Ethics in Qualitative Research

Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and ‘informed’ consent

Tina Miller and Linda Bell

Presentation: Irina Bobeică

What does ethics mean?

Ethics refers to questions of right and wrong.

The researcher must ask themselves if is right to

conduct a study or investigate a certain question.

Also, they must pay attention to the method they

are using, how they gain access and re-access to

research participants, etc.

What are ethical dilemmas/issues?

Ethical dilemmas/issues are

research problems in which participants’

rights and study demands are put in direct

conflict.

A ‘Code of Ethics’ has been

developed to help and guide the

researchers.

What does “Informed Consent” refers

to?

Informed Consent means that the

participants have adequate information

regarding the research are capable of

comprehending the information, and have

the power of choice, enabling them to

consent to or decline participation

voluntarily.

Ethical Principles of Research

“Gaining ‘informed’ consent is problematic if it is not

clear what the participant is consenting to and where

‘participation’ begins and ends.”

“Consent should be ongoing and renegotiated between

researcher and the researched throughout the research

process. “

“Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-

keeping and ‘informed’ consent” (Ethics in Qualitative

Research,2002) explores the ethical dilemmas that can

surface in gaining access and re-access to research

participants. It links three studies together with the issue of

‘informed’ consent, research aims and research outcomes.

Ethical dilemmas encountered in gaining access to research participants

Decision taken around access are closely bound

up with questions of ethics. Moreover, the differences

between access and consent are not always clear.

The researcher can experience problems around

access and encounter ethical dilemmas. Having

decided who is to be accessed the problem of how

arises. Further more, the researcher has to reflect on

the ways in which decisions around routes of

access can affect the data collected.

Access to potential research participants can be

achieved through employing a range of strategies.

Participants can be recruited via highly structured and

selective strategies, for example quota sampling, or

through much less formal channels such as snowballing

using the researcher’s own social networks. Whichever

approach is adopted, the motives around why some

people become participants and others resist should

concern the researcher and be documented in a

research diary.

The first research project, illustrated in Miller and Bell, involved a woman researcher (Linda) accessing a therapy centre that was being evaluated by Linda’s male colleagues.

The issues Linda encountered: – The sensitive nature of the topic (the project was

commissioned to evaluate the work of a therapy centre concerned with male violence) led to the research being based on single rather than repeated interviews with women.

– Accessing ‘women partners’ : Linda felt it was unlikely that women would be willing to come forward to be interviewed if contact with them stemmed from a men’s centre.

– Small amount of participants – only three interviewees. The others were not confident enough to be involved in the project.

What did Linda do?

Linda explained that she was doing research that

was intended to give the partners of ‘violent’ men

more of a ‘voice’ in relation to the male therapy

centre. She decided to ‘distance’ her interviewees

from the therapy centre and male partners by using

her own university connections to further ensure the

confidentiality of women’s participation and of their

interview accounts. She sent a letter by which she

invited the women come forward to be interviewed.

The need to rethink routes and modes of access both at outset and once a study is underway is clearly necessary in research that explores groups who may be difficult to access for a whole range of reasons. The question of who is actually giving consent and to what must be considered throughout.

The second study was set up to explore Bangladeshi women’s experiences of maternity services in a town in southern Britain.

Again the problem of access occurred. This time the issue was resolved using a ‘gate-keeper’. A gate-keeper or a key informant is known as someone who gives access to other interviewees but who would not necessarily actually take part in a study by being interviewed themselves.

For this study, the researcher found a

‘gate-keeper’ who provided wholesale access.

The Bangladeshi women felt secure and found

it difficult not to agree to participate in the

study as it was introduced by someone they

trusted. The ‘gate-keeper’ occupied a

respected, powerful position among the

Bangladeshi women which made her perfect

for her role.

Further ethical dilemmas can arise for the researcher

in longitudinal research. Here access clearly needs to be

renegotiated prior to each interview.

The final study consisted in interviews that explored

women’s experiences of first-time transition to motherhood.

If at first the researcher (Tina) had a larger number of

participants, later in time not all of them agreed to continue

the project. Even if they had given their consent when first

interviewed, they would not know how they might be feeling

over some time. (especially since it involved young mothers)

Tina observed that the decision not to pressure the

participants yielded a positive result.

The practice of research is increasingly regarded as a risky enterprise in which the ‘protection’ of parties involved and issues of accountability come to the fore in written guidelines and consent. Researchers need to decide what they are inviting participants to consent to.

Is consent just about participation in the research in terms of being interviewed or does it go further, involving reading and commenting on transcripts and the analysis of data?

What do you think?