Ethical Requirements and Responsibilities in Video Methodologies: Considering Confidentiality and Representation in Social Justice Research

Abstract

In recent years, psychologists have begun to use video more frequently in qualitative research, in particular, within research on social justice. The non‐confidential nature inherent in video, however, raises new ethical challenges for the field of psychology to address. Building upon a growing literature on video‐based research, in this article, we use an illustrative case study to examine how researchers' sense of ethical responsibility can find guidance from, clash against, or fill gaps left by extant federal and disciplinary ethical requirements. We focus specifically on issues of confidentiality and representation, highlighting the challenges and possibilities that video creates in relation to participants' power, dignity, and participation and arguing that psychologists must systematically engage questions about ethical responsibilities throughout the design and implementation phases of a research project. In doing so, psychologists, their community partners, and students will be better able to articulate and problematize their assumptions and intentions regarding video work.

Uplifting Voices and Images of Research Participants: Issues in Video Dissemination

“…In keeping with other researchers' suggestions to position video methods within a reflexive methodology [19,34,37], researchers need to be reflexive, critically appraise their work, and open it to others -in particular, their research participants. The presence of the True Eyes researcher was made invisible in the finished video --i.e., her role in interviewing and prompting participant reflections was edited out of the final product.…”

“…In non-video dissemination, the researcher has the option of creating a story line with multiple anonymized quotes; but in video, the quotes are indisputably linked to the participant. Due to its intersecting audio and visual layers, video "show[s]" and not just "tell[s]" a person, situation, or phenomenon [19]. The major risk from presenting images and voices is social harm in the form of public identification, criticism, embarrassment, or isolation [19].…”

“…Due to its intersecting audio and visual layers, video "show[s]" and not just "tell[s]" a person, situation, or phenomenon [19]. The major risk from presenting images and voices is social harm in the form of public identification, criticism, embarrassment, or isolation [19]. In the True Eyes project, the social risk was heightened by living in a small community and by not camouflaging identities through such techniques as facial blurring or mosaicking and voice modification which would have lessened credibility of participants who wanted to be directly seen and understood as people who had struggled with eating disorders and recovery.…”

“…This involves informing them not only about standard research expectations such as research procedures, time involved, any inconveniences, benefits, and risks but also about likelihoods unique to video-based data such as loss of control over video images and products once published or released in cyberspace and potential for participants to be recognised. Although it is imperative that participants who choose non-confidentiality understand this potential from the onset of the project, Anderson and Munzo-Proto [19] ask, "How can we best ensure that participants are informed of potential risk?" (p. 385).…”

Video ethics in educational research involving children: Literature review and critical discussion

“…The troubling of the 'objective' researcher as the revealer of a 'truth' by video places even more ethical responsibility on the researcher to ensure their analytical 'lens' is consonant with the intentions and actions of their participants. Anderson and Muñoz Proto (2016) point out, video 'can trouble the traditional power dynamics between participant and researcher. Literally 'looking back' at the world through technologies, participants are invited to use research as a vehicle to speak for themselves and their communities' (Anderson & Muñoz Proto, 2016, p. 381).…”