qualitative studies are exploratory, where researchers build relationships with the study participants and their contexts to explore participants' lived experiences, meanings, and interpretations of social phenomena. To under field-based qualitative research, university ethical review boards demand that researchers answer questions in their research ethics applications. some of such questions require the researcher to know beforehand what will, can, or is likely to happen in the field. However, since researcher-participant relationships are negotiation and an ongoing process, shouldn't certain ethical requirements be an ongoing reflection, where the research responds to how they attend to emergent ethical issues.
Please, share your unique challenges and experiences about university ethical review boards during your field-based qualitative studies to help early-career researchers. Many of the issues around university ethical review processes are not taught in the classroom, so graduate students and early-career researchers are often frustrated when it comes to securing ethical approval for their field-based qualitative research.
In my opinion and experience, it appears that university ethical review boards use a one-size-fits-all approach to reviewing field-based qualitative research proposals for ethical approval. Especially, issues around consent seem to be treated as though there is a single formulaic approach to gaining qualitative research participants' consent. Consent to participate, to record interviews or other forms of data, and to publish appear to have fixed interpretations from some ethics review board members. What goes on in the field is more complex than what many qualitative researchers are asked to provide in their ethics review application. Further, concepts of participant confidentiality and anonymity seem to be treated with paternalism. I think both university ethical review board members and qualitative researchers will benefit much of the review process is made more dialogical and relational, instead of the do-this-or- that approach usually handed to qualitative researchers by ethical review boards.
At all stages of qualitative research, ethical considerations are critical. There are concepts that need further elaboration and explanation, just as there are in quantitative research. Consider the principle of voluntary participation, which is attributed to the protection of one's autonomy. The researcher must make the recruitment protocol and procedure clearly evident, as well as safeguards to avoid any kind of coercive participation. The researcher must also identify the gatekeeper, as well as what will be said during the recruitment, how it will be said, what will be written in the participant information sheet, how consent will be taken, and the extensive protocol for withdrawing from the study.
The data saturation is the second example. Rather than simply stating such a concept, researchers are required to justify the proposed sample size (both in the pilot and the main study), since there will almost certainly be a cut-off number of participants.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants are a third example. This feature is linked to the notion of justice. All in all, in most cases, researcher is required to show how they plan to strike a balance between the research's potential risks and benefits.
Here is a link to the American Anthropological Association's policy on Human Subjects Review:
https://www.americananthro.org/ParticipateAndAdvocate/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1652
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research