Ethiek h. Flashcards
relational approach to research
Onderzoeker <> Participant
Participant <> Fenomeen
This approach critically examines and
inquires into the relational dynamics between researchers and participants as well as between participants’ experiences in relation to the phenomenon
at the heart of a study
wat beter niet in relational approach?
niet “subject”, “informant”, “geïnterviewde”,
a receptive sensibility
that you are open to changing your opinions, approach to your research, and even critical aspects of the research as you learn with and from the research.
as researchers, must not only see and acknowledge differences between ourselves, our critical
friends, and our participants but that we
view differences as valuable and reflective of the impact of different “funds of knowledge” AND being
Reciprocal transformation
by cultivating an applied reflexivity and collaboratively examining the ways in which individuals and groups are
engaged in “dialectics of mutual influence”
mutual influence refers to the ways that mutuality of
influence happens relationally,
interactive, catalyzing energy that drives both parties to learn, shift, and change in relation to each other.
> collaboration central to engaging in ethical qualitative research.
wat is ethiek as proces?
Veelzijdig
Complex
Contextgebonden
Emergent
Relationeel
+
Besteed aandacht aan:
Procedurele
Transactionele
Relationele
Responsieve
Ethiek in de context van onderzoek:
Streven naar excelleren in ethisch handelen
onze morele verplichtingen als onderzoekers die niet kunnen worden afgedwongen of gereguleerd.
wat zijn de taken ethische commissie>
(“Institutional review board” of “IRB”):
Het evalueren van onderzoeksvoorstellen.
Het te goeder trouw handelen van onderzoeker verzekeren (cf. “beneficence”), voorkomen van schade:
Druk / dwang
Geheim en / of misleidend onderzoek
Deelnemers beoordelen
Tijdsdruk (“time creep”)
sterkte ethische commissie:
Aandacht en verantwoording van de onderzoeker vergroten (+ kan een extra ondersteuning zijn).
Ervoor zorgen dat er geen schade wordt toegebracht, in het bijzonder bij kwetsbare groepen.
Mogelijke nadelen:
One size fits all
Once only
Micro-managen van onderzoek
Positivistische oorsprong en erg procedureel
(versus emergente karakter van kwalitatief onderzoek)
AAN HET BEGIN VAN HET ONDERZOEK:
informed consent
rapport
toegang onderhandelen tot site
tijdens onderzoek
Belang van bewaken van de onderzoeksgrenzen (“research boundaries”In het algemeen: denk bewust na over de grenzen van onderzoek(er).
Persoonlijke informatie vertellen?
Beloof niet te veel.`
Het verstrekken van alle ruwe data en volledige analyse?
‘tijdens onderzoek’ : wederkerigheid (“reciprocity”): kwesties van “equity” (~ billijkheid) in relationele (eerder dan een transactionele) zin.
Goed nadenken over rechten en verantwoordelijkheden, maar ook over machtissues bijv. (cf. Milgram)
Het hebben van zeggenschap over interpretaties & betekenisgeving, en dus geen betekenissen opleggen (cf. participant validation)
Grenzen behouden (het blijft een onderzoek!)
Beloften waarmaken
Transparant zijn (intern en extern; cf. 363)
vertrouwelijkheid & anonimiteit
Vertrouwelijkheid (“confidentiality”): pseudoniemen; verwijderen van identificerende informatie; … (in transcripten, in onderzoeksrapporten; …)
Anonimiteit (“anonymity”): Helemaal geen manier meer om een individu te identificeren (bijvoorbeeld: in grote steekproeven, waar resultaten worden geaggregeerd en niet individueel gecontextualiseerd of weergegeven).
Maar 1: identiteitsonthulling door afleiding of “deductive disclosure”
Maar 2: de wens voor vertrouwelijkheid en/of anonimiteit is afhankelijk van deelnemers en methoden van dataverzameling (bijvoorbeeld: FG).
Maar 3: niet iedereen wenst anoniem/vertrouwelijk behandeld te worden!
In het digitale tijdperk?
Online strategieën voor het uitlokken van informatie.
Natuurlijk voorkomende online gegevens.
Opslag (zie GDPR / AVG) https://admin.kuleuven.be/privacy/en/index (gebruik bijvoorbeeld geen openbare cloud-oplossingen, procedures voor datalekken; …)
relational approach meaning
Relational approaches to research are discovery-oriented and emphasize
how data emerges out of co-created, embodied, dialogical
encounters between researchers and co-researchers (participants).
The researcher’s attention slides between the phenomenon being researched and the research relationship;
between focusing on the core searcher’s talk/thoughts/feelings and exploring the relationship
between researcher and co-researcher as it unfolds in a particular context
person-centered, societally contextualized research and ethicality
the authenticity of the relationships between researchers and participants.
It examines the roles, power structures, and language used to frame these relationships
(such as “subjects,” “informants,”
“interviewees,” and “participants”)
going beyond negotioating entree in setting + building rapport
It is important to consider:
thoughtful, ongoing, authentic, and respectful engagement and relationship cultivation
with research participants before, during, and after the research takes place.
negotiating entre
This process should be
approached as a dialogic exchange in which all parties feel comfortable to advocate for their ideal research scenario and through which the researcher
is thoughtfully responsive to participants’ interests, concerns, and limitations.
“negotiating entrée” as an ongoing process of relationship building that does not end once you gain access to a site
building rapport
the development of relationships = complex,
multifaceted, and vital process that is at the heart of qualitative research.
building multiple kinds of relationships with a variety of people in research and
> each interaction can and should be conceptualized as a
relationship and attended to with care, intentionality, and transparency.
reciprocity - wederkerigheid
Reciprocity is part of the larger ethical-political
process of building trust, cultivating relationships, and demonstrating genuine interest in those among whom one studies.
in research always asking participants for their time, seeking to learn from them, and that in turn researchers can engage in reciprocity through a number of
processes and acts, including (but not limited to) the following:
- Giving assurance that data will be treated ethically in terms of confidentiality and anonymity as well as respect for how participants are portrayed
- Providing opportunities for participants to reflect on and openly share aspects of their lives
3 Affirming or validating people’s experiences in contextually `appropriate ways
INFORMED consent
This notion of agreement to the
research, or consent to engage in it, necessitates being clear about what you are asking of participants and that you articulate this clearly to them,
allow time for questions about your explanations, and allow for push back or rejection of participation) if some of the conditions are unacceptable or problematic for any reason.
This constitutes the informed part of informed
consent.
Informed consent should not only be considered
transactional but also be thought of as a particular kind of attention to meaningful dialogue with participants about the research and their involvement in it.
confidentiality
Confidentiality is related to an individual’s privacy and entails decisions about how and what data related to participants will bedisseminated (Sieber, 1992).
Discussing confidentiality with participants
might mean that pseudonyms will be used and/or other identifying facts will be changed or not disclosed
anonymity
Anonymity means that there would be no way for
anyone to identify an individual within a sample of participants because data and resulting reports are aggregated and not individually
contextualized or displayed
expert - learner binary
problem with power asymmetries in their research
because they uncritically accept hierarchies and hegemonic behaviors and practices that are socially constructed.
We believe in an approach that situates everyone involved as “experts of their own experiences,” meaning that everyone involved brings wisdom and generates knowledge
A deficit orientation
means viewing people from various groups
as “less than” or as deficient (as in lacking certain knowledge, skills, or value as framed by the dominant
group) and
therefore creates a power dynamic and set of equity issues in the research relationship.
Taking the stance that everyone is an expert of
their own experience and that all of our knowledges are valuable pushes into traditional views of who is the expert and who holds the wisdom.
