Rapport and respect: negotiating ethical relations between researcher and participant

Abstract

Qualitative research is largely dependent on building good interpersonal relations between researcher and participant. This is necessary for generating rich data, while at the same time ensuring respect is maintained between researcher and participant. We argue for a better understanding of researcher-participant relations in research practice. Codes of ethics, although important, do not address these kinds of ethical challenges. Negotiating the ethical relations between researcher and participant is paramount in maintaining ethical rigour in qualitative research. In this paper we propose concepts that can assist in understanding how the ethics of research relations are negotiated in practice; the 'zone of the untouchable' from the Danish philosopher, Løgstrup, is combined with the notion of 'ethical mindfulness'. We argue how and why these concepts in tandem can heighten awareness and offer ways to address the ethically important moments in research.

Undertaking ethical qualitative research in public health: are current ethical processes sufficient?

“…A peer-mentoring program could also include keeping a reflexive log, supporting ethical mindfulness and exploration of the interpersonal dynamics of research through ongoing self-critique and appraisal. 56 This could be a mechanism for critical reflection on the research process and also our own personal values and ideals. In turn, students sharing these reflections with a peer mentor can support research responsibility and safety by functioning as an additional, inter-relational process of critical reflection where students can help each other identify the ethical aspects of their work and alert each other to moments where debriefing or additional supervision may be needed.…”

Sustained Engagement to Create Resilient Communities: How a Collaborative Design Approach can Broker and Mobilise Practitioner–Participant Interaction

“…2013; Delgado ; Punch ). Rapport, enabled through establishing trust, can allow for more meaningful interactions, which can arguably catalyse more insightful and authentic findings (Guillemin & Heggan ; Harden et al . ; Punch ).…”

“…The desire to establish trust and rapport with participants is of course an ethical prerequisite, stemming from the numerous responsibilities and sensitivities required of the researcher – to respect and protect participants’ welfare, rights and dignity (in practical terms through gaining informed consent, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality, and that the benefits of participation outweigh any possible harm). Guillemin & Heggen (, 295) as well as Ellis (, 5), are critical of the ways in which guiding ethical values and procedural codes of conduct can become too abstract and reductive to be grasped as practical tools when in the field and at the coalface of participant engagement. These authors call for more nuanced understandings of how the relationship between the researcher and participant is actually developed.…”

Community researchers conducting health disparities research: Ethical and other insights from fieldwork journaling

“…Researchers who can deeply identify with the research participants may have a harder time keeping an emotional distance; especially, when the possibility exists that the researchers share similar experiences and life struggles with those they interview (Banks-Wallace, 2008). While some scholars have argued that this emotional distance is a barrier to conducting more engaged and compassionate science (Bondi, 2003; Guillemin & Heggen, 2009), the reality remains that many funding agencies and centers of scientific research adhere to scientific positivism and objectivity, and are adverse to subjective and reflexive research to an extent that discourages many researchers from experimenting with these alternative forms of scientific engagement. Hence, the broader context of how scientific research is typically understood and funded contributes to the common practice of placing researchers in situations where they feel obligated to keep their emotional distance from their research topics and participants.…”