Qualitative Researchers' Conceptualizations of the Risks Inherent in Qualitative Interviews!

Abstract

In this article, we report on a web-based survey of 517 qualitative researchers' perceptions of the risks inherent in qualitative unstructured interviews. Although emotions manifest during these qualitative interviews may be viewed as “natural” in the context of the types of losses experienced by the interviewees, the emotional responses cannot be identified in an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of the proposal. The mitigation of this emotional response is, however, the responsibility of the researcher, and ethics education and short courses must include such instruction. Psychological harm to the researcher, although rare, is a possibility for which researchers must be prepared. The authors conclude by suggesting six principles of ethical conduct for qualitative researchers. These principles should be useful to IRBs and included in ethics and qualitative methods courses.

A Trauma-Informed Approach to Sexual Violence Research Ethics and Open Science

“…Interview studies typically do not have a separate mental health provider on-site, and instead, the interviewer may fulfill dual roles of data collector and support provider, which raises complex questions about what kind of support is appropriate to provide. For distress exhibited during the interview itself, it is common in qualitative and feminist interviewing methods for researchers to show concern and compassion for participants, and such expressions of empathy are considered within role boundaries of a researcher (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Morse, Niehaus, Varnhagen, Austin, & McIntosh, 2008). This kind of active listening and empathy in response to participant distress also enables the researcher to validate survivors’ feelings and choices, which can emphasize their strength and resilience in coping with the trauma (see Table 1, #7).…”

Between a rock and a softer place—A discourse analysis of helping cultures in crisis resolution teams

“…As such, this simple assessment from the committee about what the study asked for and what would be the obvious response to these questions undermined the fact that participants are not only objects being researched; they are just as much subjects, using the occasion of the interview to actively construct and tell their story. This is also supported by Morse, Niehaus, Varnhagen, Austin, and McIntosh (2008), who suggest that "the control of the research interview is largely in the hands of the participant" (p. 205). This lies in the inductive and explorative nature of studies like this PhD project; you cannot control what you will get.…”

Workforce Integration of Philippine-Educated Nurses who Migrate to Canada through the Live-in Caregiver Program

“…Later interviews were conducted without a peer present, as participants increasingly felt comfortable with the researcher. Considering that ethics is a process in qualitative research (Morse, Niehaus, Varnhagen, Austin, & McIntosh, 2008), consent was renegotiated throughout the research process.…”