Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants

Abstract

The political science discipline has recently engaged in contentious debate about the value of “research transparency,” particularly for research with human participants. The discipline is also holding vital conversations about research ethics and is rekindling dialogue about different ways of knowing. We offer an integrated account of how the actions that scholars who conduct human participant research take to respect ethical principles (which vary by research substance and settings), and their epistemological commitments (which vary across researchers), influence openness, a broader concept than “transparency.” These principles and commitments shape scholars’ openness practices simultaneously—both independently and in concert—serving as a prism through which multiple features of a research project are refracted, and resulting in a scholar’s inclination and ability to pursue openness in different ways and to different degrees with the audiences of her work. We also show how ethical principles and epistemological commitments can not only constrain and prevent openness, but also animate and require it. We suggest that scholars pursuing openness ethically, and in ways that honor their epistemological commitments, represents good social science, and we offer strategies for doing so. To develop our argument, we focus primarily on two research methods, ethnography and interviews, and on openness toward two audiences, human participants and research communities. Our account illuminates how the heterogeneity of human participant research makes it inappropriate, indeed impossible, to develop blanket rules for pursuing openness. Throughout, we highlight the importance of reflexivity for the ethical conduct of, and for being ethically open about, political science research.

Sources of evidence and openness in field-intensive research on violent conflict

“…The example of research on violent conflict raises important questions about "'who decides' whether data and/or details of its production should be withheld to protect human subjects" in field-intensive research in political science, more generally (MacLean et al 2019, 15). While reflexive openness on data production and analysis in my research has been critical for my ability to provide readers with the means for evaluating my research results, these practices cannot be generically applied to other studies (Kapiszewski and Wood 2021). For example, in contexts where describing the research process is as detrimental for the safety of research participants as data sharing is, extreme care should be taken in discussing aspects of data production and analysis.…”

When “Home” Becomes the “Field”: Ethical Considerations in Digital and Remote Fieldwork

“…The latter code outlined guiding ethical principles for research with humans, focusing specifically on respect, beneficence, and justice to ensure participants engage in research as independent, informed, and consenting individuals treated with dignity and respect (Murphy and Dingwall 2001). To this day, respect for all persons involved is central to any study, beneficence in terms of maximizing benefits and minimizing harm to participants, and fairness in the distribution of "benefits and burdens" associated with the creation and dissemination the findings (Kapiszewski and Wood 2021). Within the social sciences, scholars are now routinely required to outline and assess the risks their projects may pose in order to be granted approval from their academic institutions, the relevant Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and also funding bodies.…”

“…4 Since we, as researchers, are responsible for considering how our studies pose risks to both those participating in our studies and ourselves, we must therefore evaluate and defend how accessing a certain field for research purposes is necessary and poses the minimum level of risk possible to a much larger population during and after our data collection. As this has proven exceedingly challenging since March 2020, many scholars have appropriately (re) adapted their own projects to conduct research away from their participants and field sites, calling for the use of remote and digital tools to conduct virtual interviews, archival research, and digital ethnographies (Kapiszewski and Wood 2021;Krause et al 2021;MacLean et al 2020;Will, Becker, and Weigand 2020). While these tools pre-date COVID-19, their usage has allowed researchers to continue pre-existing data collection in the face of crises, and has received a broader validation across the social sciences as generally appropriate research methods.…”

Introducing the Qualitative Data Repository's Curation Handbook

“…The deposit and sharing of qualitative data is comparatively novel, and only few of QDR's depositors have any experience sharing qualitative data prior to depositing with QDR. Additionally, concerns about confidentiality and ethics of sharing human participant data feature heavily in debates about qualitative transparency (Bishop 2009;Kapiszewski and Wood 2021;Yardley et al 2014). Close scrutiny of data for possible (inadvertent) violations of ethics and confidentiality is thus an essential part of curating qualitative data.…”