Commentary:

If you are seeing to recruit your sample through a travel agent or via a travel website there may be commercial sensitivities that you will need to take into account. Certain websites or blogs may over-emphasize or even valorize risk-taking and encouraging others to access such materials (through using these as sources of stimulus materials or by inviting people to take part in online discussion groups) could, potentially, introduce them to new perspectives and dangerous activities not previously considered.

In general, research on risk which seeks to elicit people’s views touches on their fears and concerns. This may involve painful reflections for research participants, as they recall previous experiences, to which you may, as a researcher, not be party – unless, of course, you have selected your sample on the basis of a particular history (such as having had an accident, or having contracted an infectious disease while on holiday). Even in these cases, participants will have been involved in situations with varying severity, and sharing accounts in a group setting may stir up some difficult issues – even for people who have had a ‘narrow escape’, but for whom the stories of others may heighten awareness of past and future risks.

If you have chosen to focus on issues related to sexual health this is clearly likely to be a sensitive topic. Although focus groups may suggest themselves as the most appropriate method this choice would have to be carefully weighed up against the ethical issues involved – particularly in relation to confidentiality. This can be challenging in relation to ensuring confidentiality with groups – especially if participants are already known to each other or are part of an extended social network. When applying for ethical approval it will be important to anticipate the likely impact on participants and to provide reassurances as to how you will limit either the potential for making damaging revelations (by thinking carefully about the method chosen) or seeking to minimize the consequences for individuals of such disclosures (e.g. through sensitive moderating, that steers people away from making, in a group setting, comments that they may later regret, but giving an opportunity to talk to the researcher in private; or through collecting some information by other means, such as diaries or short questionnaires). It would be a good idea to ensure that participants are provided with information about information sources – either through having leaflets available or by listing websites or telephone numbers of relevant agencies - that they can later consult if required

Commentary:

On the face of it this topic does not immediately suggest itself as one likely to raise difficult issues for researcher respondents. However, parents of children with disabilities or mental health problems may find it upsetting to compare their own situation and, perhaps, limited prospects of shedding full-time caring responsibilities, with that of individuals whose children are likely to have a less problematic transition to adulthood. Even for parents in apparently unproblematic situations, this topic may raise some awkward issues – not least in relation to their own adolescence which may have been troubled. Again the advice about providing information – and the adage ‘don’t just take the data and run’ - applies.

Commentary:

This research question involves a highly emotive topic. You may well have focused on couples undergoing fertility treatment, but, even if you have not attempted to access such individuals they may, nevertheless, end up in your sample (unless, of course, you use a screening questionnaire to exclude them). Many other people will have been affected by the fertility problems of other family members or friends – and you may inadvertently select examples of media coverage which have a particular salience for certain individuals. Although using stimulus materials may serve to direct attention away from person experience and provide licence to discuss issues in more general, hypothetical terms, this topic may lead people to express diametrically-opposed opinions and this may be challenging – both for participants and moderator – in a group situation. Taking part in online discussions may, likewise, expose individuals to the sometimes harsh judgements of others and this possibility should be considered when choosing to elicit data through this approach. Sharing experiences on a national platform may also – certainly in the UK context - throw into sharp focus regional differences with regard to access to NHS treatment and consequent resentments on the part of some individuals

Commentary:

Again, this topic is a potentially emotive one. If you are looking to recruit a sample from the general public, careful thought needs to be given in terms of the potential of approaching or even selecting individuals who have experienced fertility problems, miscarriages, stillbirths, neonatal deaths, or complications during pregnancy, labour and delivery. Even if you have decided to recruit parents who have recently had a pregnancy resulting in a live birth, this may inadvertently include people who have previously had less fortunate experiences (even where they have gone on to have subsequent unproblematic deliveries). Even where experiences are less recent, recalling these may raise issues regarding previous now-dissolved relationships. You may have opted to study professionals, but, even here, their views regarding this topic are likely to be influenced by their own personal experiences and it may not be possible – or desirable for research purposes – to limit discussion to professional roles and responsibilities.

(N.B. This is the topic involved in the exercise at the end of Chapter 6, which encourages you to generate your own data using focus groups.)

Commentary:

Ethical considerations are closely tied up with sampling decisions. If the research focuses on parents who are already marginalized (e.g. home educators; travellers; those with children in care; or who are serving custodial sentences), they may feel singled out by being invited to take part in a study that they perceive as viewing them as problematic or deviant.

This topic is particularly amenable to a focus group approach, but this may involve individuals in exposing their parenting practices, potential shortcomings, insecurities and mistakes to the critical gaze of others. This is a topic which is likely to highlight variations in perspectives and experiences between people from different background, in terms of social class position (with different educational and financial resources) or cultural background. Sensitivity is required, both in terms of thinking about group composition and moderating style.

Commentary:

This is a topic to which many individuals may not previously have given much thought. However, there are also self-appointed advocates or activists who are heavily involved in campaigning. Again, seeking to recruit a sample from the ranks of the general public is likely to result in a varied sample. Depending on the routes you utilize for advertising and recruiting you may well find yourself being targeted by pressure groups. This, of course, may be an advantage, if these are the very people whose views you wish to elicit – or, even, if you see such encounters as likely to produce useful stimulus material for discussion with those les engaged with the topic

Particularly if you wish to licit the views of people for whom this is not a central issue, focus groups are likely to suggest themselves as your method of choice. (See discussion in Chapter 6). Consideration should be given to the potential discomfort and even distress that could be caused by insensitive convening that results in groups of people with widely varying levels of education or scientific knowledge. In certain situations – such as those involving planning applications for specific localities - climate change can be an emotive subject While focus group researcher may want to stimulate debate, bringing together individuals representing opposing ‘camps’ may not only be unpleasant for the people involved, but may impact on ongoing relationships within a neighbourhood.

American Anthropological Association (1998) Code of Ethics – http://www.aaanet.org.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm

American Psychological Association (APA) (2003 amended 2010) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct – http://www.apa.org/ehics/code/principles.pdf

American Sociological Association (ASA) (1999 – reprinted 2008) Code of Ethics – http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf

Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) (2012) Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research: Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics working committee (Version 2.0) – http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf

Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth (2011) guidelines:  http://www.theasa.org/downloads/ASA%20ethics%20guidelines%202011.pdf

Australian Anthropological Society (AAS) (undated) Code of Ethics – http://www.aas.asn.au/docs/AAS_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

British Educational Research Association (BERA) (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research – http://www.bera.ac.uk/system/files/3/BERA-Ethical-Guilines-2011.pdf

British Psychological Society (BPS) (2007) Report of the Working Party on Conducting Research on the Internet: Guidelines for Ethical Practice in Psychological Research Online - http://www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/conducting_research_on_the_internet-guidlines_for_ethical_practice_in_psychological_research_online.pdf

British Psychological Society (BPS) (2009) Code of Ethics and Conduct – http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ethics_and_conduct.pdf

British Sociological Association (BSA) (2002) Statement of Ethical Practice – http://www.sociology.org.uk/as4nsoce.pdf

British Sociological Association (BSA) (2006) Visual Sociology Group’s statement of ethical practice in visual research:
http://www.visualsociology.org.uk/about/ethical_statement.php

Economic and Social Research council (ESRC) (2005) Ethics Framework – http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC_Re_Ethics_Frame_tcm6-11291.pdf

Government Social Research Unit (GSR) (2011) Professional Guidance: Ethical Assurance for Social Research in Government  – http://www.gsr/gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ethics_guidance_tcm6-5782.pdf

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) (2007) Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research – http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publicatons/attachments/r39.pdf

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) (2013) Code of Conduct – http://www.nuj.org.uk/about/nuj-code/

RESPECT  (2004) -Code of Practice for Socio-Economic Research – http://www.respectproject.org/code/rspect_code.pdf

Sociological Research Association (SRA) (2003) Ethical guidelines – http://www.the-sra.org/wp-content/uploads/ethics03.pdf

Williams, M., Dicks, B., Coffey, A. and Mason, B. (2008) Methodological issues in qualitative data sharing and archiving. Briefing Paper 2: Qualitative data archiving and reuse: Mapping the ethical terrain, Cardiff Social Sciences – www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsci/hyper/index.html

Wiles, R., Prosser, J., Bagnoli, A., Clark, A., Davies, K., Holland, S. and Renold, E (2008) . Visual Ethics: Ethical Issues in Visual Research, Paper produced by the National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM/011
http://www.ncrm.ac.uk/research/outputs/publications/