The ethical and methodological challenges of social work research with participants who fear retribution: To ‘do no harm’

Abstract

This article discusses some of the ethical and methodological challenges experienced throughout a doctoral study focusing on boarding house residents in Sydney, Australia, particularly participants’ fear of retribution. Informing the research were forty interviews with a range of participants including current and former licensed boarding house residents, proprietors of boarding houses, and staff of community organizations and government agencies providing support services or monitoring the conditions in boarding houses. The article discusses and analyses the complexity and understandings of anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent and the meanings and implications of de-identification. Some of the strategies to address these complexities are presented and are significant for qualitative researchers, particularly doctoral and early career researchers.

Methodological diversity as an asset for transition‐focused higher education research with students from refugee backgrounds

“…QLR always demands high levels of reflexivity and labour from researchers (Plumridge & Thomson, ; Thomson & Holland, ); and we acknowledge that ethical reflexivity is particularly necessary when working with people from refugee backgrounds. We were continuously reflexive in terms of our power as the interviewers and decision‐makers with regard to what was in/excluded in the interview schedule, particularly in the context where our participants fear retribution following previous experiences of being questioned by high‐status officials (Doná, ; Drake, ). This, however, has an emotional impact on the researcher that needs further exploration (for further discussion, see Dickson‐Smith et al ., ).…”

“…In the case of Site 1—where assumptions about literacy proficiency were not reasonable—the consent paperwork was translated into Dari, the students’ dominant written language . It was also not reasonable to assume that our participants had similar understandings of the value, purpose and processes of educational research such as the project described in this article (Drake, ; Clark‐Kazak, ).…”

Acknowledging the Head, Heart, Hands and Feet: Research with Refugees and People Seeking Asylum in Higher Education

“…This is also the first moment -isolated from the commotion of the field and the urgency of immediate decisions -with which the notion of harm is engaged. We know that research involving people has great potential to put them at risk (Goodyear-Smith et al, 2015;Drake, 2014;Pittaway et al, 2010;Sikes, 2006). We also know that we, as researchers, are the ones putting people at risk by inviting their participation, largely for our own benefit, and through the research decisions that we make (Goodyear-Smith et al, 2015;Sikes, 2006;Guillemin and Gillam, 2004).…”

“…Formal codes of research practice then emerged -both nationally and institutionally -often initially focused on biomedical research but later extending to include all forms of social research (Drake, 2014;Hugman et al, 2011;Guillemin and Gillam, 2004). In Australia, ethics guidelines emanate from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).…”

Researching Human Rights in Prisons

“…Prison research may carry risks for participants who may fear retribution -including from other prisoners -if they are even seen to participate (Drake 2014). Confidentiality in public reporting of research is protected by not recording people's names or identifying information.…”