ethical considerations when conducting qualitative research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on May 9, 2024.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2024, May 09). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, what is your plagiarism score.

Statistics for the Public Good

Ethical considerations associated with Qualitative Research methods

Introduction.

This high-level guidance has been developed by the UK Statistics Authority’s Centre for Applied Data Ethics (CADE), and the UK Government Data Quality Hub (DQHub), based at the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The guidance can be used as a practical resource to help researchers identify different ethical issues when conducting qualitative research.  

This guidance is not exhaustive but aims to support researchers navigating the ethical issues surrounding qualitative research projects (particularly in relation to primary data collection). It brings together existing literature on qualitative research methods and their ethical concerns. Links to further resources are provided if you would like to read about aspects in more detail.  

The guidance has been created for researchers using qualitative methods within the ONS . However, the ethical considerations discussed, and the mitigations for these, can be more widely applied to all types of qualitative research.  

The guidance is divided into several parts.    

• An introduction to qualitative research and why ethics matters in this space.   
• An overview of some of the ethical considerations associated with qualitative research methods, and some potential mitigations for these issues. This includes an overview of some of the qualitative methods used within the ONS.  
• An ethics checklist which summarises the main points covered in this guidance.    
• A list of helpful links to further resources.   

Ethical consideration dilemma: systematic review of ethics in qualitative data collection through interviews

Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology

ISSN : 2633-7436

Article publication date: 11 August 2023

Issue publication date: 14 December 2023

Qualitative research that involves the use of human participants calls for the need to protect those participants to give their honest view during data collection. This is an important part of every primary data collection in qualitative studies using interviews. This paper aims to investigate all available ethical considerations that need to be observed by the researcher when conducting primary data collection through interview and to explore the theories that underpin the ethics in qualitative studies.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper systemically reviewed existing qualitative data on ethics and gathered information that were analysed and presented on the topic area.

The findings show that ethical considerations deal with the various approaches adopted by the researcher to make the participants feel safe to participate in any given researcher. During an interview process in qualitative research, the findings show that anonymity, voluntary participation, privacy, confidentiality, option to opt out and avoiding misuse of findings are ethical considerations that must be observed by the researcher. The outcome of the investigation also shows that deontology and utilitarianism, rights and virtue are the main theories that underpin ethical considerations in research.

Originality/value

The rights of the research participants need to be respected in qualitative research to assist in gathering accurate information to achieve the objectives of study. This and other ethical principles such as anonymity, privacy, confidentiality, voluntary participation and option to opt out guide the researcher to systematically adhere to data collection approaches that yield valid results in qualitative data collection using interviews.

• Primary data
• Qualitative research
• Ethical theory
• Informed consent
• Data collection
• Ethical approval

Nii Laryeafio, M. and Ogbewe, O.C. (2023), "Ethical consideration dilemma: systematic review of ethics in qualitative data collection through interviews", Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology , Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEET-09-2022-0014

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Michael Nii Laryeafio and Omoruyi Courage Ogbewe.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Qualitative research that involves human subjects should focus on using the best form of interaction to gather accurate information. The researcher is vested with the main ideas and the approach to interact with the participants during data collection. However, these human subjects have the choice of what kinds of information they provide to researchers based on the treatment that are shown to them by the researchers. Researchers such as Collis and Hussey (2014) and Smith et al. (2009) proposed that researchers must have a policy of respecting the rights and privileges given to human participants in any given qualitative studies to allow the freedom of expression and the option to opt out at any point during the data collection.

These and other privileges given to the human participants in a research aid in gathering information without fear or pressure from the participants. Saunders et al. (2016) also affirmed by saying that the accuracy of information gathered using interviews largely depends on the honesty of the participants, and this is caused by outlining the ethical considerations that needs to be observed by the researcher. Ethical considerations are fundamental in any kind of research, this provides the opportunity for the researcher to gather the most important information without causing any harm to the participants in the research ( Orb et al. , 2000 ). The aim of this paper is to present a systematic and comprehensive literature review on ethical considerations in qualitative data collection using interviews and highlighting the various theories that underpin the ethical issues in qualitative research.

2. Literature review

Research ethics considers the act of doing good and protecting the rights of participants in research, as well as avoiding any possible harm to any participants ( Kara and Pickering, 2017 ; UK Statistics Authority, 2022 ). Kara and Pickering (2017) further noted in their research study that research ethics often considers the elements which concerns primary data collection than secondary data. For example, in their research that analysed 29 published articles between 2000 and 2015, majority of the article (22) addressed ethical consideration such as anonymity, privacy, confidentiality, informed consent and formal ethical regulations that concerns primary data collection, and the rest consisted of other topics such as ethics and secondary data, ethics and data analysis, theory and life-writing. This became evident that though ethical considerations are associated with other kinds of data, it particularly concerns primary data collection than secondary data. This was also confirmed by Colnerud (2015) who also expressed that ethical considerations help in preventing or reducing any harm that could happen to the human participants during primary data collection. Thus, it becomes very important for the protection of human rights in any kind of research ( Cilliers and Viljieon, 2021 ). In the current trend of research investigation, it is illegal to violate human right under the pretence of research studies. The nature of ethical issues in qualitative research is so delicate as compared to quantitative research ( Drolet et al. , 2022 ). Researchers have the highest accountability to ensure that they notice or identify and foreseeable harm and safeguard the wellbeing of the participants ( Williams-Jones et al. , 2013 ). As such, the actions of researchers, especially those that engage in qualitative studies, have been under high scrutiny due to the likelihood of mistreating the human participants, to gain deeper findings and clarity of information generated.

As noted by Van Burg et al. (2022) , qualitative research has been vital in the development of theories on emerging techniques that helped the existence of men in recent times, such as crowdfunding ( Short et al. , 2017 ), digital technologies ( Nambisan et al. , 2019 ) and lean start-up approach ( Shepherd and Gruber, 2020 ). The relevance of qualitative research has called for the need to ensure internal coherence as noted by Howard-Grenville et al. (2021) where they pointed out that a perfect fit must exist in qualitative studies which helps to link the research question to data collection, data analysis, as well as findings and development of theory.

However, researchers that engage in qualitative studies are faced with three major challenges that raises the issue of ethics in data collection: the researcher–participants relationship, the subjective interpretation of data and findings by the researcher and the research design adopted ( Beauchemin et al. , 2021 ). There is the possibility of disclosing some damaging information under deception. The literature provides an example of researcher’s deception through Humphrey’s study of homosexuals ( Punch, 1994 ). Humphrey used participants’ observation as his data collection technique through the act of deception, and this raised major concerns and shocked American scholars who wanted to have his doctorate degree revoked. Humphrey engaged in controversial research where he observed homosexuals in a public bathroom, and under the disguise of working under a different investigation follows same homosexuals to their various homes. Though this contradicts the ethical principle, Clark (1996) expressed that deception allows the researcher to gather “uncontaminated” data. This approach of “deception” was adopted by Clark (1996) in her forensic unit research. While conducting research over a period of six weeks, Clarke pretended to be working as a nursing auxiliary to observe participants and later take notes. In other words, Clarke did not disclose her identify as a researcher, rather pretended to be a worker at the facility. Clark (1996 , p. 38) justified her approach by expressing that when “dealing with sensitive aspect of subject’s behaviour”, some degree of deception should be permitted. However, Kang and Hwang (2021) pointed out that the act of deception violates human right and exposes the participants to harm and danger.

Misconduct in research studies deeply affects the results of any investigation. While Bruhn et al. (2002) believed that the authenticity of research findings depends on data collection techniques, Davison (2004) also expressed that human participants can give their honest opinion on an investigation when they are given “convenient” environment to operate. Participants should not be manipulated under no circumstance to give any to be involved in a research data collection. Throughout the research life cycle, it is very important for researchers to consider any possible ethical challenges that could occur ( Giorgini et al. , 2016 ). Due to the difficulties associated with identifying any possible ethical issues, ethical committee acts as experts who access the research documents prior to the investigation to make sure all ethical “checklists” are met by the researcher ( Lynöe et al. , 1999 ).

3. Historical background to research ethics

There has been different school of thoughts when a historical account of the birth of ethics in research is being narrated. This approach to rightfully engage human participants in research started when people started to reflect on the best way to interact and live. To recall, history has it that the birth of research ethics in modern studies started when investigators had to protect the human participants in any kind of investigation. To this school of thought, the Doctors Trial of 1946–1947 gave way for a starting point to document regulations that should have been followed by investigators for the Nuremberg Trials for war criminals by the Nazis ( Annas and Grodin, 1992 ). To further expand on the scenario, there were a total of 23 physicians from Germany who wanted to conduct research with human subjects as the main participants in view of uncovering a scientific knowledge regarding limits of the human body as a result exposed those human participants involved in the research to high temperatures and altitudes ( Grodin, 1992 ).

The accused 23 German physicians ended up brutalising and torturing the human subjects involved, as well crippling most of them which led to the death of thousands of the research victims. During the Nazi racial purification policies, these physicians were also exploring ways to racially kill innocent people in a relatively painless manner for reasons of mercy. This was to relieve the foreigners of the racial discrimination met out to them by the Nazis, without their consent. These acts were the most destructive and gruesome experiments that led to the murder of thousands of victims in Germany by the Nazi party in 1942 ( Nuremberg Code, 1947 ).

Research participants must voluntarily consent to research participation.

Research aims should contribute to the good of society.

Research must be based on sound theory and prior animal testing.

Research must avoid unnecessary physical and mental suffering.

No research projects can go forward where serious injury and/or death are potential outcomes.

The degree of risk taken with research participants cannot exceed anticipated benefits of results.

Proper environment and protection for participants is necessary.

Experiments can be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.

Human subjects must be allowed to discontinue their participation at any time.

Scientists must be prepared to terminate the experiment if there is cause to believe that continuation will be harmful or result in injury or death.

Clinical research must conform to the moral and scientific principles that justify medical research and should be based on laboratory and animal experiments or other scientifically established facts.

Clinical research should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons and under the supervision of a qualified medical man.

Clinical research cannot legitimately be carried out unless the importance of the objective is in proportion to the inherent risk to the subject.

Every clinical research project should be preceded by careful assessment of inherent risks in comparison to foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others.

Special caution should be exercised by the doctor in performing clinical research in which the personality of the subject is liable to be altered by drugs or experimental procedure.

Following the DoH in 1964, the development of the “Belmont Report” in 1979 became the next set of ethical guidelines that was proposed by the National Commission for the maximum protection of human participants on Biomedical and Behavioural Research. The Belmont Report reviewed and reaffirmed three key ethical guidelines that researchers must follow when dealing with human participants in research, and these are respect for persons, beneficence and justice. The Nuremberg code, DoH and Belmont Report paved way for modern approaches to research ethics in research.

4. Ethical theories

There have been several attempts by scholars in the field of ethics to provide justifications for the need to oblige to some form of principles when engaging human participants in research ( Koski, 2009 ). In essence, it is common and appropriate to consider different ethical theories that underpin the principles of a researcher to clarify what is wrong or right during data collection that involves human participants. The following are four key ethical theories that form the philosophical position of researchers during data collection.

4.1 Deontology

This ethical theory is often associated with the works of Immanuel Kant who expressed that the rightness or wrongness of an action should not be dependent on the consequences of that action, rather on whether that action is right under a series of rules ( Beauchamp, 1991 ). This is mostly regarded as obligation or duty and thus referred to as the rule-based ethics. Under this theory, people must follow their rules and do their duty. Salzman (1995) also pointed out that deontology ethical theory exists within the domain of morality which helps to guide our choice of what is right and wrong. For example, when a computer scientist who has much knowledge in hacking systems learn that there is going to be a nuclear weapon launch that could kill lots of people. Under this circumstance, the computer scientist can hack and cancel the launch of the nuclear weapon, to avoid killing of people ( Olson, 1967 ). However, the deontic view is that it is unprofessional to break into the system of the nuclear weapon without consent or permission. Deontologist advises not to breach the professional code of conduct as a computer scientist ( Waller, 2005 ).

4.2 Utilitarianism

Unlike deontology, this theory mainly focusses on the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the outcome of that action. This is born out of consequentialism which holds that utilitarianism deals with taking actions that produces the greatest benefits to the greatest number of related people ( Shaw, 1998 ). This is a moral principle that holds that the best ethical choice is the actions that produces the best benefits to the greatest number. For example, a healthy person has a good liver, kidney, heart and lungs. Imagine there are four people at the hospital who needs organ transplant each. In this instance, a healthy person can save four people with his/her organs. Utilitarianism theory suggests that the life of one healthy person can save four people at the hospital (greatest number) and that is arguably the best choice to make ( McCloskey, 1957 ). The consequence of taking the life of just one person is saving the lives of four people, though other scholars suggest that taking the life of any person is unethical.

This is a duty-based ethical theory which explains the rights of every person, and it is the duty of another person to respect those rights, thus owing up the duty to respect the rights of another. As Traer (2009 p. 103) explains:

[…] the most widely accepted justification for moral rights relies on Kant's deontological argument that we have a duty to treat every person as an end, and not to our ends, because every person is autonomous and rational, and thus has intrinsic worth.

This theory highly judges a person based on his or her character, rather than the action or outcome of event. This deals with the moral reputation of a person that determines any ethical behaviour (Annas, 1993). As the name suggest, virtue can be expressed as a morally good tendency to act well in some aspects of life ( Hursthouse and Pettigrove, 2018 ). This mainly portrays the character traits and become central to the personality of a person.

When researchers are faced with decision-making situation or data collection when there is the need to adhere to ethical considerations, there are several ethical theories that gives the guidelines to reach a decision that is ethically correct. To reach the right decision when dealing with human participants, each ethical theory helps to adhere to the best practices that lead to taking the best decision.

5. Qualitative research

The choice of this type of research largely depends on the philosophical position of the researcher. This type of research relies on the information supplied by the human subjects in the research. They hold the idea that human subjects under any given piece of research should be given the chance to bring out their views about the topic area in the research. This should be devoid of any predetermined set of questions that gives participants less chance to express themselves. As expressed by Merriam (2009) , qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world. This was affirmed by Parkinson and Drislane (2011) who also expressed that qualitative research use research techniques such as case studies and participants which helps in narrative and descriptive nature of practice. The most common idea from both authors concludes that qualitative research investigates events in their natural settings and successfully attempts to make meaning to the research based on the meanings the human subjects attach to them. Simply put, qualitative research deals with the gathering and analysing of non-numerical data to explore views, experiences or opinions of others.

6. Current and emerging trends in qualitative research

The community of research in qualitative studies has gone through several changes from where the human participants are harmed to the stage where the rights of participants are highly respected and protected ( Roth and von Unger, 2018 ). Qualitative researchers tend to treat ethics as the main characteristics between the researcher and what is researched. To move further, the advancement in technology has led to the transformation of many fields of research and qualitative research is no exception. As a result, qualitative research is going through tremendous and rapid changes and any researcher interested in such investigation should know the state of development in qualitative research ( Costa and Moreira, 2019 ). These changes and other emerging trends could be seen in three main areas ( ESOMAR, 2010 ): sources of data, data collection and analysis of data.

The traditional data sources under qualitative research were mainly through interviews, observation, focus groups and recordings ( Gill et al. , 2008 ). Currently, these methods have been heavily complemented by virtual, textual, visual and other data that is gathered from social media. The introduction of Web 2.0 technologies (interactive contents) has led to the development of social media platforms that enables people all over the world to share their lives and other private information online which is accessed by people all over the world ( Sykora, 2017 ). With creativity and innovation, qualitative researchers have found ways to leverage on this trend to conduct high quality research. As such, as many people around the world creates accounts on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms, there are vast amount of qualitative data streams that could be accessed by the qualitative researcher. In a nutshell, social media platforms have become an additional source of data for researchers.

The consequence of data available on social media platforms has brought about other emerging data collection tools such as data mining and web crawling techniques used in recent times. For example, software programmes such as Ncapture have been integrated into NVivo which helps to capture social media contents for fast qualitative data analysis. Ncapture is a free web-browser extension created for internet explorer and Google chrome which helps the researcher to collect contents from the web to effectively import into NVivo for qualitative data analysis ( Tom and Richards, 2003 ; Zamawe, 2015 ). This has led to the introduction of “netnography” (the combination of network and ethnography) as a new form of qualitative social media research. Netnography is a specific type of qualitative social media research that relates to data collection, analysis, representation and research ethics that is deeply rooted in research participant’s observation ( Kozinets, 2017 ). Kozinets (2002) further explained that netnography uses an interpretative research philosophy which helps to adapt participants’ observation approach of anthropology to the detail investigation of involvement and experiences which manifest through digital communications.

The traditional qualitative data analysis consists of using humans to code texts manually ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ); however, the introduction of social media research has turned efforts to using automated content analysis (ACA). This consists of techniques that are used to automatically analyse social media contents. Scholars such as Stockwell et al. (2009) and Sievert and Shirley (2014) added that ACA helps qualitative researchers to engage in large-scale data analysis and helps to produce efficient results.

7. Qualitative data collection methods and procedure

7.1 methods.

Data collection is one of the most important parts of every research investigation. It is the systematic process of gathering and collecting information on the interested variables in research to answer the research question and evaluate the outcome of a research (Collis and Hussey, 2016; Saunders et al. , 2016 ). In a qualitative research where human participants are involved, data collection translates into the various processes of gathering and collection data from the targeted participants about the topic area, through, for example, interviews. There are several methods of qualitative data collection, and it is up to the researcher to justify the methods used. The choice of data collection methods for qualitative research is highly influenced by the research philosophical positioning of the researcher ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ). The most common method of collecting qualitative data is through, interviews, group discussions or focus group, observations, surveys and note taking. It is worth mentioning that the interview could take place via telephone, online (through Skype, Zoom and Teams) or face-to-face, and be recorded for analysis. The focus of the research investigation is interviews as the main qualitative data collection methods.

7.2 Interviews

This is the most common form of data collection for qualitative research investigation (Collis and Hussey, 2016). This presents the great opportunity for researchers to fully interact with the participants to solicit for data about a topic area. There are several forms of interviews that are available to the researcher such as unstructured, semi-structured and structured interviews (Oats, 2016). Researchers can choose any form of interviews for the data collection based on the depth of data to be collected to answer the research questions.

7.3 Procedures

A long-standing process of conducting interviews to solicit for information from participants suggests that the researcher must have four main documents ready and to be sent to the participants (interviewee) before conducting the interview ( Denzin and Lincoln, 2011 ). These documents are as follows: consent form, information sheet, interview guide and introduction letter (when the researcher is seeking to involve organisations or institutions).

7.4 Information sheet

It is mostly called participant’s information sheet ( Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007 ). This is a written document that gives the summary of the research project and detailed out how the participants will be affected by their involvement in the data collection for the study ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ). Areas that are clearly detailed out in the information sheet are: (1) What is the study about? (2) How do I join? (3) What happens to the information? (4) Do I have to take part in the research? (5) Will I benefit from the research? and (6) What if I change my mind. These and many other information are provided on the information sheet to give the interviewee an awareness of the research investigation and how he or she will be protected.

7.5 Consent form

Having read the information sheet and become aware of the project, interviewees are given the consent form to sign to show their willingness to take part in the research. This is therefore a signed document that outlines the informed consent of an individual to partake in a research study (Collis and Hussey, 2016). In most cases, the consent form has some information with a tick box against it, asking individual to tick to agree to some key information that will take place in the research before finally signing the document. Some key information that requires a “tick” by the individual (interviewee) are (1) I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet dated for the above study, (2) I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason and (3) I understand that my name will not appear in any reports, articles or presentations.

7.6 Interview guide

Usually limited to a one-page document ( Menzies et al. , 2016 ), the interview guide simply lists the high-level topics that the researcher plans to cover in the interview with the high-level questions that the researcher wants the interviewee to answer under each topic. The topics and questions written on this document is guided by the research questions ( Lazar et al. , 2017 ) that is necessary and sufficient to achieve the aim of the research.

7.7 Introduction letter

This is a letter that is written to an organisation to allow members of its staff members to be involved in data collection ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ) or to seek permission to retrieve data from archives of the organisation, thus often called organisational letter.

All these documents mentioned above must be made ready to commence an interview by the researcher. The researcher through a sampling technique, selects and sends an invitation to the participants and records the number who has agreed to be interviewed. The interview is then recorded and transcribed for analysis.

8. Ethical considerations in conducting interviews

When the information sheet, consent form and interview guide has been designed by the researcher, it now time for the researcher to commence the interview process. This is the time where ethical considerations become very relevant. The following are some of the ethical considerations that must be observed by the researcher during the interview process.

8.1 Anonymity

Providing anonymity to the interviewees means that all the information collected is devoid of personal details of the interviewee such as address, email, name and other key information that could lead to the identification of the interviewee ( Crow and Wiles, 2008 ). Ensuring anonymity of information collected gives protection to the interviewees and allows them to give out key information which ensures reliability of findings ( Saunders et al. , 2015 ). This helps to protect the privacy of voluntary participants in the research investigation.

8.2 Privacy and confidentiality

The interviewer must ensure that any information collected from the interviewee must remain private and confidential; thus, ensuring that no third party has access to the raw data unless otherwise stated by the interviewee for exposure.

8.3 Voluntary participation

To gain reliable information from the interviewee, none must be forced or induced to participate in the research investigation. Forcing participant will mean that they are not willing to give out any information but for material compensation, they will take part which could lead to the collection of false information. Allowing for voluntary participation will ensure that participants understand the research area and accept to engage in the data collection ( Mumford et al. , 2021 ).

8.4 Option to opt out

The researcher must respect the rights of interviews at any point during the data collection to opt out. When this happens any already collected data about the participants must be discarded. This ensures that no interviewee is forced to engage in the research if some questions go against their virtues ( Mumford et al. , 2021 ). The researcher owes it a responsibility to respect the rights of the interviewees.

8.5 Non-maleficence/Beneficence

The ethical principle of non-maleficence and beneficence describes the researcher’s obligation to fully avoid causing any harm to the participant intentionally or be able to identify and eliminate any source of harm to the participant ( Guillemin and Gillam, 2004 ). The researcher in this instance should not over-burden the participant with more questions or create a situation where the participant feels uncomfortable. Any deliberate attempt by the researcher to cause an unwelcome environment will impact negatively to the responses that will be gathered ( Wilson et al. , 2008 ). This was initially a concern in the nursing research where a patient places full trust in the hands of a nurse or health officer, and therefore suffers a deliberate harm by the health officer which could be avoided ( Alderson, 2000 ). For example, where patients handle sensitive and private information to the health officer due to trust. Table 1 below gives a typology of ethical concerns faced by interviewers.

9. Key ethical concerns in entrepreneurship and technology

Technology and entrepreneurship are constantly developing fields that provide numerous benefits to society. However, they also bring up a few ethical concerns. The following are some of the most important ethical issues in technology and entrepreneurship:

Privacy: Personal data collection, storage and use are now easier than ever thanks to technology ( Reynolds, 2019 ). This raises concerns regarding who has access to that data and how it is being used. Technologists and entrepreneurs must respect the privacy of individuals and be open about their data practices.

Security: Cyberattacks and data breaches are becoming increasingly common as technology usage rises ( Reynolds, 2019 ). Business owners and technologists should do whatever it takes to safeguard client information.

Intellectual property: New concepts and inventions are frequently developed through technology. Intellectual property rights must be respected by technologists and entrepreneurs alike, and they must avoid violating the rights of others ( Reynolds, 2019 ).

Bias and discrimination: If technology is not designed and implemented in a way that is fair and inclusive, bias and discrimination can continue ( Van Burg et al. , 2022 ). Technologists and entrepreneurs need to be aware of the possibility of bias and discrimination and take steps to reduce it.

Social obligation: Technologists and entrepreneurs have a responsibility to think about how their products and services will affect society ( Van Burg et al. , 2022 ). They should guarantee that their developments are not unsafe to society and that they are adding to everyone's benefit.

Labour issues: Entrepreneurs and technologists must consider the effects on workers as technology alters the nature of work. They should guarantee that their advancements do not prompt work dislodging or double-dealing ( Van Burg et al. , 2022 ).

Business and innovation present numerous moral difficulties that should be tended to. It is essential for technologists and entrepreneurs to be aware of these issues and to take steps to guarantee that their innovations are socially responsible and beneficial.

10. Gaining ethical approval

Research that involves the use of human participants needs to seek for ethical approval from an ethics committee. Saunders et al. (2016) further expressed that all research that involves human tissues requires that ethical approval must be sought by the university’s research ethics committee. Obtaining ethical approval means that the researcher has adhered to the acceptable ethical standards of a reliable and genuine research study ( Bickman and Rog, 2009 ).

For the application process, the researcher must make available the research proposal, together with the data collection instrument, participants’ information sheet, consent form and then apply for ethics from the university’s ethics committee by filling the ethics form online and attaching the proposal for submission. The ethics committee has been named differently by many universities based on the country or university of application, for example, it is called the “Institutional Review Board” (IRB) in the USA. Section 9 below gives a detail overview of IRB and its composition. The ethics committee (or IRS) reviews the application and examines the proposal to meet all requirements per the ethics standards. Once all requirements are met by the applicant (researcher), ethical approval is granted for the research to commence.

11. Institutional review board

The IRB is also referred to as an independent ethics committee ( Mohamadi et al. , 2014 ) with the sole mandate of reviewing the proposed research methods by researchers to ensure that the methodological pathway is ethical. This is an officially constituted group under the FDA in the USA. This committee is called “Research Ethics Committees” in Spain. This committee assumes the central role in research by approving (or rejecting), monitoring, reviewing social science research involving human participants. The primary aim of the IRB is to conduct a high-level risk-benefit analysis to determine whether research involving humans should be allowed and thus brings no harm and other related risk to the human participants involved ( McNeil, 2014 ).

The purpose of the IRB is to ensure that various steps are taken by the committee to assist in protecting the rights and welfare of the human elements in the research. This means that by the review of the research protocols and other related materials by the IRB, any psychological or physical harm are eliminated ( Alicia, 2009 ). The review process takes the form of assessing the research methods and fully promoting informed consent and voluntary participation by all participants who can make such decisions. The composition of IRB varies among countries; however, it consists of academic scholars and other non-academic scholars which helps to bring a greater scope of understanding and helps to ensure sense of ethics in human-related research. It important to note that the IRB is often applied in health and other social science research which includes sociology, psychology and anthropology. This research often relates to social behaviour, attitude or opinions, as well as research on the quality of health care provided and means of improving the health-care practices.

The growth of research in ethical considerations and debates among qualitative researchers to adapt the IRB reviews to social science research necessitated the formation of specialised ethics committees (as called in the UK) to exclusively oversee social science research investigations. For a better review by the IRB, the specialised ethics committee tries to adequately understand research conducted by social scientists.

It is a usual practice that universities around the world publish all ethical concerns that must be addressed in respective research on their official websites. Students are expected to carefully review such principles and apply to their research. Due to differences or constant changes in culture, all ethical committee members must be subjected to constant training programme to be able to incorporate new and updated cultural changes into the ethical principles for students to be aware. This will help to improve the ethical committee processes. In addition, these ethicists must train teachers or supervisors who oversee the work of research students so that they can acquire the updated and most relevant ethical issues in qualitative research. These supervisors will also teach and explain to students how to apply all needed concerns in ethics. Because ethical concerns are mostly general in most qualitative research, through training programme organised for the students, they become aware to a more narrowed and focused ethical concerns regarding the specific human participants in research. In a cycle of approach, well knowledgeable students on specific ethical issues in qualitative research are more likely to address all ethical concerns before applying for ethical approval. This situation improves the process of the ethics committee and makes their role more effective by responding to students’ applications promptly, because of rightfully responding to all specific ethical concerns. This is illustrated in the framework below ( Figure 1 ).

12. Conclusion

Human beings are at the centre of qualitative research, and the rights of these human participants need to be respected to give out valid information. Researchers conducting a qualitative research investigation must adhere to ethical considerations such as anonymity, voluntary participation, privacy and confidentiality and freedom to walk out in a researcher. Researchers must also make sure consent forms and information sheet are given to the participants to read and agree to take part in a research investigation before conducting interviews. Adhering to ethical considerations in research demonstrate that the research investigation meets the standard of ensuring reliability and validity of findings.

13. Limitations and suggestions for future research

One limitation of this research is it focused on ensuring that the research participants are safe and can give out the right information through tape-recorded interviews. The security nature of the recording device (technology used) can however, exposed the interviewee through device hacking and other cyber-attacks. Further research is therefore recommended to examine the kinds of recording device to use during interview recording to provide data protection from the public and other cyber criminals. The study was also limited to giving a general consent form to the interviewee to sign before the researcher commences the interview. Further research is therefore suggested to explore the content of the consent form to clearly state the most relevant parts that seeks to protect the interviewee. There should also be further research to fully examine the retention and use of recording by the researcher for future studies. This will help to give a measure on how long any interview data recorded should be kept by the researcher before been discarded. In addition, the researcher relied heavily on secondary data that has been collated by other past researchers, and due to the current trends in qualitative research, it is highly suggested that future researcher should adopt the interpretative philosophy using semi-structured interview to fully interact with scholars in qualitative research to uncover any new knowledge about ethics in qualitative research. Research in qualitative studies often overlooks the cultural diversity among participants that helps to understand the worldview of participants. Future research studies should be directed towards exploring how research design in qualitative research should focus on addressing cultural issues in data recoding. This is because there are some tribes or cultures that frowns on recordings and the taking and retention of information after the person’s death. In addition, future research should focus on the effect of training programmes that are organised for the ethics committee and its effects on ethical approval process. In the words, are there any given forums or developmental programmes that are made available to the ethics committee in view of improving knowledge on current ethical concerns and how it has made their role more effective.

A typology of ethical issues in an interview

Source: Authors’ own work

Alderson , P. ( 2000 ), Qualitative Research: A Vital Resource for Ethical Healthcare , The Welcome Trust , London .

Alicia , M. ( 2009 ), “ Coast IRB, caught in sting, to close ”, The Wall Street Journal .

Annas , G.J. and Grodin , M.A. ( 1992 ), The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code , Oxford University Press , New York, NY .

Beauchamp , T.L. ( 1991 ), Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy , 2nd ed. , McGraw Hill , New York, NY .

Beauchemin , É. , Côté , L.P. , Drolet , M.J. and Williams-Jones , B. ( 2021 ), “ Conceptualizing ethical issues in the conduct of research: results from a critical and systematic literature review ”, Journal of Academic Ethics , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 335 - 358 , doi: 10.1007/s10805-021-09411-7 .

Bickman , L. and Rog , D. ( 2009 ), “ Applied research design: a practical approach ”, in Bickman , L. and Rog , D. (Eds), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods , 2nd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 3 - 43 .

Bruhn , J.G. , Zajac , G. , Al-Kazemi , A.A. and Prescott , L.D. ( 2002 ), “ Moral positions and academic conduct: parameters of tolerance for ethics failure ”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 73 No. 4 , pp. 461 - 493 , doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0033 .

Cilliers , L. and Viljieon , K. ( 2021 ), “ A framework of ethical issues to consider when conducting internet-based research ”, South African Journal of Information Management , ISSN: 1560-63x, 2078-1865 .

Clark , H.H. ( 1996 ), Using Language , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge .

Collis , J. and Hussey , R. ( 2014 ), Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students , 4th ed. , Macmillan education; Palgrave .

Colnerud , G. ( 2015 ), “ Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: an empirical study ”, Research Ethics , Vol. 10 No. 4 , pp. 238 - 253 , doi: 10.1177/1747016114552339 .

Costa , A.P. and Moreira , A. ( 2019 ), “ Technology ethics in qualitative research: how to be ”, The Qualitative Report , Vol. 24 No. 13 , pp. 1 - 4 .

Creswell , J. and Plano Clark , V. ( 2007 ), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Crow , G. and Wiles , R. ( 2008 ), “ Managing anonymity and confidentiality in social research: the case of visual data in community research ”, ESRC National centre for research methods .

Davison , J. ( 2004 ), “ Dilemmas in research: issues of vulnerability and disempowerment for the social workers/researcher ”, Journal of Social Work Practice , Vol. 18 No. 3 , pp. 379 - 393 , doi: 10.1080/0265053042000314447 .

Denzin , N. and Lincoln , Y. ( 2011 ), Handbook of Qualitative Research , 4th ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Drolet , M. , Rose-Derouin , E. , Leblanc , J. , Ruest , M. and Williams-Jones , B. ( 2022 ), “ Ethical issues in research: perceptions of researchers, research ethics board members and research ethics experts ”, Journal of Academic Ethics , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 269 - 292 , doi: 10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3 .

ESOMAR ( 2010 ), “ Current and emerging trends in qualitative research ”, Athens, Greece in combination with congress-Odyssey , Retrieved from: Current And Emerging Trends In Qualitative Research – WebSM (accessed 18 December 2022 ).

Gill , P. , Stewart , K. , Treasure , E. and Chadwick , B. ( 2008 ), “ Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups ”, British Dental Journal , Vol. 204 No. 6 , pp. 291 - 295 .

Giorgini , V. , Mecca , J.T. , Gibson , C. , Medeiros , K. , Mumford , M.D. , Connelly , S. and Devenport , L.D. ( 2016 ), “ Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct ”, Accountability in Research , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 123 - 138 , doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.955607 .

Grodin , M.A. ( 1992 ), “ Historical origins of the Nuremberg code ”, in Annas , G.J. and Grodin , M.A. (Eds), The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation , Oxford University Press , Oxford .

Guillemin , M. and Gillam , L. ( 2004 ), “ Ethics, reflexivity and ‘ethically important moments’ in research ”, Qualitative Inquiry , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 261 - 280 .

Howard-Grenville , J. , Nelson , A. , Vough , H. and Zilber , T. ( 2021 ), “ From the editors – achieving fit and avoiding misfit in qualitative research ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 64 No. 5 , pp. 1313 - 1323 .

Hursthouse , R. and Pettigrove , G. ( 2018 ), “ Virtue ethics ”, in Zalta , E.N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.) , Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University , Retrieved 2021-02-19 .

Kang , E. and Hwang , H. ( 2021 ), “ Ethical conducts in qualitative research methodology; participants observation and interview process ”, Journal of Research and Publication Ethics , Vol. 2 No. 2 , pp. 5 - 10 .

Kara , H. and Pickering , L. ( 2017 ), “ New directions in qualitative research ethics ”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 239 - 241 .

Koski , G. ( 2009 ), “ Ethical issues in translational research and clinical investigation ”, Clinical and Translational Science , Academic Press .

Kozinets , R.V. ( 2002 ), “ The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities ”, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 39 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 72 .

Kozinets , R.V. ( 2017 ), “ Management netnography: axiological and methodological developments in online cultural business research ”, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods , Sage , London .

Lazar , J. , Feng , J. and Hochheiser , H. ( 2017 ), Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction , 2nd ed. , Morgan Kaufmann Publishers , Cambridge, MA .

Lynöe , N. , Sandlund , M. and Jacobsson , L. ( 1999 ), “ Research ethics committees: a comparative study of assessment of ethical dilemmas ”, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health , Vol. 27 No. 2 , pp. 152 - 159 .

McCloskey , H.J. ( 1957 ), “ An examination of restricted utilitarianism ”, The Philosophical Review , Vol. 66 No. 4 , pp. 466 - 485 , doi: 10.2307/2182745 .

McNeil , C. ( 2014 ), “ Debate over institutional review boards continues as alternative options emerge ”, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute , Vol. 99 No. 7 , pp. 502 - 503 .

Menzies , T. , Williams , L. and Zimmerman , T. ( 2016 ), Perspectives on Data Science for Software Engineering , Elsevier .

Merriam , S. ( 2009 ), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Mohamadi , A. , Asghari , F. and Rashidian , A. ( 2014 ), “ Continuing review of ethics in clinical trials: a surveillance study in Iran ”, Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine , PMC 4648212. PMID 26587202 , Vol. 7 , p. 22

Mumford , M.D. , Higgs , C. and Gujar , Y. ( 2021 ), “ Ethics in coercive environments: ensuring voluntary participation in research ”, in Panicker , S. and Stanley , B. (Eds), Handbook of Research Ethics in Psychological Science , American Psychological Association , pp. 113 - 123 .

Nambisan , S. , Wright , M. and Feldman , M. ( 2019 ), “ The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: progress, challenges and key themes ”, Research Policy , Vol. 48 No. 8 , p. 103773 , doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018 .

Nuremberg Code ( 1947 ), “ The doctor's trial: the medical case of the subsequent Nuremberg proceedings ”, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Online Exhibitions , Retrieved from: Nuremberg Code – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (ushmm.org) (accessed 2 April 2022 ).

Olson , R.G. ( 1967 ), “ Deontological ethics ”, in Edwards , P. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Collier Macmillan , London .

Orb , A. , Eisenhauer , L. and Wynaden , D. ( 2000 ), “ Ethics in qualitative research ”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 93 - 96 .

Parkinson , G. and Drislane , R. ( 2011 ), “ Qualitative research. In online dictionary of the social sciences ”, available at: http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl

Punch , M. ( 1994 ), Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research. Handbook of Qualitative Research , Sage , Newbery Park, CA .

Reynolds , G.W. ( 2019 ), Ethics in Information Technology , 6th ed. , Cengage Learning .

Roth , W. and von Unger , H. ( 2018 ), “ Current perspectives on research ethics in qualitative research ”, Qualitative Social Research , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 798 - 809 .

Salzman , T.A. ( 1995 ), Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology , University Press .

Saunders , B. , Kitzinger , J. and Kitzinger , C. ( 2015 ), “ Anonymising interview data: challenges and compromise in practice ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 15 No. 5 , pp. 616 - 632 .

Saunders , M. , Lewis , P. and Thornhill , A. ( 2016 ), Research Methods for Business Students , 6th ed. , Pearson .

Shaw , W. ( 1998 ), Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism , Wiley-Blackwell , ISBN 978-0-631-20294-3 .

Shepherd , D.A. and Gruber , M. ( 2020 ), “ The lean startup framework: closing the academic–practitioner divide ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 45 No. 5 , p. 104225871989941 , doi: 10.1177/1042258719899415 .

Short , J.C. , Ketchen , D.J. , McKenny , A.F. , Allison , T.H. and Ireland , R.D. ( 2017 ), “ Research on crowdfunding: reviewing the (very recent) past and celebrating the present ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 41 No. 2 , pp. 149 - 160 , doi: 10.1111/etap.12270 .

Sievert , C. and Shirley , K.E. ( 2014 ), “ A method for visualizing and interpreting topics ”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces , Association for Computational Linguistics , Baltimore, MD , pp. 63 - 70 .

Smith , J. , Flowers , P. and Larkin , M. ( 2009 ), Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Stockwell , P. , Colomb , R.M. , Smith , A.E. and Wiles , J. ( 2009 ), “ Use of an automatic content analysis tool: a technique for seeing both local and global scope ”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , Vol. 67 No. 5 , pp. 424 - 436 .

Sykora , M. ( 2017 ), “ Web 1.0 to web 2.0: an observational study and empirical evidence for the historical r(evolution) of the social web ”, International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 70 - 94 .

Tom , R. and Richards , L. ( 2003 ), “ The way ahead in qualitative research ”, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods , Vol. 2 No. 1 .

Traer , R. ( 2009 ), Doing Environmental Ethics , Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group .

UK Statistics Authority ( 2022 ), “ Ethical considerations associated with qualitative research methods ”, available at: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/ethical-considerations-associated-with-qualitative-research-methods/pages/2/ ( accessed 24 April 2023 ).

Van Burg , E. , Cornelissen , J. , Stam , W. and Jack , S. ( 2022 ), “ Advancing qualitative entrepreneurship research: leveraging methodological plurality for achieving scholarly impact ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 46 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 20 .

Waller , B.N. ( 2005 ), Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues , Pearson Longman , New York, NY .

Williams-Jones , B. , Potvin , M.J. , Mathieu , G. and Smith , E. ( 2013 ), “ Barriers to research on research ethics review and conflicts of interest ”, IRB: Ethics and Human Research , Vol. 35 No. 5 , pp. 14 - 20 .

Wilson , S. , Draper , H. and Ives , J. ( 2008 ), “ Ethical issues regarding recruitment to research studies within the primary care consultation ”, Family Practice , Vol. 25 No. 6 , pp. 456 - 461 .

Zamawe , F.C. ( 2015 ), “ The implication of using NVivo software in qualitative data analysis: evidence-based reflections ”, Malawi Medical Journal , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 13 - 15 .

Further reading

Annas , J. ( 2022 ), “ Virtue and duty: negotiating between different ethical traditions ”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , S2CID 143268990 – via SpringerLink , Vol. 49 No. 4 , p. 609 , doi: 10.1007/s10790-015-9520-y .

Enfield , K.B. and Truwit , J.D. ( 2008 ), “ The purpose, composition, and function of an institutional review board: balancing priorities ”, Respiratory Care , Vol. 53 No. 10 , pp. 1330 - 1336 .

Perrault , E.K. and Keating , D.M. ( 2017 ), “ Seeking ways to inform the uninformed: improving the informed consent process in online social science research ”, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , Vol. 13 No. 1 , pp. 50 - 60 .

Perrault , E.K. and Nazione , S.A. ( 2016 ), “ Informed consent – uninformed participants: shortcomings of online social science consent forms and recommendations for improvement ”, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 274 - 280 .

Pope , T.M. ( 2009 ), “ Multi-Institutional healthcare ethics committees: the procedurally fair internal dispute resolution mechanism ”, Campbell Law Review , Vol. 31 , pp. 257 - 331 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, all feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Perspect Med Educ
• v.7(2); 2018 Apr

Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research

Anne-marie reid.

1 Leeds Institute of Medical Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Jeremy M. Brown

2 Postgraduate Medical Institute, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, UK

Julie M. Smith

3 Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK

Alexandra C. Cope

4 Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, UK

Susan Jamieson

5 School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, Glasgow University, Glasgow, UK

For medical education researchers, a key concern may be the practicalities of gaining ethical approval where this is a national or local requirement. However, in qualitative studies, where the dynamics of human interaction pervade, ethical considerations are an ongoing process which continues long after approval has been granted. Responding to ethical dilemmas arising ‘in the moment’ requires a reflexive approach whereby the researcher questions his/her own motivations, assumptions and interests. Drawing on empirical studies and their experiences in academic and clinical research practice, the authors share their reflections on adhering to ethical principles throughout the research process to illustrate the complexities and nuances involved.

Objectives and findings

These reflections offer critical insights into dilemmas arising in view of the ethical principles driving good conduct, and through domains which distinguish between procedural ethics, situational ethics, ethical relationships and ethical issues in exiting the study. The accounts consider integrity and altruism in research, gatekeeping and negotiating access, consent and confidentiality, power dynamics and role conflict, and challenges in dissemination of findings. The experiences are based on a range of examples of research in a UK context from managing difficult conversations in the classroom to video-ethnography in the operating theatre.

Discussion and conclusions

These critical reflections make visible the challenges encountered and decisions that must be taken in the moment and on reflection after the event. Through sharing our experiences and debating the decisions we made, we offer insights into reflexivity in qualitative research which will be of value to others.

A Qualitative Space highlights research approaches that push readers and scholars deeper into qualitative methods and methodologies. Contributors to A Qualitative Space may: advance new ideas about qualitative methodologies, methods, and/or techniques; debate current and historical trends in qualitative research; craft and share nuanced reflections on how data collection methods should be revised or modified; reflect on the epistemological bases of qualitative research; or argue that some qualitative practices should end. Share your thoughts on Twitter using the hashtag: #aqualspace

Introduction and context

The importance of procedural ethics, gaining initial approvals for research studies, is well-established and guided by the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg code [ 1 ]. Ethical approval procedures are often viewed as a ‘hurdle’ to be surmounted, and arguably overshadow full consideration of the challenges of process ethics, the ethical tensions and dilemmas which arise throughout the practice of research. This paper aims to bring insights into ethical dilemmas which permeate research at all stages, from initial approval through data collection, dissemination of the findings and exiting the study [ 2 ]. These insights, developed from the authors’ personal accounts of their own practices, are derived from a range of experiences of medical education research in different settings.

Procedural ethics in medical education is guided by the codes of practice devised by education research bodies such as the British Educational Research Association (BERA) and the American Educational Research Association (AERA). These codes are applied by ethics committees who provide scrutiny at a national or local level depending on the context and nature of the research. For example, in the Netherlands, a national framework to review medical education research has been developed by the Ethical Review Board of the Dutch Association for Medical Education (NVMO) [ 3 ]. In the UK, ethical scrutiny is conducted under the auspices of university ethics committees, except where there is patient involvement, in which case clinical ethics committees are involved.

Until relatively recently, medical education research has been given something of a rough ride by ethics committees more used to considering clinical interventional research [ 4 ], although such committees are now becoming more familiar with educational research and the ethical issues arising. Guidelines for ethical behaviour are based on the philosophical principles of beneficence , do good; non-maleficence, do no harm; respect for autonomy, self-determination; and equity, treat fairly [ 5 ]. These principles are intended to guide thinking in applying for ethical approval by encouraging researchers to anticipate the ethical tensions and dilemmas which might arise during the study.

Guiding principles

The formulation of ethical research principles is based on the deontological approach proposed by Kant [ 6 ], whereby moral duty should be guided by principles which transcend circumstances. The utility of these principles in guiding practice is subject to critique on the basis that they may encourage following the ‘letter’ rather than the ‘spirit’ of the principle, or may in fact be too restrictive, limiting the scope and value of the research [ 7 ]. In addition, the consequences of research outputs are not entirely within the control of the researcher, and so the principle of non-maleficence, do no harm, may be difficult to achieve in all cases [ 8 ].

Guillemin and Gillam [ 9 ] distinguish between the domains of procedural ethics (gaining approval) and that of process ethics (ethics in the course of practice). In doing so they recognize that ethics are essentially situational, and that ethically sensitive issues occur ‘in the moment’ as research unfolds [ 7 , 9 ]. Tracy [ 2 ] elaborates further in proposing four domains to guide thinking; procedural ethics (approval processes), situational ethics (the research context), ethical relationships (dynamics between the researcher and participants) and ethical issues in exiting the study (completion and disseminating findings). This approach recognizes the ongoing, unanticipated challenges which might arise beyond gaining approval for the study and which require a high degree of researcher ‘reflexivity’ in responding ethically.

Shacklock and Smyth [ 10 ] describe reflexivity as the conscious revelation of the underlying beliefs and values held by the researcher in selecting and justifying their methodological approach. From an epistemological perspective, a reflexive approach recognizes knowledge as constructivist, developed throughout the research process and contingent upon existing understandings and beliefs [ 11 ]. Transparency about the researcher’s position and potential biases and assumptions is vital in judging accounts of qualitative research and the authenticity of the findings. This paper seeks to illustrate reflexivity in managing ethical tensions and dilemmas through accounts of ‘practitioner-researchers’, that is, those with a role in academic or clinical practice who also conduct research.

This researcher position is one with a working knowledge of the field of study, a shared identity with participants, sensitivity to competing priorities and as one known to participants outside of the researcher role. This practitioner-researcher position is valuable in developing practice insights. However, it may equally bring assumptions and biases which have ethical implications but which are not commonly made explicit in medical education research. The authors seek to address this by offering critical insights into their personal ethical dilemmas drawing on the ethical principles proposed by Beauchamp and Childress [ 5 ], and with reference to the framework proposed by Tracy [ 2 ]. As stated, the latter concerns procedural ethics (formal approval procedures), situational ethics (issues arising specific to context), relational ethics (awareness of researcher actions on others) and exiting ethics (considerations arising beyond data collection). The authors’ accounts (indicated by their initials) include gatekeeping and negotiating access in procedural ethics, debated by JB and SJ; questions of consent and confidentiality in situational ethics experienced by AC; power dynamics and role conflict in ethical relationships debated by AMR and JS and issues of confidentiality and anonymity which challenged AC in dissemination of her findings.

Procedural ethics

Procedural ethics, the formal approvals required for a study to commence, are dependent on the justification for the study and a stated commitment to adherence to ethical principles. Even before embarking on the formal application, the good intentions of the research need to be carefully weighed up against the vested interests of the researcher involved. Tracy [ 2 ] advocates that researchers practise (self-) reflexivity ‘even before stepping into the field … [to assess] … their own biases and motivations’ (P. 842). An illustration of this is provided by JB, an experienced academic and researcher in postgraduate medical education. He reflects on his role conflict as gatekeeper in pursuit of integrity and altruism in research practice. Gatekeepers are those who give access to a research field, or, ‘are able to control or limit researchers’ access to the participants’ [ 12 , P. 452]. Another aspect of the gatekeeper’s dilemma is described by SJ in relation to her role in managing the research of others. This follows JB’s story.

Integrity and altruism

JB: The Universities UK ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’ [ 13 ] calls for integrity and research excellence throughout the duration of a project. However, one, often hidden complexity, concerns the personal motivation of the researcher, a troubling question for me in leading a research program funded by a postgraduate medical department. Despite beneficent intentions and careful adherence to research governance processes, I retain lingering doubts as to the extent to which hidden coercive influences impact on participant recruitment.

Medical education research is relatively poorly funded and time pressured as many researchers are practitioners with substantial academic and/or clinical roles and responsibilities. As such, these researchers need to reflect upon, and be transparent about, their competing interests [ 14 , 15 ]. Although this issue has been highlighted for some time in the field, change has been slow, as evidenced by the relatively low number of competing interests disclosed in a survey of medical education related journals [ 16 ]. Walsh [ 17 ] suggests that medical education researchers may not deliberately fail to disclose, but rather fail to recognize their own competing interests due to the ‘bias blind spot’.

Bearing this in mind, I am conscious of relying heavily on the goodwill of participants with whom I may have relationships before, during and after the study. I believe that the participant should be exercising judgement based on the validity of the study in which they are consenting to participate, rather than on that relationship. Despite the best intentions to contribute to new knowledge, there must be an open and honest realization that research outputs are key benchmarks to measure how effectively researchers are performing. This dilemma was brought home to me while teaching postgraduate students, one of whom posed the question, ‘Can research ever be truly altruistic?’

Initially I was unsure of how to respond, but on reflection, admitted that in my experience, despite endeavouring to be honest and truthful to our participants, there may be a conflict between our personal motivations as researchers and reliance on the goodwill of participants. These reflections are unlikely to lead to any dramatic changes in practice; however, recognizing this potential conflict can at least remind us never to take for granted the commitment of willing participants.

Protection versus paternalism

SJ: Balancing the aims of beneficence, the value of research to the medical education community, with the principle of non-maleficence, avoiding harm, is an ethical conundrum which I have frequently encountered in managing an undergraduate medical education program. As a member of the medical education research community I am keen to support research, but am conflicted when faced with frequent requests to include our students as study participants. This particularly arises with survey research which is often the subject of such requests. The issue of survey fatigue is well-recognized [ 18 ], so much so, that my institution instigated a policy to restrict this [ 19 ]. The policy aims to prevent survey fatigue and ensure that students remain well-disposed to completing important internal and external surveys including the National Student Survey [ 20 ], the results of which are important key performance indicators for the institution.

On becoming director of a masters’ program in health professions education, tensions arising from my role as gatekeeper were exacerbated. The needs of the postgraduate students to recruit study participants potentially conflicted with the interests of the undergraduates. The availability of undergraduates as study material for postgraduate students and career academics is not new, and two decades ago undergraduate psychology students were described as ‘a captive population with little power’ [ 21 P. 74]. In a similar vein, Keune et al. [ 22 ] noted ethical issues arising in a scenario whereby a surgical resident introduced a mandatory team/trauma simulation training session. There was no indication that this session was also the basis of a research study until the trainees were presented with consent forms on arrival, clearly suggesting possible coercion. Another study explored the motivation of Indian medical students to participate in research conducted in their university and hospital learning environments [ 23 ]. Of the 300 participants, 61% admitted to participating against their genuine wishes, of which 26% agreed because a faculty member had asked them and 4% because they had not appreciated the right to refuse.

These examples demonstrate a tension between protecting potential participants and respecting their autonomy to choose whether or not to participate in research. One solution as gatekeeper may be to give agreement for participants to be recruited via a general email to a whole cohort, but prohibit purposive sampling of a specific group who may feel more pressurized. Managing access to students as participants highlights for me the ‘grey area’ between protecting the vulnerable and behaving paternalistically in upholding ethical principles.

Situational ethics

After formal approval and access has been granted, unanticipated ethical questions may arise due to the specific nature of the research setting [ 1 ]. In clinical settings data collection occurs within the course of clinical practice which brings specific challenges. AC, a colorectal surgeon whose doctoral research investigated teaching and learning in the operating theatre grappled with issues of consent in the context of patient autonomy.

Issues of consent in the operating theatre

AC: My research followed principles of naturalistic inquiry [ 24 ], capturing the phenomenon of teaching and learning in the operating theatre, as it happened, through ethnographic observation, video and audio-recordings [ 25 ]. One challenge of capturing naturalistic data is gaining prior consent of participants, as it can be difficult to predict who may be co-present within an operating theatre. In my study there was potential for inadvertent participants to be captured during data collection, defiling the research principle of autonomy—the right to determine participation or non-participation [ 5 ].

One approach to uphold autonomy was in the choice of microphone for audio capture: the ‘XTag RevoMic’ which has a short capture range. This meant that talk at the operating table of consenting participants was recorded but that others entering the operating theatre were not inadvertently recorded. The recording was taken from a camera placed within the operating lamp for open surgery, and from a laparoscopic (internal body) camera so that the site of the operation was captured but not the faces of those present. Assurance of this was key to maintaining trust between myself as researcher and the clinical teams involved.

Potential patient participation in the study also raised issues of autonomy. The study explored interactions between surgeon and trainee, but the patient’s body cavity formed the backdrop for video recordings of hand movements and the interactions involved. This meant that the patient would be co-present during the data collection episode although under anaesthetic. Murphy and Dingwall [ 26 ] state that ‘one must distinguish between those for whom the research is likely to be consequential and those who are tangential to it’. The ethics committee deemed that patient participants were peripheral, and that for this non-interventional research, patient consent was not required. General Medical Council (GMC) guidance specifies that doctors may use recordings such as laparoscopic video streaming or images of internal organs for secondary purposes (such as research), without seeking consent from patients, provided that the recordings are captured as part of patient care and are anonymized [ 27 ]. In this study recordings were captured by the research team and therefore were not a routine part of patient care.

The clinician participants, in particular the nursing staff, expressed very strong feelings that the patient should also be recognized as having the right to consent in making an informed judgement in whether or not to participate. Despite this presenting an extra hurdle for me as researcher, in my surgeon role I was used to gaining patient consent for operations and agreed that patients should be given the right for their procedure to be part of the study or otherwise. I discussed the study with patients, providing a bespoke ‘plain language’ Participant Information Sheet and consent form. Inevitably this raised separate ethical difficulties as patients were anxious that by consenting, they were agreeing to be operated on by a learner surgeon (given that the study was investigating clinical teaching and learning). I had to deal with patient vulnerability sensitively, explaining that participation in the study or otherwise would have no bearing upon their clinical treatment, or the person performing the operation, emphasizing that this was a non-interventional study. In this way the autonomy of patients to choose to participate was respected. No patient declined to be part of the study on this basis.

Ethical relationships

The issues arising described by AC highlight the complex nature of ethical relationships in research. The researcher-participant dyad is dependent upon any existing relationship with potential participants and a reassessment of the status of this in the context of the study aims and demands [ 28 ]. Managing power dynamics, role conflict and role boundaries in relationships are explored here firstly by AMR and then by JS, each of whom experienced such issues in their respective doctoral studies.

Power dynamics and role conflict

AMR: Power asymmetry is a feature of research with the balance generally considered to be in favour of the researcher who directs the process while the participant responds [ 28 , 29 ]. Ben-Ari and Enosh [ 30 ] argue that this power is actually co-constructed through the process, as participants exert power in shaping knowledge through choosing what to reveal. An illustration of such power dynamics occurred during my study on partnership working in the development and design of a new healthcare degree, commissioned by the Health Authority [ 31 ]. As program leader, I led the development and delivery of the curriculum and managed the team involved. This brought me the benefit of access to the university team and senior healthcare managers as participants, but also role conflict in managing relationships as the study progressed.

I was acutely aware of my potential biases and power dynamics as both researcher and manager; when interviewing members of my own team I was sensitive to the ‘ethics of care’ [ 1 ]. A specific dilemma arose during an interview with a lecturer when I asked a question from the schedule. Rather than respond to this, the interviewee took the opportunity to air personal grievances. The interview may be viewed as a dialogic process, and my sense of control of the dialogue was challenged by the participant taking ‘counter-control’ [ 11 ] in deviating from the schedule. I was unsure of how to react, feeling it inappropriate as researcher to challenge or make a direct response. In order to avoid distractions and regain control, I steered the conversation back to the interview schedule.

Although in the moment I felt that I was acting ethically in prioritizing the quality of the research [ 32 ], the issue troubled me later. It seemed inappropriate to raise the grievance with the interviewee in my management role after the event as I had assured participants of the confidentiality of the proceedings. With hindsight, given the power asymmetry in the manager-employee relationship, I now believe that seeking a later opportunity to discuss the grievances would have respected the autonomy of the staff member and provided duty of care. On reflection, a different interviewer may have avoided such circumstances occurring, but in this instance I was expected to conduct my own interview as part of the doctoral training.

Managing multiple identities in an acute setting

JS: My doctoral study involved conducting a multi-site, observational, longitudinal research study, focusing on clinical reasoning development in final year medical students as they transitioned to junior doctors 1 . This required managing a number of boundary issues through my overlapping roles of clinician, researcher, teacher and mentor. As I observed participants in both simulated and clinical workplaces, the ethical challenges of these roles developed. I had to ensure that participants could opt in or out of various clinical scenarios as well as at different data collection points. I also had to be mindful of my own potential biases and the need to treat them equitably, neither advantaging nor disadvantaging them as participants in the study. Furthermore, I had to consider the secondary participants who were the patients and ward staff in each workplace. Given the opportunistic and serendipitous nature of the workplace, audio-recorded consent was initially sought in the moment from secondary participants, followed by full written consent.

My ontological position, in particular my predominantly insider role, required a high degree of self-reflexivity [ 2 ]. Despite extensive prior approvals and permissions, I anticipated and faced ethical dilemmas arising from my relationships as both an ‘insider’ (a middle grade clinician), and an ‘outsider’ (clinical settings beyond my own workplace and field of expertise). The potential for role conflict also arose between my clinical and researcher role. It was agreed that should an emergency occur within the workplace, I would intervene if necessary in my clinical role in accordance with the GMC’s Good Medical Practice [ 33 ]. Furthermore, I would identify a senior member of staff in advance for each shift to whom I could report any instances of unsafe medical practice. Participants were made aware of my role and ethical position as this may have influenced their decision to be involved.

Ethical dilemmas arising during the study included critical incidents ranging from observing unsafe medical practice to observing primary participants being expected to deal with situations beyond their capabilities. One example occurred in observing a junior doctor who was covering obstetrics, an area in which they had little expertise. The junior doctor had been ‘emergency-paged’ to review an obstetric patient following a significant bleed, where no obstetrician was available. Walking to the emergency, as I unpicked the participant’s clinical reasoning, it became clear that this individual lacked the experiential knowledge and practical skills required. I felt very concerned by this and decided in the moment, that in the interests of non-maleficence (avoiding harm), I would switch role and take an active part in the patient management. Fortunately, shortly after our arrival at the emergency, an appropriate senior doctor appeared and no intervention on my part was required. Had there been unsafe practice, I would have reported the incident following the protocols in place to protect patient safety. Although in this case the situation was resolved, recognising the vulnerability of the junior doctor, I alerted the clinical supervisor to the incident to provide support and ensure that the clinical team debriefed after the event.

Exiting the study

Ethical dilemmas may continue beyond the study as exemplified by AC, who faced challenging issues in maintaining confidentiality and anonymity in dissemination of her findings which included video and audio data.

Challenges in dissemination of findings

AC: Observational field notes and interview transcripts from my study could be presented at academic meetings in anonymized format. However, data from synchronized video and audio, although names were removed, could not be fully anonymized as voices, gestures and body language rendered individuals identifiable. As a clinical researcher, I was able to select clips and the appropriate mode of presentation for particular audiences. For example, at surgical academic meetings where there was a high chance of identification of participants, which might make them vulnerable, I used subtitled video clips to illustrate research findings. This meant that intonation, pitch and rise and fall of delivery within speech were lost; however, the identity of participants was concealed.

For presentation at medical education meetings there was a lower chance of participant identification. The audience was particularly interested in analysis of exact timing of ‘teaching talk’, the guidance given and subsequent responses of the trainee surgeon including pauses, hesitations and hand movement. To enable this, with support I digitally altered audio data so that the pitch of speakers’ voices was modified to conceal identity. On occasion, specific clips with names removed but not completely anonymized format were presented using speakers’ own voices. Express written permission was received from participants for use of that particular clip, recognizing my ability as practitioner-researcher to gauge the likely sensitivity of the data and the audience. For publication purposes, Jeffersonian [ 34 ] transcription notation was used. This technique records pauses, intonation, pace and stresses in the delivery of speech so that the transcript indicates not only what is said, but also how it is said. These different methods of presenting the data were selected in the spirit of non-maleficence, avoiding potential harm to participants, acknowledging that complete anonymity could not be entirely guaranteed. This was made clear to participants at the outset.

Discussion and conclusion

Qualitative research, by its nature, involves immersion in situations and relationships which are complex and unpredictable. These personal accounts have explored the nuanced nature of ethical tensions and personal dilemmas which have emerged for us, as practitioner-researchers beyond the approval process and arising throughout the research. Although some issues are particular to specific situations, there are common features in the challenge of thinking and acting ethically as a qualitative researcher. These include striving to maintain integrity and altruism, upholding autonomy in gaining consent and access, balancing protection of vulnerable participants with paternalism, managing multiple roles and power relations and avoiding harm in dissemination of findings.

The common thread running through our experiences is the sometimes troubling questions raised which may be difficult to foresee, and even when anticipated, require a response ‘in the moment’ [ 9 ], which has ethical consequences. Although the risks involved in JS’s experience of managing an obstetric situation as a clinician-researcher on the wards seem high, and the consequences are immediate, JB’s classroom conversations regarding integrity and altruism in research may have far reaching consequences. Training those learning the craft of research carries significant responsibility as it is key to how future researchers understand ethical principles and manage their own conduct in applying them.

The principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and equity should guide action, but the balancing of these principles effectively from the initial approval through to completion of the study and beyond requires a truly reflexive approach. Through sharing our reflections and insights we hope to raise awareness, not only of the challenges of conducting qualitative research ethically, but also of its value when conducted in a rigorous, ethically informed, thoughtful and reflexive manner. This has implications for those undertaking qualitative enquiry as well the gatekeepers who manage access and for those who prepare and train the researcher of the future.

Biographies

BDS, MEd, PGCert, EdD PFHEA, is Associate Professor of Medical Education, University of Leeds. Her clinical background is in General Dental Practice. She has a Professional Doctorate in Education, is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and is a member of the Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME) Research Committee.

BA (Hons), PGCE, PhD, is Professor of Clinical Education at Edge Hill University. He leads a medical and dental education research program funded by Health Education England North West.

BMSc (Hons), MBChB, MRCS, PGCert, MFST (Ed), PhD, is a Specialty Registrar in Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery at The Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford. She has a PhD in medical education for which she received ASME’s New Researcher Award.

MBBS, MEd, PhD, FRCS, is a Consultant General and Colorectal Surgeon at Frimley Health. She has a PhD in medical education and is a module lead on a Masters in Surgical Science and Practice at the University of Oxford.

BSc (Hons), PGCert, EdD, PhD, is Professor of Health Professions Education at Glasgow University. She has a Professional Doctorate in Education and is Chair of the Education Research Committee of the Association for the Study of Medical Education (ASME).

Conflict of interest

A.-M. Reid, J.M. Brown, J.M. Smith, A.C. Cope and S. Jamieson declare that they have no competing interests.

1 Smith, JM. The Transition from Final Year Medical Student to Foundation Doctor: The Clinical Reasoning Journey. Dundee; 2015 (unpublished thesis)

Editor’s Note: Commentary by: E. Paradise, 10.1007/s40037-018-0414-0.

Ethics in Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide

• Safary Wa-Mbaleka Adventist University of Africa

Qualitative research continues to grow around the world. More and more scholars and institutions of higher education continue to embrace it. Publications must continue to be on practical ways of conducting qualitative research in general and conducting it especially ethically. This paper is focused primarily on practical ways of enhancing ethical practices in qualitative research. While many qualitative research books and articles discuss ethical considerations, it is good to have a paper that synthesizes effective strategies to enhance ethics in a much more practical way. This paper goes from the definition of ethics to the importance of ethical practices and to the implementation of practical considerations before, during, and after data collection in qualitative research. This paper is not meant to be exhaustive; however, it should be a good guide for qualitative researchers who wish to avail of practical strategies for good ethical practices.

Author Biography

EdD, PhD Associate Professor, Adventist University of Africa Nairobi, Kenya

• Download PDF

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Most read articles by the same author(s)

• Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Fostering Quality in Qualitative Research: A List of Practical Strategies , International Forum Journal: Vol. 20 No. 1 (2017): International Forum Journal
• Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Claudia Blath, Janice Lloren, Wenwan Duan, A Brief Ethnography on Philippine English , International Forum Journal: Vol. 17 No. 1 (2014): Change, Chaos, and Resilience: Thriving in a Turbulent World
• Georges Mumbere Kisumano, Safary Wa-Mbaleka, MOONLIGHTING AS A GROWING PHENOMENON: A CASE STUDY OF A CONGOLESE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY , International Forum Journal: Vol. 20 No. 2 (2017): International Forum Journal
• Lendeh T. Seboe, Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Application of Leadership Theories to Crisis Management in Institutions of Higher Learning: The Case of the COVID-19 Pandemic , International Forum Journal: Vol. 24 No. 2 (2021): Orchestrating Simultaneous Changes in a Complex World
• Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Factors Leading to Limited Faculty Publications in Philippine Higher Education Institutions , International Forum Journal: Vol. 18 No. 2 (2015): Collaboration and Teamwork
• Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Gimylin Wa-Mbaleka, Researcher’s Social Responsibility: Challenges and Solutions , International Forum Journal: Vol. 24 No. 1 (2021): Being Vigilant and Veridical
• Ruth Obara, Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Reframing Leadership with a Focus on Inner Space Development , International Forum Journal: Vol. 24 No. 2 (2021): Orchestrating Simultaneous Changes in a Complex World
• Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Changing Lives through Qualitative Research: Some Practical Principles and Practices for Advocacy , International Forum Journal: Vol. 23 No. 2 (2020): Coping with Adjustments
• Silvana de Biaggi, Cinthya Samojluk, Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Second Language Acquisition: A General Overview , International Forum Journal: Vol. 19 No. 1 (2016): International Forum Journal
• Safary Wa-Mbaleka, Designing Learning Modules for Online Courses: The 5-WH Approach , International Forum Journal: Vol. 15 No. 2 (2012): Concerns of the 21st Century

Make a Submission

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Ethical Principles and Challenges for Qualitative Researchers

• Conference paper
• First Online: 04 April 2021
• Cite this conference paper

• Lorenzo-Quiles Oswaldo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1087-8138 19  

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 1345))

Included in the following conference series:

• World Conference on Qualitative Research

953 Accesses

1 Citations

The ethics of qualitative research are a reflection of the different procedures and tools that characterise this type of research. Due to its characteristic features (Wiles 2012 ) and its circular and interactive nature (Rodríguez et al. 2005 ), ethical problems continuously arise throughout the entire qualitative research process. There are certain ethical considerations that are common to both qualitative and quantitative research. However, in the field of social science where qualitative research techniques are more frequently applied, these ethical issues are considerably complex given that researchers are influenced by a number of aspects intrinsic to the nature of the human phenomena being researched and which affect decisions regarding technical and procedural matters, information management and even dissemination. This situation influences the expertise, ethical quality and commitment of the researcher in relation to the generation and analysis of the materials upon which the work is based and improving the understanding by the scientific community of the phenomenon studied (Aspers and Corte 2019 ).

Qualitative researchers face a number of issues and challenges to ensure they carry out their research work in line with the principles expected of them relating to qualitative research, which are closely related to ethical values (Guba and Lincoln 1981 ).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Ethics in Qualitative Research

The Researcher as an Instrument

Unsettling Definitions of Qualitative Research

Abad, B.: Investigación social cualitativa y dilemas éticos: de la ética vacía a la ética situada. Empiria 34 , 101–120 (2016)

Google Scholar  

Aspers, P., Corte, U.: What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qual. Soc. 42 (139), 139–160 (2019)

Article   Google Scholar  

Botto, A.: Dimensión ética de la investigación cualitativa. Gaceta de Psiquiatría universitaria 7 (4), 354–357 (2011)

Calderón, C.: Investigación cualitativa y práctica sanitaria: reflexiones desde la atención primaria y los servicios de salud. Revista Facultad Nacional de Salud Pública 33 (1), S115–S123 (2015)

Calderón, C.: La Investigación Cualitativa en el ámbito de los Servicios de Salud en España: caminos recorridos y reflexiones desde el presente. Forum Sociológico 2 (24), 1–11 (2014)

Flores, E., Pérez, X.: Protección al derecho a la imagen y a la voz ante las tecnologías de la información y comunicación. Estudios en derecho a la información 7 , 3–27 (2019)

González, M.: Aspectos éticos de la investigación cualitativa. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación 29 , 85–103 (2002)

Guba, E.G., Lincoln, Y.S.: Effective Evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1981)

Hammersley, M.: What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnogr. Educ. 13 (1), 1–17 (2018)

Houghton, C.E., Casey, D., Shaw, D., Murphy, K.: Ethical challenges in qualitative research: examples from practice. Nurse Res. 18 (1), 15–25 (2010)

Huber, G.L., Fernández, G., Lorenzo, O., Herrera, L.: Análisis de datos cualitativos con AQUAD 5 para Windows. Grupo Editorial Universitario, Granada (2001)

Iphofen, R., Tolich, M.: Foundational issues in qualitative research ethics. In: Iphofen, R., Martin, T. (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics, pp. 1–18. Sage, London (2018)

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kyakuwa, J.: It piques a novice’s curiosity and engages the experienced: a review of designing qualitative research (The SAGE Qualitative Research Kit). Qual. Rep. 24 (12), 3192–3196 (2019)

Lorenzo, O.: Análisis cualitativo de textos sobre multi e interculturalidad. D.E.Di.C.A. Revista de Educaçâo e Humanidades 1 , 535–546 (2011)

Martín, M.C., Feito, L., Júdez, J., De Abajo, F.J., Pàmpols, T., Terracini, B., Fernández, J.M., Redondo, T., Campos, J., Herrera, J., Abascal, M., Morales, A.: Recomendaciones sobre aspectos éticos de la investigación cualitativa en la salud. Metas de Enfermería 15 (4), 58–63 (2012)

Mas, Ó.: Las competencias investigadoras del profesor universitario: la percepción del propio protagonista, de los alumnos y de los expertos. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado 18 (3), 255–273 (2014)

Parra, M.L., Briceño, I.I.: Aspectos éticos en la investigación cualitativa. Enfermería Neurológica 12 (3), 118–121 (2013)

Pollock, K.: Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research. BioMed Central 13 (25), 1–12 (2012)

Popper, K.: All Life Is Problem Solving, 1st edn. Routledge, London (1999)

Rodríguez, C., Lorenzo, O., Herrera, L.: Teoría y práctica del análisis de datos cualitativos. Proceso general y criterios de calidad. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 15 (2), 133–154 (2005)

Roth, W.M., von Unger, H.: Current perspectives on research ethics in qualitative research. Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 19 (3), 1–12 (2018)

Saelaert, M., Mertes, H., Moerenhout, T., De Baere, E., Devisch, I.: Ethical values supporting the disclosure of incidental and secondary findings in clinical genomic testing: a qualitative study. BioMed Central 21 (9), 1–12 (2020)

Stake, R.E.: Qualitative Research. Studying How Things Work, 1st edn. The Guilford Press, New York (2010)

Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks (1998)

Vicerrectorado de Investigación y Transferencia (Universidad de Granada): Buenas prácticas en Investigación. https://investigacion.ugr.es/apoyo/comite-etica/buenas-practicas . Accesed 03 Dec 2020

Wiles, R.: What are Qualitative Research Ethics?, 1st edn. Bloomsbury Academic, London (2012)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Granada, Melilla, Spain

Lorenzo-Quiles Oswaldo

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenzo-Quiles Oswaldo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Education and Psychology, Didactics and Technology in Teacher Education (CIDTFF) Research Centre, Ludomedia and University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

António Pedro Costa

Faculty of Engineering, Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science Laboratory (LIACC), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Luís Paulo Reis

Department of Education and Psychology, Didactics and Technology in Teacher Education (CIDTFF) Research Centre, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

António Moreira

School of Computer Science, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Institute of Sociology, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

Grzegorz Bryda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Cite this paper.

Oswaldo, LQ. (2021). Ethical Principles and Challenges for Qualitative Researchers. In: Costa, A.P., Reis, L.P., Moreira, A., Longo, L., Bryda, G. (eds) Computer Supported Qualitative Research. WCQR 2021. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1345. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70187-1_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70187-1_1

Published : 04 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-70186-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-70187-1

eBook Packages : Intelligent Technologies and Robotics Intelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)

Share this paper

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research