Introduction
In this course, my understanding of ethics in qualitative research has been greatly improved. The CTI course has been very effective in explanation of the research design process. It is a precise outline of how the research process is initialized from the first stage of data collection to the last stage of data analysis and recommendations. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) say that this outline is the research design. The course asserts that research design has two categories which are qualitative and quantitative research designs. This paper is my reflection about the role of ethics in qualitative research, merits of ethical considerations based on historical cases and implications of ethical requirements. The ultimate benefit of this course is that my scope of understanding of ethics in research will enable me to be a better researcher.
Role of Ethics in qualitative research
The expected code of conduct, which researchers are expected to adhere to legally when they are carrying out their research work, is defined as ethics. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) additionally help me to understand that qualitative research aims to determine the factors that influence human behaviors. The relationship between ethics and qualitative research cannot be understated. Qualitative research history has proved how the lack of ethics in research cause harm to respondents in a big way. Therefore, the role of ethics is to set out a guideline for research process that is beneficial to the participants. My reflection will illustrate the following ethical principles in qualitative research as (outlined in the course reading materials): Beneficence, Justice, privacy, respecting persons, social responsibility, and legal requirement.
Beneficence is the first principle of ethics in qualitative research that ensures that all the parties involved in the research process benefit. They are: the respondents, the researcher, the sponsors of the research and the society. Boeije (2010) believes that the role of ethics is to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of respondents is upheld. It is, therefore, necessary to oblige researchers to adhere to these principles. The main harm that can be witnessed in qualitative research is psychological distress especially when the questions are too many and intrusive to the respondent. Although the law protects the privacy of the respondent by law, the respondent cannot help but worry about possible publication of the information to other people. My example where respondents privacy will have negative implications if compromised is in a research of prevalence of teenage sex in New York 2010.
The next role of ethics in qualitative analysis is justice. My simple definition of Justice is; the fair treatment of individuals, where one receives what they deserve. In qualitative research, there might be cases where the research may be meant to benefit other people other than the respondents who end up getting a raw deal. My knowledge from the course program is that bias comes into light when the groups that the research hopes to highlight their problems are not involved in data collection. A good illustration of the role of justice in research is in a case where the research aims to know the prevalence of poverty in old people. If their family members are the respondents, justice is denied to the family members and the older people because the data that will be collected will be irrelevant.
Another crucial role of ethics in qualitative research is to ensure that there is consent from the respondents taking part in the research. Hurley et al. (2011) publication explains further that this is achieved when the researcher informs the respondents on how the research project is to be conducted, explaining to them what the research is all about and ensuring maximum comprehension of the research process. Finally, the researcher has to make the respondent understand that the process is voluntary, and the respondent can opt out at will. However, the nobility of the research process encourages the volunteers to be cooperative and henceforth provide the best relevant information that is required by the researcher.
Autonomy is another principle of ethical process. This role of ethics ensures that the respondents are not representing others opinions other than theirs. For instance, in my research, subjects cannot be coerced to participate. Voluntary contribution by respondents results in the collection of accurate, relevant and representative data.
The respondents' and researchers' relationship should be that of mutual respect and understanding to ensure that unprecedented occurrences do not compromise the credibility of the data collected in the process.
Ethical considerations based on historical cases
Gross malpractices on qualitative research in history have necessitated the implementation and enforcement of the defining of ethics’ role. The CTI course reflection shows that the most profound atrocities in the world of research were conducted in the research processes of the Nazi Human experiments of the 1940s by German Nazis in the Second World War, and the Tuskegee study of 1964 as LaFleur, Böhme and Shimazono (2007) reflect. Therefore, this research paper contains my perception of the historical ethical cases as discussed in the CTI paper.
Nazi Human experiments
LaFleur et al. (2007) explain that in the early 1940s during the Second World War, the German Nazis forced Jews, ethnic poles and other minorities in Germany to participate in Human experiments in concentration camps. The study intended to find out how much a human being can endure as a finding to benefit the German soldiers in war or soldiers wounded in battle. These prisoners had no consent, as they were coerced to participate. Many respondents died in the course of the medical qualitative study. This medical torture also resulted in widespread trauma and permanent physical disfigurement for the participants under the medical eye. The participants underwent freezing, bone marrow transplant, head injury experiments, and the infamous nerve transplants.
Nuremburg Code of 1948
After the war, this code was established to act as an ethical guide for future research projects involving human participants. This code stipulated that human respondents had to be respected and given the right to give consent for research. Justice was also to be considered as an ethical issue as the research did not in any way benefit the respondents.
Tuskegee study of 1932-1972
LaFleur et al. (2007) add that this research study focused on African-American men in the state of Alabama. The men were exposed to syphilis virus and were then subjected to a case study for syphilis. They did not know what the study was all about as their contrary opinion allowed them to give consent for the study after being promised some benefits like burial insurance, free food, and shelter. Despite penicillin being available as a cure for Syphilis, these men stayed untreated, and most of them passed the virus to their spouses and off springs. Many died. This study came to a halt after the news leaked to the media and the public outcry that proceeded.
Belmont report
Similar to the Nuremburg case, three ethical principles for guiding research activities were adopted which include: Justice, Beneficence, and respect for a person whose mission was to protect human life and dignity during research experiments.
The importance of these ethical considerations lie in the protection of human dignity and ensure researchers do not step out of their mandate to harm the very society they wish to gain knowledge about (Hurley, Denegar & Hertel, 2011).
Implications of Justice and respect for persons as ethical requirements
Hurley et al. (2011) wrote that justice and respect for persons are an integral component of the ethical requirements in research. The CTI course shows that the two principles of ethics play a role in protecting the high-risk respondents in research. These are the people below the age of the majority, the sick, elderly, minority groups and people living with disabilities. These segments of the population may not be in a position to assess the possibility of being harmed by a research process. LaFleur et al. (2007) showed that they might end up in harm’s way and contradict the objective of qualitative research process of gaining in-depth knowledge of problems facing human being and recommending correction measures.
It should be noted that the Federal government has played a big role in streamlining the research process to be desirable to all parties involved.
Respect for a person gets further enhanced when the architects of the research process place the respondent into consideration as Boeije (2010) explains. Respect is achieved by considering the social, economic, political and morality perceptions of the respondents so as to comply with their wishes. For example, it will be inappropriate for a researcher to conduct research on the prevalence of pre-marital sex in the Vatican as that will be offensive to the residents of that country, and they would not be able to provide the appropriate response.
Conclusion
My efforts in learning about the ethical principles of qualitative research have taught me that without ethical guidelines, research might be harmful as was the case for the German Human Experiments and the Tuskegee experiment. Therefore, ethical guidelines have to be followed to ensure the safety of the respondents, accuracy of the data and relevance of the finding to the human life. Much has been done to correct the shortcomings of research processes. It is time for focusing on respondents and making them aware of the existence of the ethical principles in qualitative research. My mission is to sensitize researchers in the social science field about the ethical principles of research.
References
Boeije, H. (2010). The analysis in qualitative research. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Hurley, W. L., Denegar, C. R., & Hertel, J. (2011). Research methods: A framework for evidence-based clinical practice. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health.
LaFleur, W. R., Böhme, G., & Shimazono, S. (2007). Dark Medicine: Rationalizing Unethical Medical Research. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
