Ethical protections

Unlike the legalities of copyright and ownership favouring the producers of work, certain ethical traditions seek to empower research participants. Pink (2001) espouses the ‘collaborative method’ in generating data arguing that such a method assumes researcher and respondent are consciously working together to produce interviews, photographs and video footage. Moral ownership of the data is shared in this method and respondents are empowered to change interview transcripts and edit still photographs and video footage producing a co-authored final data product. While this method is at odds with the legal position in the UK where joint ownership of photographs and video footage is not easily established (or desirable for the researcher’s employing institution) efforts can be made to ensure respondents are fully consulted as to the use and representation of the data.

Respondents who consent to having their data published (whether interview extracts, photos or video footage) for an originating research project relinquish their legal rights to control the data in any future use by other researchers. While the legal position is clear, appropriate ethical obligations are still to be established in the area of informed consent beyond the original purpose of data collection. The temporality of consent, as something always in process, always in negotiation and always in a state of renewal (Thorne 1980) is something that is recognised and thus supported in the ESRC’s research ethics framework under ‘participatory research methods’:

In the case of participatory social sciences research, consent to participate is seen as an ongoing and open-ended process. Consent here is not simply resolved through the formal signing of a consent document at the start of research. Instead it is continually open to revision and questioning. Highly formalised or bureaucratic ways of securing consent should be avoided in favour of fostering relationships in which ongoing ethical regard for participants is to be sustained, even after the study itself as been completed. (ESRC 2005:24, para 3.2.2).

Where consent can be constantly renewed and negotiated at the level of participation, there comes a time, on ‘leaving the field’ when issues of representation in terms of future use of data cannot be continuously renewed (Renold 2006). This is most apparent when the data have been deposited in an archive and reused by researchers for projects that may have significantly different research aims and objectives from the original research. It is quite possible that a reuser’s theoretical position, topic and questions may be at odds with original research respondents’ values and opinions nullifying informed consent for the secondary project. While legally respondents have little leverage in preventing such reuse, ethically the owners of the data (the original researcher and their institution) should introduce safeguards to prevent respondents from any harm or anxiety. To this end it is considered best practice to consult respondents before any agreement is made to allow for the reuse of data in a secondary project by another researcher or institution. In essence informed consent should be sought from respondents for any secondary analysis or repurposing by other researchers (Corti & Backhouse 2005).

Where it is expected that continuous contact with research respondents might be problematic (due to relocation, requests of privacy etc.) researchers should make it clear in the initial informed consent document that the data generated may be used for other as yet indefinable research purposes. The process of arching, where the data will be held, the duration of storage and who can access the data should be clearly spelt out to all respondents. Combined with assigned copyright and moral rights waived researchers can remain adequately assured that participants rights have been attended to. In such cases the researcher’s judgement is key in making decisions on the use of their archived data, taking into consideration the values and opinions of their respondents.

Next-->