730686

research-article2017
QRJ0010.1177/1468794117730686Qualitative ResearchConnor et al.

Article Q
The infantilized researcher R
and research subject: ethics, Qualitative Research

consent and risk 1­–16

© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1468794117730686
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117730686
journals.sagepub.com/home/qrj

James Connor, Simon Copland and Jill

Owen
School of Business, UNSW@ADFA, Australia

Abstract
Current research ethics processes, based on the mantra of privacy and institutional protection,
take a paternalistic approach to research participants that leaves them open to harm. Reflecting
on our own research/consultancy as a case study to illustrate the current flaws, we explore our
and our subjects’ experiences within the wider political context of institutional ethical rules and
the Australian NHMRC guidelines. In doing so we argue for fundamental changes to the modern
research ethics processes – a system that treats participants more as research collaborators
rather than victims in waiting. A complete review of ethics processes is needed to empower
participants and researchers to recognize the reality of the process as co-created and negotiated.
This includes changes at the top level of research administration – a shift in ethics policies and
procedures as well as greater education in ethics with commensurate trust for active researchers.

Keywords
confidentiality, consent, ethics, harm, qualitative research

Introduction
Researching people constructs problematic power dynamics that can result in significant
harm to participants,1 researchers and the wider endeavour of accumulating knowledge.
This has resulted in the implementation of ethical frameworks through which research
must be conducted. Originally created to protect participants from harm, ethics processes
are now ‘a risk management exercise at the behest of the host institution or funding body’
(Tolich and Fitzgerald, 2006: 72). These processes have fundamentally corrupted the
research process and infantilized the subject and researcher - to such a degree that we must
critically question all research done under the auspices of ‘informed’ consent.

Corresponding author:
James Connor, School of Business, UNSW@ADFA, Northcot Dr, Canberra, 2610, Australia.
Email: James.Connor@adfa.edu.au
2 Qualitative Research 00(0)

It is fair that some form of regulation of research is required given the history of
unethical studies (Babbie, 2004; Orb et al., 2001), which led to the development of ethi-
cal principles for research (Dingwall, 2006; Halse and Honey, 2007; Metro, 2014).
However, like all regulatory regimes, activities outside these frameworks still occur, with
a recent controversial example being the secret manipulation of Facebook feeds to assess
emotional contagion (Fiske and Hauser, 2014; Harriman and Patel, 2014; Kramer,
Guillory and Hancock, 2014).
Bio-ethics was the first area to be regulated (Ramcharan and Cutcliffe, 2001), being
formalized in the Declaration of Helsinki (Gelling, 1999; World Medical Organisation,
1964) with social science research drawn into this medicalized framework later
(Christians, 2000). These codes have generally covered four domains; informed consent,
opposition to deception, safeguards to protect privacy and confidentiality and, ensuring
accuracy in research results (Christians, 2000). Built within this framework, committees
reviewing qualitative research still assume projects should emulate quantitative, medi-
cal-model research (Richardson and McMullan, 2007; Tolich and Fitzgerald, 2006).
Ethics processes were initially focused on the concrete harms of physical abuse and
medical malpractice. Over time this expanded into social harms, with participant pri-
vacy and confidentiality becoming key (Baez, 2002; Giordano et al., 2007; Kaiser,
2009; Kelman, 1977). In general, ethics committees dictate that researchers are obliged
to protect the identity of their research participants (Giordano et al., 2007; Ryen, 2004)
and ensure that this protection is fully explained (Giordano et al., 2007; Rae and
Sullivan, 2003). Research standards assume that participants will stay anonymous dur-
ing the research process. These concerns are based on a value-judgement about the role
of privacy and secrecy in our society. Social research is seen as inherently intrusive
(Kelman, 1977) with participants sought by researchers for their own purpose
(Guillemin and Gillam, 2004: 271).
However, qualitative researchers have moved beyond these narrow concerns, with
a focus on the problem of power in the researcher-participant relationship (Lincoln,
2009). This new ethical debate ranges from discussion on the sharing of interview
transcripts with participants (Forbat and Henderson, 2005) to the development of col-
laborative interview and research processes (Bosworth et al., 2005; Bresler, 1995;
McTaggart, 1997; Munhall, 1988; Salmon, 2007). These methods shift research away
from a position where researchers exercise power and instead frame research as the
joint development of knowledge between participants and researchers (Acker et al.,
1991; Lather, 1988; McTaggart, 1997; Salmon, 2007). This makes the research agenda
about social empowerment first, knowledge-gaining second. Research should directly
empower its participants, with ethical frameworks ideally designed to facilitate this
process. Yet, despite decades of argument on these topics, we still operate under a
framework that fails to empower.
In Australia, research is governed by the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct
of Ethics (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007a), jointly developed by
the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), The Australian Research
Council and Universities Australia. The code provides the key standards for research
institutions and researchers alike (National Health and Medical Research Council,
2007a), outlining responsibilities and mandating that research institutions ‘provide an
Connor et al. 3

appropriate research governance framework through which research is assessed for qual-
ity, safety, privacy, risk management, financial management and ethical acceptability’
(National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007a: 1.3). The National Statement on
Ethical Conduct in Human Research (The National Statement) outlines the establish-
ment of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECS) within major research institu-
tions, mandating that ‘each member of an ethical review body is responsible for deciding
whether, in his or her judgement, a proposal submitted to the review body meets the
requirements of this National Statement and is ethically acceptable.’ (National Health
and Medical Research Council, 2007b: 74).
HRECs operate at a rather narrow level, being required to assess research propos-
als based on two criteria set out within the National Statement: the risks of the research
in comparison to the benefits, and ensuring that measures are taken to ensure partici-
pants are able to make informed decisions about participating in the research (National
Health and Medical Research Council, 2007b). These two areas of assessment are
based around the premise of harm. Harm operates at a macro and micro level, first the
broader question of intervention in circumstances of exploitation (i.e. observation of
harm) and second, ensuring that no harm is done via the research (Bresler, 1995; Orb
et al., 2001).
Ethics processes were developed because of the need to regulate researcher conduct,
however, the risk averse, legalistic and harm focused models we now have do not cater
for the needs of qualitative research. We critically reflect on our own experiences with a
problematic research/consultancy engagement that was ethically approved, yet did not
empower the research subjects. Situating our argument in the more radical and critical
ethics literature we show how current ethics processes need to be overhauled. We add to
the literature on ethics processes by reflecting on an Australian experience which allows
us to critique the NHMRC guidelines specifically. We also reflect on the grey area of
research/consultancy work and the pressure to take research funding from any source in
the current higher education funding climate and how this type of research is poorly
catered for under the guidelines.

Case study
A number of ethical issues became apparent in a research project we conducted. These
issues were specifically raised with us by Martin Tolich at a TASA conference (Connor
et al., 2012). Tolich is noted for opening debate on the issue of internal confidentiality,
which he describes (2004: 101) as ‘the ability for research subjects involved in the study
to identify each other in the final publication of the research’. An often unspoken part of
the confidentiality puzzle, Tolich believes that internal confidentiality needs to be
brought into a broader debate, with ethics processes making it a part of the confidential-
ity process as it widens the notion of vulnerability (Tolich, 2004). Internal confidentiality
(or deductive disclosure, Sieber, 1992) is of particular concern for the workplace, where
criticism of superiors, leadership techniques, workmates or the work of the organisation
from participants, can lead to reprisal (Kelman, 1977). Venkatesh (2008) offers a sober-
ing insight into the risks of communicating information to senior leadership that junior
4 Qualitative Research 00(0)

members of an organisation thought was offered ‘in-confidence’, when he revealed

information to the gang leader.
Our research focused on a change management process of a Federal Agency in the
Australian Government. Through a series of research agreements we conducted an anal-
ysis of an IT heavy program within the organisation. The Agency was trying to funda-
mentally change how it operated, shifting from a paper-based system to a computerized
one. We were approached to review the Program and provide consultant-like reports on
its progress and effectiveness. As part of the contract we negotiated the right to use the
data we collected for research purposes and ultimately for publication. The studies were
conducted via background discussions, focus groups, workshops, in-depth interviews,
and, analysis of internal and publicly available documents covering the Program. The
research program was supported by the highest levels within the Agency, giving the
research team unprecedented access to subjects.
The first research cycle consisted of six workshops each taking two hours. These were
conducted with the various players/teams in the Program and canvassed individuals’
views from the project teams involved. Twenty in-depth interviews, each taking approxi-
mately 90 minutes, were also conducted. The second cycle, approximately 18 months
later, consisted of 15 follow up interviews. All interviews and workshops were taped,
transcribed and coded based on key themes derived from the literature and those that
emerged during the research. Two detailed reports as well as verbal briefings were deliv-
ered to the research partner as part of the agreement. These were considered the main
output of the research process, and included a range of recommendations for senior man-
agement for the following tranches of the change management program and for the
organisation more widely. Second, the authors used research data from the process to
develop a range of academic papers analysing the process.
As we intended to use the data we collected for research (as well as consultant reports)
we applied for, and received, ethics clearance from the UNSW HREC. With the Agency
requiring us to begin work within weeks of first approaching us this application was filed
and approved quickly. Ethics procedures occurred simultaneously with the drafting of
contracts with the Agency and the development of research structures and interview
questions. This fast timeline ensured we as researchers did not have appropriate time to
adequately consider many of the ethical questions associated with the project. This fact
was compounded by financial requirements to take on the project. In a time where uni-
versities and researchers are increasingly compelled to seek outside funding in order to
conduct research we were unable to reject this project.
As the research was conducted, we took active steps to ensure the confidentiality of
subjects, with assurances of confidentiality for all subjects (in writing and verbally). We
used the standard UNSW Participant Information Statement and Consent (PISC) forms
and terminology. Subjects were recruited to the study by the Agency itself, conducted on
site during working hours - which implied a level of compulsion. While we made it clear
that participation was voluntary, no subject refused – raising questions as to how volun-
tary the research was.
Different levels of confidentiality were used depending on the research output. In
reports presented to senior management all names and position titles were removed
from the documents, with quotes only attributed to ‘an individual’. In research papers
Connor et al. 5

however, we provided more detail on subjects’ roles in the organisation. This was done
to provide greater context, which we believe was required for the proper reporting of
the data to a wider audience. Both of these approaches were in line with agreements
signed by subjects.

Discussion
Our case study highlights a significant number of problems both with the standard
nature of ethics practices, and in particular the implementation of these practices
within a researcher - consultant/audit framework. On reflection, we have come to the
conclusion our research had a number of ethical problems which we failed to address.
In our defence the current guidelines make it nearly impossible to research ethically,
thus we, like so many other researchers, accepted institutional approval as a bureau-
cratic requirement to be met as a tick-a-box exercise.
First, we did not gain true informed consent of our subjects. As all subjects were
recruited through The Agency, with formal requests for participation being made by
Agency management, it is reasonable to believe subjects understood participation to be
a requirement of their employment. There is a distinct power differential between
Agency management and staff, which was exploited during the recruitment phase.
Even though we offered subjects the opportunity to withdraw at any time, we believe
concerns about retribution within the workplace could have stopped subjects from
doing so. Miller and Bell (2002) offer another case study of possible work-place coer-
cion and they chose to change their consent procedures to account for this, we should
have considered this ourselves.
Second, our research put subjects at the risk of being internally exposed. While indi-
vidual names and position titles were removed from research documents, it is plausible
that internal audiences may have been able to triangulate documents in order to identify
subjects. This presents two risks. One, senior management may have been able to iden-
tify informants. This is particularly relevant as our original consultant reports were only
provided to senior management, meaning Agency staff did not necessarily have access to
the details, nor the recommendations provided. Two, the externally published papers/
presentations may allow for triangulation of who said what and allow other staff to iden-
tify subjects. This had the potential to extend any form of backlash to informants to their
colleagues as well as their employer.
Many subjects were deeply critical of the Program and, in particular, the role of
senior management. The identification of individuals could lead vengeful members of
senior management to punish these subjects – including the potential removal of
responsibilities, the denial of promotions, or isolation from colleagues and work expe-
riences, amongst others (Kelman, 1977). This can also be extended into other parts of
the workplace, with many subjects criticising the work and practices of fellow col-
leagues or work teams. Indeed, a key theme of the data was the denial of responsibility
and blame shifting engaged with by many subjects - there was always someone else in
the organisation to blame for the Program failures/delays. These risks are particularly
relevant given the assumption subjects would have had that assurances of confidential-
ity would have protected them. The lay understanding of what confidentiality means
6 Qualitative Research 00(0)

can be very different to the reality, with subjects not interpreting it the way ethics
guidelines assume (Sankar et al., 2003; Swain, 2006; Wiles et al., 2008).
Finally, we believe we failed to properly empower and inform our subjects during and
after the research process. Research findings were given solely to Agency management
(in the form of an audit report) or published in hard-to-access academic journals, leaving
subjects completely absent in the decision-making process that followed. In her research
with Aboriginal women in Canada, Amy Salmon noted a perception of researchers as
being people ‘who collect information and “data” from Aboriginal people but “don’t
give anything back”’ (Salmon, 2007: 983). It is a common obligation for researchers to
return something to subjects. In our work it was up to senior management as to how and
when the findings were to be distributed internally (if at all) – separating subjects from
the data collected. Subjects were passive actors, with decisions about outcomes com-
pletely out of their hands. Whilst management would have been able to make changes
following the recommendations, the workforce did not have that opportunity. This, we
believe, goes against many of the values embodied in social qualitative research.

Exploiting ethical gaps

We did not engage with our subjects as well as we could have, with the potential for our
research/consultant methodology to have negative consequences. However, when asked
the question of ‘what did we do to fix this?’ the answer is nothing, as technically we did
nothing wrong. Our research received ethics approval and we ticked all of the appropri-
ate boxes in terms of national regulation and University policy.
This highlights major problems with standard ethics procedures, much of which was
exacerbated by the nature of our research. As researchers hired by the Agency on a con-
sultancy our research fell in what we called the researcher-consultant ethics gap.
Engaging in an audit, we applied for ethics approval to use the data for academic
purposes. This placed us in a problematic position of attempting to engage in consult-
ant-based work, whilst maintaining ethics procedures normally designed for academic
social research. It is here where many of our problems arose. We were hired by the
Agency on a very short turnaround requiring us to rush through approvals (days, not
weeks). We did not have the time to properly think through the ethical conundrums
within the project, missing many of the issues noted above. Second our auditing con-
tract created a number of the ethical problems we encountered – in particular the
recruitment of participants and the reporting of data to Agency management. This left
us with challenges we were simply unable to resolve. Despite this, we were still able
to receive ethical approval.
It is important to note the motivation for undertaking this research. Performance
expectations of researchers in modern universities are focused on two key outputs:
research income and quality of academic papers produced. Given the expectation of our
university to bring in research funding this project was considered too good to pass up.
This provides some indication of our motivation, and in particular highlights the conflict
we faced when dealing with ethical issues. We note this problem not as an excuse but as
explanation for the pressure we all feel.
Connor et al. 7

Finding the gaps

Given the origins of ethics approval frameworks, it is not surprising that qualitative
research that straddles audit/consultant work and research is not well covered in the
guidelines. Originally written for the medical context, Australia’s first ethical code was
developed in the early 1990s by the National Health and Medical Research Council, then
without consultation or negotiation extended to include social research (Van den
Hoonaard, 2011). This was further formalized in The National Statement produced in
1999 and updated in 2007. The National Statement covers all research including humans,
whether quantitative or qualitative, medical or social, providing a base set of guidelines
for research on humans.
The National Statement provides a brief discussion on qualitative research in Section
Three: Ethical Considerations Specific to Research Methods or Fields. This section defines
qualitative research as that which ‘can involve the studied use and collection of a variety of
empirical materials such as case studies, personal experience, life stories, interviews, obser-
vations, and cultural texts’ (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007b: 23). In
doing so, it outlines some potential ways in which qualitative researchers treat ethics differ-
ently from their biomedical colleagues. These include the use of verbal consent, variations
of subject recruitment and sampling sizes, discussions on the role of researcher-participant
relationships and the potential for a researcher to be a therapist for participants.
The National Statement provides a very broad brush approach to ethical guidelines,
outlining key principles for those working with humans. This is described in the section
on Ethical Values and Principles, which says:

These ethical guidelines are not simply a set of rules. Their application should not be mechanical.
It always requires, from each individual, deliberation on the values and principles, exercise of
judgement, and an appreciation of context. (National Health and Medical Research Council,
2007b: 11)

Despite this, it is the general experience of social researchers to be forced into a one-size-
fits-all legalistic approach. We identified three problems with our research: consent, con-
fidentiality, and the researcher-participant relationship. In each of these areas standard
ethical procedures allowed for little deviance in practice. The National Statement man-
dates that all research that is declared to be above low risk must receive ethics approval
from a HREC, which produces a standardized measure of ethics, based largely on expec-
tations of quantitative medical research (Bamber and Sappey, 2007). There is an expecta-
tion of confidentiality for participants, a practice of informed consent which occurs at the
start of research via formalised consent forms. Ethics procedures force researchers into a
series of templates, creating what Van Den Hoonaard (2011: 45) describes as a ‘blizzard
of paperwork’. This bureaucratic process codifies a researcher-subject relationship, dis-
courages difference, and restricts the involvement of participants in the negotiation of
ethical procedures.
These realities are the result of ethics being managed with a risk-based (Bamber and
Sappey, 2007), managerialist approach. Bell and Bryman (2007: 66, citing Furedi, 2002)
argue ‘universities have developed an obsession with research ethics driven by risk
assessment and a fear of litigation that leads them to act more conservatively than the law
8 Qualitative Research 00(0)

requires, being more concerned with the reputation of the university than the ideals of
research’. Furedi (2002) notes that

review bodies are not in the business of discussing the finer points of ethics. They are concerned
with issues such as risk, litigation, the reputation of a university and the management of
research. In practice, they are not so much an ethics committee as bureaucratic gatekeepers who
use ethics as a managerial ideology.

As Iphofen (2011) notes, institutional integrity is the aim of the university, this means its
focus is reputation first, ethics second.
This approach limits our ability to do good research, in particular, research that
involves, empowers and challenges – as that is seen as risky. Yet qualitative social
research is often significantly less risky than its quantitative medical sibling, as Dingwall
(2006: 51) notes: ‘risks to human subjects are not comparable [with medical research]
and the power relationship between researcher and researched is so different as to render
prior scrutiny irrelevant and inappropriate’. Largely concerned with the legal, financial
and reputational risks of ethical breaches, universities maintained the same ethical pro-
cedures, even though they were not suitable for social research.
Managerial ideology places participants in the role of subject, to be protected from the
potential harms of research. This has a major impact on practice, with qualitative research-
ers seeing the roles of researcher and participant as mutually exclusive: researchers define
the project and contribute all of the thinking towards the end result, while participants are
subjects whose actions and words are to be studied (Karnieli-Miller, 2009). This is exem-
plified by how ethics approvals are still sought before any engagement with participants.
Researchers define what is ethical, with participants having limited say.
In treating participants in this manner ethics processes act paternalistically (Giordano
et al., 2007) and assume participants are unable to manage the impacts of expressing
their voice. This goes against much of the ethos of qualitative research, which should be
the co-creation of knowledge (Ebbs, 1996). The interview in particular allows partici-
pants and researchers to engage in intimate, therapeutic and collaborative processes
(Birch and Miller, 2000; Karnieli-Miller, 2009; Salmon, 2007; Tang, 2002), ones that are
enhanced by techniques such as sharing interview transcripts with participants (Forbat
and Henderson, 2005). This not only helps researchers gain and build on the knowledge
required for their work, but allows participants to take ownership of their knowledge, so
they can ‘come to terms with historical, social and cultural contexts of their communities
and their position within those contexts’ (Ebbs, 1996: 219). The process of assumed
confidentiality, which is still the basis of HRECs, disengages participants from the pro-
cess by silencing their voices (Aldred, 2008). Our research was only shared with Agency
management and not with employees – i.e. the majority of research subjects. Journal
articles, often placed behind a paywall and written in confusing, jargonistic language, are
also largely inaccessible. Participants are removed from the process of knowledge co-
creation and have little to no access to the knowledge when it is created. These problems
are well documented within the research community, with some researchers now delib-
erately disobeying ethical guidelines (Katz, 2006; Metro, 2014). These ethical outlaws
are removing themselves from ethics processes, engaging in what they believe to be far
Connor et al. 9

more ethical behaviour than is prescribed in formal processes. In the Australian context,
you would be very brave to risk the opprobrium of a University Ethics Committee and
misconduct investigation – with the likelihood of losing your employment.
This reality has, potentially unintentionally, been reinforced by Government regulation
and The National Statement. With the National Statement drafted with a focus on scientific,
quantitative research, with social qualitative research being brought into the fold with little
consultation from social researchers, qualitative research is automatically side-lined as
something different or unique, and in turn something that can be ignored. The National
Statement therefore plays a role in maintaining what Van Den Hoonaard (2011: 48) describes
as the ‘hegemony of ethics committees’.This is the process in which the ethics application
process ‘(even for minimal risk, non-treatment studies) has become “normal,” even when
many parts of it are considered unreasonable (and even impossible) for some kinds of stud-
ies’ (Hamilton, 2002: 186–187). The risk-adverse, harm-elimination, scientific approach to
ethics have become codified within the qualitative experience via Government regulation
and most importantly the practice of increasingly invasive HRECs. This is occurring despite
the common concerns of researchers regarding the failures of the system.

Closing these gaps – creating a qualitatively friendly ethics system

The current system gave us little choice in how to approach our research, especially
given the time constraints and consultancy/research mix. We were forced into the bliz-
zard of paperwork, filling out application forms in a rote manner like we have many
times before. This turned the process into a tick-a-box exercise with little reflection. This
discouraged both us as researchers and our HREC from actively thinking about the ethi-
cal issues facing our project and how we might resolve those. We have identified four
initial areas of change to make the process more effective; a new National Statement, a
rethink of the way HRECs operate, compulsory ethical research training for social
researchers and researcher reflexivity.
First, there must be a new National Statement which focuses on qualitative research.
An example of this can be found in the Canadian ethics processes. The Canadian equiva-
lent of The National Statement is titled ‘Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans’
(Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada and The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,
2014). A more extensive document than The National Statement, ‘Ethical Conduct for
Research Involving Humans’ involves far greater discussion on qualitative research.
While still having problems (Van Den Hoonaard, 2011) this section at least aims to deal
more deeply with the complex issues facing qualitative research, including the timing of
ethics reviews, differing forms of consent, the potential process of disclosing participant
identities, the role of emergent design and the processes involved in observational
research. The document deals effectively with the issues of qualitative research rather
than seeing it as a simple side-line to quantitative approaches.
While the National Statement has glacially shifted on these issues since inception,
these changes must go further, acknowledging the significant differences that exist
between social and bio-medical research and adjusting the rules appropriately. This, we
believe, should result in the development of a qualitative-specific national statement,
10 Qualitative Research 00(0)

which is developed in full consultation with social scientists and incorporates discus-
sions on the issues we have raised. Importantly, as occurs in the Canadian situation (Van
Den Hoonaard, 2011), this statement should act as policy not regulation, allowing for
universities to vary procedures as issues arise.
Second, the way HRECs operate must change. Instead of the current system based on
researchers filling out forms that specify the exact details required for research to be
approved before undertaking any research, we should shift to an on-going, iterative sys-
tem. One model is Tolich and Fitzgerald’s (2006), who argue for a process in which
interviews are conducted between ethics committees and researchers. These interviews
would consist of three basic questions, (1) what is the research project about; (2) what
ethical issues does the researcher believe are raised by this project; and (3) how does the
researcher plan to address these problems (Tolich and Fitzgerald, 2006). This gives
researchers the opportunity to explain their research in an open-ended discussion with
ethics committees, giving them the space both to think about and explain the ethical
issues (Tolich and Fitzgerald, 2006). Instead of defining right and wrong ethical out-
comes, this sort of process would allow for discussion between HRECs and researchers,
with the two coming together to find appropriate solutions. This has the potential to be a
fruitful peer supportive and collaborative process. For many institutions this would be a
significant leap. In current systems, researchers are seen largely as untrustworthy actors,
who must be monitored to ensure they do not breach ethical codes (Bamber and Sappey,
2007).
The composition of HRECs must be adapted to ensure they are run and led by fellow
qualitative researchers. The current member composition requirements of HRECs in The
National Statement are problematic as there is insufficient expertise (Bamber and Sappey,
2007) to administer a collaborative process (National Health and Medical Research
Council, 2007b: 71–72). Schrag (2011a: 124) notes the problems this can cause, citing
Atran who proposed research on international terrorism, which ‘was blocked by a board
chaired by an expert in “the effects of hydrophobic and hydrophilic glass coatings, win-
dow tinting, and defrosters/defoggers on visual performance and driving behavior”’. Part
of this is because HRECs operate in a largely centralized manner, meaning committee
members are required to devote significant time and energy to the process. De-centralising
HRECs and making them more like the peer-review process may ameliorate this, allow-
ing experts to devote a small proportion of their time to participation in committees.
This will allow HRECs to apply different principles depending on the research con-
ducted and assess harm depending on social good. For example, how does a researcher
deal with this principle when researching police violence towards minorities (Moskos,
2008) or employer abuse of their employees (Bamber and Sappey, 2007)? Exposing these
injustices will clearly lead to harm to participants (police officers, employers etc.), but
there is also a greater good. Current HREC procedures would neither allow the observa-
tion of these practices (as it would be required to occur covertly) nor the disclosure of such
practices, resulting in social scientists becoming servants of power (Bamber and Sappey,
2007). Discipline-specific HRECs may be able to deal with these questions more thor-
oughly, allowing researchers to find more appropriate solutions to these problems.
Further, we as researchers must take more responsibility for our qualitative methodolo-
gies. Researchers often enter their field with limited training in ethics, instead basing their
Connor et al. 11

understanding on the paperwork provided by HRECs and corridor scuttlebutt. Researchers

require tools to build strong, trust-based relationships with participants, which needs to be
part of researcher training. This will explain how to provide support for participants who
have suffered emotional harm due to the research process (Birch and Miller, 2000), ensure
participants have the proper capacity to provide informed consent and, most importantly,
make research a valuable and empowering process for participants as well as researchers.
Such a program must be compulsory for researchers, ensuring all who engage in poten-
tially higher risk human research have the tools required to conduct ethical research. There
are of course risks to such an approach. Schrag (2011b) has, rightfully, criticised the CITI
training program, which Columbia University requires researchers to complete every three
years. Schrag (2011b) quotes from a statement from researcher Ronald Bayer, who points
to the prescriptive nature of the CITI program; one which defines set ethical answers and
in turn doesn’t allow for any form of debate or discussion. Bayer describes taking the
course as ‘the most insulting experience’, equating it to the process of children learning the
Pledge of Allegiance by rote, whilst never actually understanding the meaning of the
words. Conversely, the researcher training at Macquarie University treats ethics as an open,
debatable issue, opting for open ended rather than multiple choice questions. Schrag
(2011d) also points to an ethics program taught to PhD students in Princeton, one which is
‘discipline-specific, based on scholarly accounts of real controversies, and taught in person
by expert faculty’. Taught as a workshop running over two days this program avoids many
of the pitfalls of online courses by allowing students to engage in in-depth ethical discus-
sions, developing ethical frameworks rather than simply promoting templates based on
yes/no answers.
Using these examples we can see the principles that could be used to develop effective
training programs. First, programs should ideally be completed in person, allowing for open
debate, discussion and questions. Given the substantial resources universities place into eth-
ics administration, as well as the time most academics dedicate to the blizzard of paperwork,
the implementation of in-person programs is entirely reasonable, particularly if they replace
other administrative functions. In addition to this, processes should not be designed with the
idea that students/researchers must pass a course to have succeeded. This encourages the
development of tests with correct answers, which is not applicable to most qualitative ethi-
cal conundrums. Instead programs should be based around giving researchers a framework
from which to work, allowing them to explore ethical issues in depth on their own when
engaging in their research. This would be a competency based program, not a curriculum
based assessment package. Finally, any training program must be discipline specific, includ-
ing the use of relevant examples. As Schrag points out (2011c) many of even the best train-
ing programs still use biomedical examples for qualitative research, even though these are
largely irrelevant. Programs should therefore be aimed at specific disciplines, even within
social research, allowing researchers to explore issues that are specific to their field.
In line with better education, we as researchers must become more reflective (Archer,
1995; Guillemin and Gillam, 2004) and engage slow scholarship (Harland, 2016) when
we can. At the time, we as the research team had little opportunity to reflect on our pro-
cesses, with the temporal criticality of starting the work over-riding our ability to think
through the research. Now upon reflection, we should have more effectively communi-
cated the confidentiality process to subjects and the Agency, in particular the risks of
12 Qualitative Research 00(0)

identification. We should have considered a multi-loop process of collection, cursory

analysis, subject feedback, further analysis and so-on. This would have enabled a better
sense of ownership and voice from subjects. However, the pace of work and the pressure
to start precluded us from being reflective.
These four shifts; the development of a new National Statement, the reshaping of
HRECs, the introduction of compulsory ethics training for qualitative research and
reflexivity are essential for renegotiating how we re-fashion our currently broken ethics
system. The current system does not meet the needs of either researchers or participants,
making research frustrating for researchers and disempowering for participants.
Importantly these systems are fundamentally failing to do what they have been set up to
do: ensuring research is conducted as ethically as possible. We believe these changes can
make the first important steps to addressing these issues.

Conclusion
Our case study highlighted serious problems with research ethics processes. As research-
ers we engaged in a range of potentially problematic practices that could have resulted in
harm towards our subjects, yet, we did so with full approval from our relevant ethics
panel. While some might argue this indicates a need for greater controls on the process
of confidentiality, we argue this is a reflection of systemic failures in how we treat ethics
in qualitative research. Current processes, based on the primacy of privacy, take a pater-
nalistic approach to research participants. This is combined with a risk-averse, legalistic
and fixed bureaucratic system that cannot allow for the nuance of qualitative research.
As Babbie notes (2004: 17): ‘While it is important to have codes of ethics, simply
following established canons of ethics can degenerate into ritualism, which soon begs for
clever shortcuts and other innovations that do not technically violate the canons’. A com-
plete overhaul of the ethics process is required, one that fosters relationships between
researchers and their participants, giving participants greater say over practices. At the
most basic level it would require more in depth training for qualitative researchers to
ensure they have the correct tools to engage participants. This can only occur via signifi-
cant changes to the formal policies and procedures both of the Australian Government
and then of individual universities and their ethics processes. These approaches will help
deal with the many ethical problems researchers are facing, whilst ensuring the integrity
of qualitative research.

Funding
The research reported on was funded by the Australian Governement Agency studied. However,
the research team owns all the data and can publish as they wish – there is no conflict of interest.

Note
1. In this article we vary between our use of the term ‘participants’ and ‘subjects’. We will
use the term participants to describe general non-researchers who are involved in academic
research. We use this term as an acknowledgement of an ethos of seeing participants as full
actors in the research process. We use the term subjects in very specific circumstances, in
Connor et al. 13

particular during discussion of our case study, in which we argue the subjects did not partici-
pate fully and were more passive actors.

References
Acker J, Barry K and Esseveld J (1991) Objectivity and truth: problems in doing feminist research.
In: Fonow M and Cook J (eds) Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research.
Indiana: Indiana University Press, 133–154.
Aldred R (2008) Ethical and political issues in contemporary research relationships. Sociology 42:
887–903.
Archer M (1995) Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Babbie E (2004) Laud Humphreys and research ethics. International Journal of Sociology and
Social Policy 24(3/4/5): 12–19.
Baez B (2002) Confidentiality in qualitative research: reflections on secrets. Power and Agency
Qualitative Research 2(35): 35–58.
Bamber G and Sappey J (2007) Unintended consequences of human research ethics committees :
au revoir workplace studies? Monsah Bioethics Review 26(3): 26–36.
Bell E and Bryman A (2007) The ethics of management research: an exploratory content analysis.
British Journal of Management 18(1): 63–77.
Birch M and Miller T (2000) Inviting intimacy: the interview as therapeutic opportunity.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3(3): 189–202.
Bosworth M, Campbell D and Demby B (2005) Doing prison research: views from the inside.
Qualitative Inquiry 11: 249–264.
Bresler L (1995) Ethical issues in qualitative research methodology. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education 126: 29–41.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada and The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (2014). Ethical
Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/pol-
icy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/
Christians C (2000) Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Denzin N and Lincoln Y (eds)
Handbook of Qualitative Research: Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 133–156.
Connor J, Owen J and McDermott V (2012) Organisational failure: a holistic factor analysis. TASA
Annual Conference, 26–29 November, University of Queensland.
Dingwall R (2006) Confronting the anti-democrats: the unethical nature of ethical regulation in
social Science. Medical Sociology Online 1: 51–58.
Ebbs C (1996) Qualitative research inquiry: issues of power and ethics. Education 117(2): 217–
222.
Furedi F (2002) Don’t rock the research boat. The Times Higher Education. Available at: https://
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/dont-rock-the-research-boat/166585.article
Fiske S and Hauser R (2014) Protecting human research participants in the age of Big Data.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America (PNAS) 111(38):
13675–13676.
Forbat L and Henderson J (2005) Theoretical and practical reflections on sharing transcripts with
participants. Qualitative Health Research 15: 1114–1128.
Gelling L (1999) Ethical principles in healthcare research. Nursing Standard 13(36): 39–42.
Giordano J, O’Reilly M, Taylor H and Dogra N (2007) Confidentiality and autonomy: the
challenge(s) of offering research participants a choice of disclosing their identity. Qualitative
Health Research 17: 264–275.
14 Qualitative Research 00(0)

Guillemin M and Gillam L (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in
research. Qualitative Inquiry 10: 261–280.
Halse C and Honey A (2007) Rethinking ethics review as institutional discourse. Qualitative
Inquiry 13(3): 336–352.
Hamilton A (2002) Institutional review boards: politics, power, purpose and process in a regula-
tory organization. PhD dissertation, University of Oklahoma.
Harriman S and Patel J (2014) The ethics and editorial challenges of internet-based research. BMC
Medicine 12: 124–128.
Harland T (2016) Deliberate subversion of time: slow scholarship and learning through research.
In: Trede F and McEwen C (eds) (2016) Education the Deliberate Professional. Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing, 175–189.
Iphofen R (2011) Ethical Decision Making in Social Research: A Practical Guide. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaiser K (2009) Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health
Research 19: 1632–1641.
Karnieli-Miller O, Strier R and Pessach L (2009) Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative
Health Research 19: 279–289.
Katz J (2006) Ethical escape routes for underground ethnographers. American Ethnologist 33(4):
499–506.
Kelman H (1977) Privacy and research with human beings. Journal of Social Issues 33(2): 169–195.
Kramer A, Guillory J and Hancock J (2014) Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional
contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United
States of America (PNAS) 111(24): 8788–8790.
Lather P (1988) Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women’s Studies
International Forum 11(6): 569–581.
Lincoln Y (2009). Ethical practices in qualitative research. In: Mertens D and Ginsberg G (eds)
The Handbook of Social Research Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 150–170.
McTaggart R (1997) Guiding principles for participatory action research. In: McTaggart R (Ed)
Participatory Action Research: International Context and Consequences. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press, 25–44.
Metro R (2014) From the form to the face to face: IRBs, ethnographic researchers, and human
subjects translate consent. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 45: 167–184.
Miller T and Bell L (2002) Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and ‘informed’ con-
sent. In: Mauthner M, Birch M, Jessop J and Miller T (2002) Ethics in Qualitative Research.
London: SAGE, 61–76.
Moskos P (2008) More on IRBs. Cop in the Hood. Available at: http://www.copinthehood.
com/2008/02/more-on-irbs.html (accessed 13 January 2016).
Munhall P (1988) Ethical considerations in qualitative research. Western Journal of Nursing
Research 10(2): 150–162.
National Health and Medical Research Council (1999) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Research Involving Humans. Available at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publica-
tions/attachments/e35.pdf
National Health and Medical Research Council (2007a) Australian Code for the Responsible
Conduct of Research. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/
attachments/r39.pdf
National Health and Medical Research Council (2007b) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research. Available at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attach-
ments/e72_national_statement_march_2014_141126.pdf
Connor et al. 15

National Health and Medical Research Council (2013) Australian Code for the Care and Use of
Animals for Scientific Purposes. Available at: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publi-
cations/attachments/ea28_code_care_use_animals_131209.pdf
Orb A, Eisenhauer L and Wynaden D (2001) Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing
Scholarships 33(1): 93–96.
Rae W and Sullivan J (2003) Ethical considerations in clinical psychology research. In: Roberts
M and Ilardi S (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology. Malden:
Blackwell, 52–71.
Ramcharan P and Cutcliffe J (2001) Judging the ethics of qualitative research: considering the
‘ethics as process’ model. Health and Social Care in the Community 9(6): 358–366.
Richardson S and McMullan M (2007) Research ethics in the UK: what can sociology learn from
health? Sociology 41: 1115–1132.
Ryen A (2004) Ethical issues. In: Seale C, Gobo G, Gubrium J and Silverman D (eds) Qualitative
Research Practice. London: SAGE, 218–236.
Salmon A (2007) Walking the talk: how participatory interview methods can democratize research.
Qualitative Health 17: 982–993.
Sankar P, Mora S, Merz J and Jones N (2003) Patient perspectives of medical confidentiality.
Journal of General Internal Medicine 18(8): 659–669.
Sieber J (1992) Planning Ethically Responsible Research: A Guide for Students and Internal
Review Boards. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Schrag Z (2011a) The case against ethics review in the social sciences. Research Ethics 7(4):
120–131.
Schrag Z (2011b) The CITI Program as mortifyingly stupid, Marxist doxology. Institutional
Review Blog. Available at: http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2011/06/citi-program-
as-mortifyingly-stupid.html (accessed 12 January 2016).
Schrag Z (2011c) Macquarie’s innovative ethics training. Institutional Review Blog.
Available at: http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2009/04/macquaries-innovative-
ethics-training.html (accessed 12 January 2016).
Schrag Z (2011d) Princeton offers PhD students serious training in historian. Ethics’ Institutional
Review Blog. Available at: http://www.institutionalreviewblog.com/2011/04/princeton-
offers-phd-students-serious.html (accessed 12 January 2016).
Swain P (2006) A camel’s nose under the tent? Some Australian perspectives on confidentiality
and social work practice. The British Journal of Social Work 36(1): 91–107.
Tang N (2002) Interviewer and interviewee relationships between women. Sociology 36: 703–721.
Tolich M (2004) Internal confidentiality: when confidentiality assurances fail relational inform-
ants. Qualitative Sociology 27(1): 101–106.
Tolich M and Fitzgerald M (2006) If ethics review committees were designed for ethnography.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal 1(2):
71–78.
Van den Hoonaard W (2011) The Seduction of Ethics: Transforming the Social Sciences. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Venkatesh S (2008) Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets. New York:
Penguin.
Wiles R, Crow G, Heath S and Charles V (2008) The management of confidentiality and anonym-
ity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11(5): 417–428.
World Medical Association (1964) Declaration of Helsinki. Available at: http://www.wma.net/
en/30publications/10policies/b3/
16 Qualitative Research 00(0)

Author biographies
James Connor focuses on the interactional processes within organisations that allow members to
make sense of their activity. His research has included emotion processes within project life cycles,
KBPs and project leadership activities. He has applied these research interests to the problem of
program failure in government to explicate how staff make sense of and communicate about (per-
ceived) failure. His PhD is in sociology, and was focused on how emotions direct social action, in
particular via our loyalties (published as: A Sociology of Loyalty, Springer 2007). He is a Senior
Lecturer with the University of New South Wales Australia, Canberra and teaches project and
program management, leadership and organizational behaviour.
Simon Copland has a Bachelor of Arts (Development Studies), Bachelor of Science (Geography)
and a Masters of Science Communication from the Australian National University. He is currently
a freelance writer/journalist and works as a research assistant at the University of New South
Wales (ADFA).
Jill Owen was the driving intellectual force behind this research, contributing much until her
untimely death in 2013. Her research focused on the project as a vehicle for organizing work and,
specifically, on the role of knowledge based practices and informal processes in influencing how
an organization operates. Her PhD, undertaken in the Faculty of Information Technology at
Monash University, is titled ‘The Role of Knowledge Based Practices in the Effective Management
and Delivery of Information Systems Development Projects’. For which she won the Faculty of
Information Technology (FIT) Doctoral Medal. Jill has published in refereed journals and confer-
ences nationally and internationally. Jill was influential in the Project management community,
filling a number of roles across her life.