research interview ethical

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 15 September 2022

Interviews in the social sciences

• Eleanor Knott   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9131-3939 1 ,
• Aliya Hamid Rao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0674-4206 1 ,
• Kate Summers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9964-0259 1 &
• Chana Teeger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5046-8280 1  

Nature Reviews Methods Primers volume  2 , Article number:  73 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

697k Accesses

41 Citations

42 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Interdisciplinary studies

In-depth interviews are a versatile form of qualitative data collection used by researchers across the social sciences. They allow individuals to explain, in their own words, how they understand and interpret the world around them. Interviews represent a deceptively familiar social encounter in which people interact by asking and answering questions. They are, however, a very particular type of conversation, guided by the researcher and used for specific ends. This dynamic introduces a range of methodological, analytical and ethical challenges, for novice researchers in particular. In this Primer, we focus on the stages and challenges of designing and conducting an interview project and analysing data from it, as well as strategies to overcome such challenges.

Similar content being viewed by others

The fundamental importance of method to theory

Rick Dale, Anne S. Warlaumont & Kerri L. Johnson

How ‘going online’ mediates the challenges of policy elite interviews

Karin Vaagland

Participatory action research

Flora Cornish, Nancy Breton, … Darrin Hodgetts

Introduction

In-depth interviews are a qualitative research method that follow a deceptively familiar logic of human interaction: they are conversations where people talk with each other, interact and pose and answer questions 1 . An interview is a specific type of interaction in which — usually and predominantly — a researcher asks questions about someone’s life experience, opinions, dreams, fears and hopes and the interview participant answers the questions 1 .

Interviews will often be used as a standalone method or combined with other qualitative methods, such as focus groups or ethnography, or quantitative methods, such as surveys or experiments. Although interviewing is a frequently used method, it should not be viewed as an easy default for qualitative researchers 2 . Interviews are also not suited to answering all qualitative research questions, but instead have specific strengths that should guide whether or not they are deployed in a research project. Whereas ethnography might be better suited to trying to observe what people do, interviews provide a space for extended conversations that allow the researcher insights into how people think and what they believe. Quantitative surveys also give these kinds of insights, but they use pre-determined questions and scales, privileging breadth over depth and often overlooking harder-to-reach participants.

In-depth interviews can take many different shapes and forms, often with more than one participant or researcher. For example, interviews might be highly structured (using an almost survey-like interview guide), entirely unstructured (taking a narrative and free-flowing approach) or semi-structured (using a topic guide ). Researchers might combine these approaches within a single project depending on the purpose of the interview and the characteristics of the participant. Whatever form the interview takes, researchers should be mindful of the dynamics between interviewer and participant and factor these in at all stages of the project.

In this Primer, we focus on the most common type of interview: one researcher taking a semi-structured approach to interviewing one participant using a topic guide. Focusing on how to plan research using interviews, we discuss the necessary stages of data collection. We also discuss the stages and thought-process behind analysing interview material to ensure that the richness and interpretability of interview material is maintained and communicated to readers. The Primer also tracks innovations in interview methods and discusses the developments we expect over the next 5–10 years.

We wrote this Primer as researchers from sociology, social policy and political science. We note our disciplinary background because we acknowledge that there are disciplinary differences in how interviews are approached and understood as a method.

Experimentation

Here we address research design considerations and data collection issues focusing on topic guide construction and other pragmatics of the interview. We also explore issues of ethics and reflexivity that are crucial throughout the research project.

Research design

Participant selection.

Participants can be selected and recruited in various ways for in-depth interview studies. The researcher must first decide what defines the people or social groups being studied. Often, this means moving from an abstract theoretical research question to a more precise empirical one. For example, the researcher might be interested in how people talk about race in contexts of diversity. Empirical settings in which this issue could be studied could include schools, workplaces or adoption agencies. The best research designs should clearly explain why the particular setting was chosen. Often there are both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for choosing to study a particular group of people at a specific time and place 3 . Intrinsic motivations relate to the fact that the research is focused on an important specific social phenomenon that has been understudied. Extrinsic motivations speak to the broader theoretical research questions and explain why the case at hand is a good one through which to address them empirically.

Next, the researcher needs to decide which types of people they would like to interview. This decision amounts to delineating the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. The criteria might be based on demographic variables, like race or gender, but they may also be context-specific, for example, years of experience in an organization. These should be decided based on the research goals. Researchers should be clear about what characteristics would make an individual a candidate for inclusion in the study (and what would exclude them).

The next step is to identify and recruit the study’s sample . Usually, many more people fit the inclusion criteria than can be interviewed. In cases where lists of potential participants are available, the researcher might want to employ stratified sampling , dividing the list by characteristics of interest before sampling.

When there are no lists, researchers will often employ purposive sampling . Many researchers consider purposive sampling the most useful mode for interview-based research since the number of interviews to be conducted is too small to aim to be statistically representative 4 . Instead, the aim is not breadth, via representativeness, but depth via rich insights about a set of participants. In addition to purposive sampling, researchers often use snowball sampling . Both purposive and snowball sampling can be combined with quota sampling . All three types of sampling aim to ensure a variety of perspectives within the confines of a research project. A goal for in-depth interview studies can be to sample for range, being mindful of recruiting a diversity of participants fitting the inclusion criteria.

Study design

The total number of interviews depends on many factors, including the population studied, whether comparisons are to be made and the duration of interviews. Studies that rely on quota sampling where explicit comparisons are made between groups will require a larger number of interviews than studies focused on one group only. Studies where participants are interviewed over several hours, days or even repeatedly across years will tend to have fewer participants than those that entail a one-off engagement.

Researchers often stop interviewing when new interviews confirm findings from earlier interviews with no new or surprising insights (saturation) 4 , 5 , 6 . As a criterion for research design, saturation assumes that data collection and analysis are happening in tandem and that researchers will stop collecting new data once there is no new information emerging from the interviews. This is not always possible. Researchers rarely have time for systematic data analysis during data collection and they often need to specify their sample in funding proposals prior to data collection. As a result, researchers often draw on existing reports of saturation to estimate a sample size prior to data collection. These suggest between 12 and 20 interviews per category of participant (although researchers have reported saturation with samples that are both smaller and larger than this) 7 , 8 , 9 . The idea of saturation has been critiqued by many qualitative researchers because it assumes that meaning inheres in the data, waiting to be discovered — and confirmed — once saturation has been reached 7 . In-depth interview data are often multivalent and can give rise to different interpretations. The important consideration is, therefore, not merely how many participants are interviewed, but whether one’s research design allows for collecting rich and textured data that provide insight into participants’ understandings, accounts, perceptions and interpretations.

Sometimes, researchers will conduct interviews with more than one participant at a time. Researchers should consider the benefits and shortcomings of such an approach. Joint interviews may, for example, give researchers insight into how caregivers agree or debate childrearing decisions. At the same time, they may be less adaptive to exploring aspects of caregiving that participants may not wish to disclose to each other. In other cases, there may be more than one person interviewing each participant, such as when an interpreter is used, and so it is important to consider during the research design phase how this might shape the dynamics of the interview.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews are typically organized around a topic guide comprised of an ordered set of broad topics (usually 3–5). Each topic includes a set of questions that form the basis of the discussion between the researcher and participant (Fig.  1 ). These topics are organized around key concepts that the researcher has identified (for example, through a close study of prior research, or perhaps through piloting a small, exploratory study) 5 .

a | Elaborated topics the researcher wants to cover in the interview and example questions. b | An example topic arc. Using such an arc, one can think flexibly about the order of topics. Considering the main question for each topic will help to determine the best order for the topics. After conducting some interviews, the researcher can move topics around if a different order seems to make sense.

Topic guide

One common way to structure a topic guide is to start with relatively easy, open-ended questions (Table  1 ). Opening questions should be related to the research topic but broad and easy to answer, so that they help to ease the participant into conversation.

After these broad, opening questions, the topic guide may move into topics that speak more directly to the overarching research question. The interview questions will be accompanied by probes designed to elicit concrete details and examples from the participant (see Table  1 ).

Abstract questions are often easier for participants to answer once they have been asked more concrete questions. In our experience, for example, questions about feelings can be difficult for some participants to answer, but when following probes concerning factual experiences these questions can become less challenging. After the main themes of the topic guide have been covered, the topic guide can move onto closing questions. At this stage, participants often repeat something they have said before, although they may sometimes introduce a new topic.

Interviews are especially well suited to gaining a deeper insight into people’s experiences. Getting these insights largely depends on the participants’ willingness to talk to the researcher. We recommend designing open-ended questions that are more likely to elicit an elaborated response and extended reflection from participants rather than questions that can be answered with yes or no.

Questions should avoid foreclosing the possibility that the participant might disagree with the premise of the question. Take for example the question: “Do you support the new family-friendly policies?” This question minimizes the possibility of the participant disagreeing with the premise of this question, which assumes that the policies are ‘family-friendly’ and asks for a yes or no answer. Instead, asking more broadly how a participant feels about the specific policy being described as ‘family-friendly’ (for example, a work-from-home policy) allows them to express agreement, disagreement or impartiality and, crucially, to explain their reasoning 10 .

For an uninterrupted interview that will last between 90 and 120 minutes, the topic guide should be one to two single-spaced pages with questions and probes. Ideally, the researcher will memorize the topic guide before embarking on the first interview. It is fine to carry a printed-out copy of the topic guide but memorizing the topic guide ahead of the interviews can often make the interviewer feel well prepared in guiding the participant through the interview process.

Although the topic guide helps the researcher stay on track with the broad areas they want to cover, there is no need for the researcher to feel tied down by the topic guide. For instance, if a participant brings up a theme that the researcher intended to discuss later or a point the researcher had not anticipated, the researcher may well decide to follow the lead of the participant. The researcher’s role extends beyond simply stating the questions; it entails listening and responding, making split-second decisions about what line of inquiry to pursue and allowing the interview to proceed in unexpected directions.

Optimizing the interview

The ideal place for an interview will depend on the study and what is feasible for participants. Generally, a place where the participant and researcher can both feel relaxed, where the interview can be uninterrupted and where noise or other distractions are limited is ideal. But this may not always be possible and so the researcher needs to be prepared to adapt their plans within what is feasible (and desirable for participants).

Another key tool for the interview is a recording device (assuming that permission for recording has been given). Recording can be important to capture what the participant says verbatim. Additionally, it can allow the researcher to focus on determining what probes and follow-up questions they want to pursue rather than focusing on taking notes. Sometimes, however, a participant may not allow the researcher to record, or the recording may fail. If the interview is not recorded we suggest that the researcher takes brief notes during the interview, if feasible, and then thoroughly make notes immediately after the interview and try to remember the participant’s facial expressions, gestures and tone of voice. Not having a recording of an interview need not limit the researcher from getting analytical value from it.

As soon as possible after each interview, we recommend that the researcher write a one-page interview memo comprising three key sections. The first section should identify two to three important moments from the interview. What constitutes important is up to the researcher’s discretion 9 . The researcher should note down what happened in these moments, including the participant’s facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice and maybe even the sensory details of their surroundings. This exercise is about capturing ethnographic detail from the interview. The second part of the interview memo is the analytical section with notes on how the interview fits in with previous interviews, for example, where the participant’s responses concur or diverge from other responses. The third part consists of a methodological section where the researcher notes their perception of their relationship with the participant. The interview memo allows the researcher to think critically about their positionality and practice reflexivity — key concepts for an ethical and transparent research practice in qualitative methodology 11 , 12 .

Ethics and reflexivity

All elements of an in-depth interview can raise ethical challenges and concerns. Good ethical practice in interview studies often means going beyond the ethical procedures mandated by institutions 13 . While discussions and requirements of ethics can differ across disciplines, here we focus on the most pertinent considerations for interviews across the research process for an interdisciplinary audience.

Ethical considerations prior to interview

Before conducting interviews, researchers should consider harm minimization, informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality, and reflexivity and positionality. It is important for the researcher to develop their own ethical sensitivities and sensibilities by gaining training in interview and qualitative methods, reading methodological and field-specific texts on interviews and ethics and discussing their research plans with colleagues.

Researchers should map the potential harm to consider how this can be minimized. Primarily, researchers should consider harm from the participants’ perspective (Box  1 ). But, it is also important to consider and plan for potential harm to the researcher, research assistants, gatekeepers, future researchers and members of the wider community 14 . Even the most banal of research topics can potentially pose some form of harm to the participant, researcher and others — and the level of harm is often highly context-dependent. For example, a research project on religion in society might have very different ethical considerations in a democratic versus authoritarian research context because of how openly or not such topics can be discussed and debated 15 .

The researcher should consider how they will obtain and record informed consent (for example, written or oral), based on what makes the most sense for their research project and context 16 . Some institutions might specify how informed consent should be gained. Regardless of how consent is obtained, the participant must be made aware of the form of consent, the intentions and procedures of the interview and potential forms of harm and benefit to the participant or community before the interview commences. Moreover, the participant must agree to be interviewed before the interview commences. If, in addition to interviews, the study contains an ethnographic component, it is worth reading around this topic (see, for example, Murphy and Dingwall 17 ). Informed consent must also be gained for how the interview will be recorded before the interview commences. These practices are important to ensure the participant is contributing on a voluntary basis. It is also important to remind participants that they can withdraw their consent at any time during the interview and for a specified period after the interview (to be decided with the participant). The researcher should indicate that participants can ask for anything shared to be off the record and/or not disseminated.

In terms of anonymity and confidentiality, it is standard practice when conducting interviews to agree not to use (or even collect) participants’ names and personal details that are not pertinent to the study. Anonymizing can often be the safer option for minimizing harm to participants as it is hard to foresee all the consequences of de-anonymizing, even if participants agree. Regardless of what a researcher decides, decisions around anonymity must be agreed with participants during the process of gaining informed consent and respected following the interview.

Although not all ethical challenges can be foreseen or planned for 18 , researchers should think carefully — before the interview — about power dynamics, participant vulnerability, emotional state and interactional dynamics between interviewer and participant, even when discussing low-risk topics. Researchers may then wish to plan for potential ethical issues, for example by preparing a list of relevant organizations to which participants can be signposted. A researcher interviewing a participant about debt, for instance, might prepare in advance a list of debt advice charities, organizations and helplines that could provide further support and advice. It is important to remember that the role of an interviewer is as a researcher rather than as a social worker or counsellor because researchers may not have relevant and requisite training in these other domains.

Box 1 Mapping potential forms of harm

Social: researchers should avoid causing any relational detriment to anyone in the course of interviews, for example, by sharing information with other participants or causing interview participants to be shunned or mistreated by their community as a result of participating.

Economic: researchers should avoid causing financial detriment to anyone, for example, by expecting them to pay for transport to be interviewed or to potentially lose their job as a result of participating.

Physical: researchers should minimize the risk of anyone being exposed to violence as a result of the research both from other individuals or from authorities, including police.

Psychological: researchers should minimize the risk of causing anyone trauma (or re-traumatization) or psychological anguish as a result of the research; this includes not only the participant but importantly the researcher themselves and anyone that might read or analyse the transcripts, should they contain triggering information.

Political: researchers should minimize the risk of anyone being exposed to political detriment as a result of the research, such as retribution.

Professional/reputational: researchers should minimize the potential for reputational damage to anyone connected to the research (this includes ensuring good research practices so that any researchers involved are not harmed reputationally by being involved with the research project).

The task here is not to map exhaustively the potential forms of harm that might pertain to a particular research project (that is the researcher’s job and they should have the expertise most suited to mapping such potential harms relative to the specific project) but to demonstrate the breadth of potential forms of harm.

Ethical considerations post-interview

Researchers should consider how interview data are stored, analysed and disseminated. If participants have been offered anonymity and confidentiality, data should be stored in a way that does not compromise this. For example, researchers should consider removing names and any other unnecessary personal details from interview transcripts, password-protecting and encrypting files and using pseudonyms to label and store all interview data. It is also important to address where interview data are taken (for example, across borders in particular where interview data might be of interest to local authorities) and how this might affect the storage of interview data.

Examining how the researcher will represent participants is a paramount ethical consideration both in the planning stages of the interview study and after it has been conducted. Dissemination strategies also need to consider questions of anonymity and representation. In small communities, even if participants are given pseudonyms, it might be obvious who is being described. Anonymizing not only the names of those participating but also the research context is therefore a standard practice 19 . With particularly sensitive data or insights about the participant, it is worth considering describing participants in a more abstract way rather than as specific individuals. These practices are important both for protecting participants’ anonymity but can also affect the ability of the researcher and others to return ethically to the research context and similar contexts 20 .

Reflexivity and positionality

Reflexivity and positionality mean considering the researcher’s role and assumptions in knowledge production 13 . A key part of reflexivity is considering the power relations between the researcher and participant within the interview setting, as well as how researchers might be perceived by participants. Further, researchers need to consider how their own identities shape the kind of knowledge and assumptions they bring to the interview, including how they approach and ask questions and their analysis of interviews (Box  2 ). Reflexivity is a necessary part of developing ethical sensibility as a researcher by adapting and reflecting on how one engages with participants. Participants should not feel judged, for example, when they share information that researchers might disagree with or find objectionable. How researchers deal with uncomfortable moments or information shared by participants is at their discretion, but they should consider how they will react both ahead of time and in the moment.

Researchers can develop their reflexivity by considering how they themselves would feel being asked these interview questions or represented in this way, and then adapting their practice accordingly. There might be situations where these questions are not appropriate in that they unduly centre the researchers’ experiences and worldview. Nevertheless, these prompts can provide a useful starting point for those beginning their reflexive journey and developing an ethical sensibility.

Reflexivity and ethical sensitivities require active reflection throughout the research process. For example, researchers should take care in interview memos and their notes to consider their assumptions, potential preconceptions, worldviews and own identities prior to and after interviews (Box  2 ). Checking in with assumptions can be a way of making sure that researchers are paying close attention to their own theoretical and analytical biases and revising them in accordance with what they learn through the interviews. Researchers should return to these notes (especially when analysing interview material), to try to unpack their own effects on the research process as well as how participants positioned and engaged with them.

Box 2 Aspects to reflect on reflexively

For reflexive engagement, and understanding the power relations being co-constructed and (re)produced in interviews, it is necessary to reflect, at a minimum, on the following.

Ethnicity, race and nationality, such as how does privilege stemming from race or nationality operate between the researcher, the participant and research context (for example, a researcher from a majority community may be interviewing a member of a minority community)

Gender and sexuality, see above on ethnicity, race and nationality

Social class, and in particular the issue of middle-class bias among researchers when formulating research and interview questions

Economic security/precarity, see above on social class and thinking about the researcher’s relative privilege and the source of biases that stem from this

Educational experiences and privileges, see above

Disciplinary biases, such as how the researcher’s discipline/subfield usually approaches these questions, possibly normalizing certain assumptions that might be contested by participants and in the research context

Political and social values

Lived experiences and other dimensions of ourselves that affect and construct our identity as researchers

In this section, we discuss the next stage of an interview study, namely, analysing the interview data. Data analysis may begin while more data are being collected. Doing so allows early findings to inform the focus of further data collection, as part of an iterative process across the research project. Here, the researcher is ultimately working towards achieving coherence between the data collected and the findings produced to answer successfully the research question(s) they have set.

The two most common methods used to analyse interview material across the social sciences are thematic analysis 21 and discourse analysis 22 . Thematic analysis is a particularly useful and accessible method for those starting out in analysis of qualitative data and interview material as a method of coding data to develop and interpret themes in the data 21 . Discourse analysis is more specialized and focuses on the role of discourse in society by paying close attention to the explicit, implicit and taken-for-granted dimensions of language and power 22 , 23 . Although thematic and discourse analysis are often discussed as separate techniques, in practice researchers might flexibly combine these approaches depending on the object of analysis. For example, those intending to use discourse analysis might first conduct thematic analysis as a way to organize and systematize the data. The object and intention of analysis might differ (for example, developing themes or interrogating language), but the questions facing the researcher (such as whether to take an inductive or deductive approach to analysis) are similar.

Preparing data

Data preparation is an important step in the data analysis process. The researcher should first determine what comprises the corpus of material and in what form it will it be analysed. The former refers to whether, for example, alongside the interviews themselves, analytic memos or observational notes that may have been taken during data collection will also be directly analysed. The latter refers to decisions about how the verbal/audio interview data will be transformed into a written form, making it suitable for processes of data analysis. Typically, interview audio recordings are transcribed to produce a written transcript. It is important to note that the process of transcription is one of transformation. The verbal interview data are transformed into a written transcript through a series of decisions that the researcher must make. The researcher should consider the effect of mishearing what has been said or how choosing to punctuate a sentence in a particular way will affect the final analysis.

Box  3 shows an example transcript excerpt from an interview with a teacher conducted by Teeger as part of her study of history education in post-apartheid South Africa 24 (Box  3 ). Seeing both the questions and the responses means that the reader can contextualize what the participant (Ms Mokoena) has said. Throughout the transcript the researcher has used square brackets, for example to indicate a pause in speech, when Ms Mokoena says “it’s [pause] it’s a difficult topic”. The transcription choice made here means that we see that Ms Mokoena has taken time to pause, perhaps to search for the right words, or perhaps because she has a slight apprehension. Square brackets are also included as an overt act of communication to the reader. When Ms Mokoena says “ja”, the English translation (“yes”) of the word in Afrikaans is placed in square brackets to ensure that the reader can follow the meaning of the speech.

Decisions about what to include when transcribing will be hugely important for the direction and possibilities of analysis. Researchers should decide what they want to capture in the transcript, based on their analytic focus. From a (post)positivist perspective 25 , the researcher may be interested in the manifest content of the interview (such as what is said, not how it is said). In that case, they may choose to transcribe intelligent verbatim . From a constructivist perspective 25 , researchers may choose to record more aspects of speech (including, for example, pauses, repetitions, false starts, talking over one another) so that these features can be analysed. Those working from this perspective argue that to recognize the interactional nature of the interview setting adequately and to avoid misinterpretations, features of interaction (pauses, overlaps between speakers and so on) should be preserved in transcription and therefore in the analysis 10 . Readers interested in learning more should consult Potter and Hepburn’s summary of how to present interaction through transcription of interview data 26 .

The process of analysing semi-structured interviews might be thought of as a generative rather than an extractive enterprise. Findings do not already exist within the interview data to be discovered. Rather, researchers create something new when analysing the data by applying their analytic lens or approach to the transcripts. At a high level, there are options as to what researchers might want to glean from their interview data. They might be interested in themes, whereby they identify patterns of meaning across the dataset 21 . Alternatively, they may focus on discourse(s), looking to identify how language is used to construct meanings and therefore how language reinforces or produces aspects of the social world 27 . Alternatively, they might look at the data to understand narrative or biographical elements 28 .

A further overarching decision to make is the extent to which researchers bring predetermined framings or understandings to bear on their data, or instead begin from the data themselves to generate an analysis. One way of articulating this is the extent to which researchers take a deductive approach or an inductive approach to analysis. One example of a truly inductive approach is grounded theory, whereby the aim of the analysis is to build new theory, beginning with one’s data 6 , 29 . In practice, researchers using thematic and discourse analysis often combine deductive and inductive logics and describe their process instead as iterative (referred to also as an abductive approach ) 30 , 31 . For example, researchers may decide that they will apply a given theoretical framing, or begin with an initial analytic framework, but then refine or develop these once they begin the process of analysis.

Box 3 Excerpt of interview transcript (from Teeger 24 )

Interviewer : Maybe you could just start by talking about what it’s like to teach apartheid history.

Ms Mokoena : It’s a bit challenging. You’ve got to accommodate all the kids in the class. You’ve got to be sensitive to all the racial differences. You want to emphasize the wrongs that were done in the past but you also want to, you know, not to make kids feel like it’s their fault. So you want to use the wrongs of the past to try and unite the kids …

Interviewer : So what kind of things do you do?

Ms Mokoena : Well I normally highlight the fact that people that were struggling were not just the blacks, it was all the races. And I give examples of the people … from all walks of life, all races, and highlight how they suffered as well as a result of apartheid, particularly the whites… . What I noticed, particularly my first year of teaching apartheid, I noticed that the black kids made the others feel responsible for what happened… . I had a lot of fights…. A lot of kids started hating each other because, you know, the others are white and the others were black. And they started saying, “My mother is a domestic worker because she was never allowed an opportunity to get good education.” …

Interviewer : I didn’t see any of that now when I was observing.

Ms Mokoena : … Like I was saying I think that because of the re-emphasis of the fact that, look, everybody did suffer one way or the other, they sort of got to see that it was everybody’s struggle … . They should now get to understand that that’s why we’re called a Rainbow Nation. Not everybody agreed with apartheid and not everybody suffered. Even all the blacks, not all blacks got to feel what the others felt . So ja [yes], it’s [pause] it’s a difficult topic, ja . But I think if you get the kids to understand why we’re teaching apartheid in the first place and you show the involvement of all races in all the different sides , then I think you have managed to teach it properly. So I think because of my inexperience then — that was my first year of teaching history — so I think I — maybe I over-emphasized the suffering of the blacks versus the whites [emphasis added].

Reprinted with permission from ref. 24 , Sage Publications.

From data to codes

Coding data is a key building block shared across many approaches to data analysis. Coding is a way of organizing and describing data, but is also ultimately a way of transforming data to produce analytic insights. The basic practice of coding involves highlighting a segment of text (this may be a sentence, a clause or a longer excerpt) and assigning a label to it. The aim of the label is to communicate some sort of summary of what is in the highlighted piece of text. Coding is an iterative process, whereby researchers read and reread their transcripts, applying and refining their codes, until they have a coding frame (a set of codes) that is applied coherently across the dataset and that captures and communicates the key features of what is contained in the data as it relates to the researchers’ analytic focus.

What one codes for is entirely contingent on the focus of the research project and the choices the researcher makes about the approach to analysis. At first, one might apply descriptive codes, summarizing what is contained in the interviews. It is rarely desirable to stop at this point, however, because coding is a tool to move from describing the data to interpreting the data. Suppose the researcher is pursuing some version of thematic analysis. In that case, it might be that the objects of coding are aspects of reported action, emotions, opinions, norms, relationships, routines, agreement/disagreement and change over time. A discourse analysis might instead code for different types of speech acts, tropes, linguistic or rhetorical devices. Multiple types of code might be generated within the same research project. What is important is that researchers are aware of the choices they are making in terms of what they are coding for. Moreover, through the process of refinement, the aim is to produce a set of discrete codes — in which codes are conceptually distinct, as opposed to overlapping. By using the same codes across the dataset, the researcher can capture commonalities across the interviews. This process of refinement involves relabelling codes and reorganizing how and where they are applied in the dataset.

From coding to analysis and writing

Data analysis is also an iterative process in which researchers move closer to and further away from the data. As they move away from the data, they synthesize their findings, thus honing and articulating their analytic insights. As they move closer to the data, they ground these insights in what is contained in the interviews. The link should not be broken between the data themselves and higher-order conceptual insights or claims being made. Researchers must be able to show evidence for their claims in the data. Figure  2 summarizes this iterative process and suggests the sorts of activities involved at each stage more concretely.

As well as going through steps 1 to 6 in order, the researcher will also go backwards and forwards between stages. Some stages will themselves be a forwards and backwards processing of coding and refining when working across different interview transcripts.

At the stage of synthesizing, there are some common quandaries. When dealing with a dataset consisting of multiple interviews, there will be salient and minority statements across different participants, or consensus or dissent on topics of interest to the researcher. A strength of qualitative interviews is that we can build in these nuances and variations across our data as opposed to aggregating them away. When exploring and reporting data, researchers should be asking how different findings are patterned and which interviews contain which codes, themes or tropes. Researchers should think about how these variations fit within the longer flow of individual interviews and what these variations tell them about the nature of their substantive research interests.

A further consideration is how to approach analysis within and across interview data. Researchers may look at one individual code, to examine the forms it takes across different participants and what they might be able to summarize about this code in the round. Alternatively, they might look at how a code or set of codes pattern across the account of one participant, to understand the code(s) in a more contextualized way. Further analysis might be done according to different sampling characteristics, where researchers group together interviews based on certain demographic characteristics and explore these together.

When it comes to writing up and presenting interview data, key considerations tend to rest on what is often termed transparency. When presenting the findings of an interview-based study, the reader should be able to understand and trace what the stated findings are based upon. This process typically involves describing the analytic process, how key decisions were made and presenting direct excerpts from the data. It is important to account for how the interview was set up and to consider the active part that the researcher has played in generating the data 32 . Quotes from interviews should not be thought of as merely embellishing or adding interest to a final research output. Rather, quotes serve the important function of connecting the reader directly to the underlying data. Quotes, therefore, should be chosen because they provide the reader with the most apt insight into what is being discussed. It is good practice to report not just on what participants said, but also on the questions that were asked to elicit the responses.

Researchers have increasingly used specialist qualitative data analysis software to organize and analyse their interview data, such as NVivo or ATLAS.ti. It is important to remember that such software is a tool for, rather than an approach or technique of, analysis. That said, software also creates a wide range of possibilities in terms of what can be done with the data. As researchers, we should reflect on how the range of possibilities of a given software package might be shaping our analytical choices and whether these are choices that we do indeed want to make.

Applications

This section reviews how and why in-depth interviews have been used by researchers studying gender, education and inequality, nationalism and ethnicity and the welfare state. Although interviews can be employed as a method of data collection in just about any social science topic, the applications below speak directly to the authors’ expertise and cutting-edge areas of research.

When it comes to the broad study of gender, in-depth interviews have been invaluable in shaping our understanding of how gender functions in everyday life. In a study of the US hedge fund industry (an industry dominated by white men), Tobias Neely was interested in understanding the factors that enable white men to prosper in the industry 33 . The study comprised interviews with 45 hedge fund workers and oversampled women of all races and men of colour to capture a range of experiences and beliefs. Tobias Neely found that practices of hiring, grooming and seeding are key to maintaining white men’s dominance in the industry. In terms of hiring, the interviews clarified that white men in charge typically preferred to hire people like themselves, usually from their extended networks. When women were hired, they were usually hired to less lucrative positions. In terms of grooming, Tobias Neely identifies how older and more senior men in the industry who have power and status will select one or several younger men as their protégés, to include in their own elite networks. Finally, in terms of her concept of seeding, Tobias Neely describes how older men who are hedge fund managers provide the seed money (often in the hundreds of millions of dollars) for a hedge fund to men, often their own sons (but not their daughters). These interviews provided an in-depth look into gendered and racialized mechanisms that allow white men to flourish in this industry.

Research by Rao draws on dozens of interviews with men and women who had lost their jobs, some of the participants’ spouses and follow-up interviews with about half the sample approximately 6 months after the initial interview 34 . Rao used interviews to understand the gendered experience and understanding of unemployment. Through these interviews, she found that the very process of losing their jobs meant different things for men and women. Women often saw job loss as being a personal indictment of their professional capabilities. The women interviewed often referenced how years of devaluation in the workplace coloured their interpretation of their job loss. Men, by contrast, were also saddened by their job loss, but they saw it as part and parcel of a weak economy rather than a personal failing. How these varied interpretations occurred was tied to men’s and women’s very different experiences in the workplace. Further, through her analysis of these interviews, Rao also showed how these gendered interpretations had implications for the kinds of jobs men and women sought to pursue after job loss. Whereas men remained tied to participating in full-time paid work, job loss appeared to be a catalyst pushing some of the women to re-evaluate their ties to the labour force.

In a study of workers in the tech industry, Hart used interviews to explain how individuals respond to unwanted and ambiguously sexual interactions 35 . Here, the researcher used interviews to allow participants to describe how these interactions made them feel and act and the logics of how they interpreted, classified and made sense of them 35 . Through her analysis of these interviews, Hart showed that participants engaged in a process she termed “trajectory guarding”, whereby they sought to monitor unwanted and ambiguously sexual interactions to avoid them from escalating. Yet, as Hart’s analysis proficiently demonstrates, these very strategies — which protect these workers sexually — also undermined their workplace advancement.

Drawing on interviews, these studies have helped us to understand better how gendered mechanisms, gendered interpretations and gendered interactions foster gender inequality when it comes to paid work. Methodologically, these studies illuminate the power of interviews to reveal important aspects of social life.

Nationalism and ethnicity

Traditionally, nationalism has been studied from a top-down perspective, through the lens of the state or using historical methods; in other words, in-depth interviews have not been a common way of collecting data to study nationalism. The methodological turn towards everyday nationalism has encouraged more scholars to go to the field and use interviews (and ethnography) to understand nationalism from the bottom up: how people talk about, give meaning, understand, navigate and contest their relation to nation, national identification and nationalism 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 . This turn has also addressed the gap left by those studying national and ethnic identification via quantitative methods, such as surveys.

Surveys can enumerate how individuals ascribe to categorical forms of identification 40 . However, interviews can question the usefulness of such categories and ask whether these categories are reflected, or resisted, by participants in terms of the meanings they give to identification 41 , 42 . Categories often pitch identification as a mutually exclusive choice; but identification might be more complex than such categories allow. For example, some might hybridize these categories or see themselves as moving between and across categories 43 . Hearing how people talk about themselves and their relation to nations, states and ethnicities, therefore, contributes substantially to the study of nationalism and national and ethnic forms of identification.

One particular approach to studying these topics, whether via everyday nationalism or alternatives, is that of using interviews to capture both articulations and narratives of identification, relations to nationalism and the boundaries people construct. For example, interviews can be used to gather self–other narratives by studying how individuals construct I–we–them boundaries 44 , including how participants talk about themselves, who participants include in their various ‘we’ groupings and which and how participants create ‘them’ groupings of others, inserting boundaries between ‘I/we’ and ‘them’. Overall, interviews hold great potential for listening to participants and understanding the nuances of identification and the construction of boundaries from their point of view.

Education and inequality

Scholars of social stratification have long noted that the school system often reproduces existing social inequalities. Carter explains that all schools have both material and sociocultural resources 45 . When children from different backgrounds attend schools with different material resources, their educational and occupational outcomes are likely to vary. Such material resources are relatively easy to measure. They are operationalized as teacher-to-student ratios, access to computers and textbooks and the physical infrastructure of classrooms and playgrounds.

Drawing on Bourdieusian theory 46 , Carter conceptualizes the sociocultural context as the norms, values and dispositions privileged within a social space 45 . Scholars have drawn on interviews with students and teachers (as well as ethnographic observations) to show how schools confer advantages on students from middle-class families, for example, by rewarding their help-seeking behaviours 47 . Focusing on race, researchers have revealed how schools can remain socioculturally white even as they enrol a racially diverse student population. In such contexts, for example, teachers often misrecognize the aesthetic choices made by students of colour, wrongly inferring that these students’ tastes in clothing and music reflect negative orientations to schooling 48 , 49 , 50 . These assessments can result in disparate forms of discipline and may ultimately shape educators’ assessments of students’ academic potential 51 .

Further, teachers and administrators tend to view the appropriate relationship between home and school in ways that resonate with white middle-class parents 52 . These parents are then able to advocate effectively for their children in ways that non-white parents are not 53 . In-depth interviews are particularly good at tapping into these understandings, revealing the mechanisms that confer privilege on certain groups of students and thereby reproduce inequality.

In addition, interviews can shed light on the unequal experiences that young people have within educational institutions, as the views of dominant groups are affirmed while those from disadvantaged backgrounds are delegitimized. For example, Teeger’s interviews with South African high schoolers showed how — because racially charged incidents are often framed as jokes in the broader school culture — Black students often feel compelled to ignore and keep silent about the racism they experience 54 . Interviews revealed that Black students who objected to these supposed jokes were coded by other students as serious or angry. In trying to avoid such labels, these students found themselves unable to challenge the racism they experienced. Interviews give us insight into these dynamics and help us see how young people understand and interpret the messages transmitted in schools — including those that speak to issues of inequality in their local school contexts as well as in society more broadly 24 , 55 .

The welfare state

In-depth interviews have also proved to be an important method for studying various aspects of the welfare state. By welfare state, we mean the social institutions relating to the economic and social wellbeing of a state’s citizens. Notably, using interviews has been useful to look at how policy design features are experienced and play out on the ground. Interviews have often been paired with large-scale surveys to produce mixed-methods study designs, therefore achieving both breadth and depth of insights.

In-depth interviews provide the opportunity to look behind policy assumptions or how policies are designed from the top down, to examine how these play out in the lives of those affected by the policies and whose experiences might otherwise be obscured or ignored. For example, the Welfare Conditionality project used interviews to critique the assumptions that conditionality (such as, the withdrawal of social security benefits if recipients did not perform or meet certain criteria) improved employment outcomes and instead showed that conditionality was harmful to mental health, living standards and had many other negative consequences 56 . Meanwhile, combining datasets from two small-scale interview studies with recipients allowed Summers and Young to critique assumptions around the simplicity that underpinned the design of Universal Credit in 2020, for example, showing that the apparently simple monthly payment design instead burdened recipients with additional money management decisions and responsibilities 57 .

Similarly, the Welfare at a (Social) Distance project used a mixed-methods approach in a large-scale study that combined national surveys with case studies and in-depth interviews to investigate the experience of claiming social security benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The interviews allowed researchers to understand in detail any issues experienced by recipients of benefits, such as delays in the process of claiming, managing on a very tight budget and navigating stigma and claiming 58 .

These applications demonstrate the multi-faceted topics and questions for which interviews can be a relevant method for data collection. These applications highlight not only the relevance of interviews, but also emphasize the key added value of interviews, which might be missed by other methods (surveys, in particular). Interviews can expose and question what is taken for granted and directly engage with communities and participants that might otherwise be ignored, obscured or marginalized.

Reproducibility and data deposition

There is a robust, ongoing debate about reproducibility in qualitative research, including interview studies. In some research paradigms, reproducibility can be a way of interrogating the rigour and robustness of research claims, by seeing whether these hold up when the research process is repeated. Some scholars have suggested that although reproducibility may be challenging, researchers can facilitate it by naming the place where the research was conducted, naming participants, sharing interview and fieldwork transcripts (anonymized and de-identified in cases where researchers are not naming people or places) and employing fact-checkers for accuracy 11 , 59 , 60 .

In addition to the ethical concerns of whether de-anonymization is ever feasible or desirable, it is also important to address whether the replicability of interview studies is meaningful. For example, the flexibility of interviews allows for the unexpected and the unforeseen to be incorporated into the scope of the research 61 . However, this flexibility means that we cannot expect reproducibility in the conventional sense, given that different researchers will elicit different types of data from participants. Sharing interview transcripts with other researchers, for instance, downplays the contextual nature of an interview.

Drawing on Bauer and Gaskell, we propose several measures to enhance rigour in qualitative research: transparency, grounding interpretations and aiming for theoretical transferability and significance 62 .

Researchers should be transparent when describing their methodological choices. Transparency means documenting who was interviewed, where and when (without requiring de-anonymization, for example, by documenting their characteristics), as well as the questions they were asked. It means carefully considering who was left out of the interviews and what that could mean for the researcher’s findings. It also means carefully considering who the researcher is and how their identity shaped the research process (integrating and articulating reflexivity into whatever is written up).

Second, researchers should ground their interpretations in the data. Grounding means presenting the evidence upon which the interpretation relies. Quotes and extracts should be extensive enough to allow the reader to evaluate whether the researcher’s interpretations are grounded in the data. At each step, researchers should carefully compare their own explanations and interpretations with alternative explanations. Doing so systematically and frequently allows researchers to become more confident in their claims. Here, researchers should justify the link between data and analysis by using quotes to justify and demonstrate the analytical point, while making sure the analytical point offers an interpretation of quotes (Box  4 ).

An important step in considering alternative explanations is to seek out disconfirming evidence 4 , 63 . This involves looking for instances where participants deviate from what the majority are saying and thus bring into question the theory (or explanation) that the researcher is developing. Careful analysis of such examples can often demonstrate the salience and meaning of what appears to be the norm (see Table  2 for examples) 54 . Considering alternative explanations and paying attention to disconfirming evidence allows the researcher to refine their own theories in respect of the data.

Finally, researchers should aim for theoretical transferability and significance in their discussions of findings. One way to think about this is to imagine someone who is not interested in the empirical study. Articulating theoretical transferability and significance usually takes the form of broadening out from the specific findings to consider explicitly how the research has refined or altered prior theoretical approaches. This process also means considering under what other conditions, aside from those of the study, the researcher thinks their theoretical revision would be supported by and why. Importantly, it also includes thinking about the limitations of one’s own approach and where the theoretical implications of the study might not hold.

Box 4 An example of grounding interpretations in data (from Rao 34 )

In an article explaining how unemployed men frame their job loss as a pervasive experience, Rao writes the following: “Unemployed men in this study understood unemployment to be an expected aspect of paid work in the contemporary United States. Robert, a white unemployed communications professional, compared the economic landscape after the Great Recession with the tragic events of September 11, 2001:

Part of your post-9/11 world was knowing people that died as a result of terrorism. The same thing is true with the [Great] Recession, right? … After the Recession you know somebody who was unemployed … People that really should be working.

The pervasiveness of unemployment rendered it normal, as Robert indicates.”

Here, the link between the quote presented and the analytical point Rao is making is clear: the analytical point is grounded in a quote and an interpretation of the quote is offered 34 .

Limitations and optimizations

When deciding which research method to use, the key question is whether the method provides a good fit for the research questions posed. In other words, researchers should consider whether interviews will allow them to successfully access the social phenomena necessary to answer their question(s) and whether the interviews will do so more effectively than other methods. Table  3 summarizes the major strengths and limitations of interviews. However, the accompanying text below is organized around some key issues, where relative strengths and weaknesses are presented alongside each other, the aim being that readers should think about how these can be balanced and optimized in relation to their own research.

Breadth versus depth of insight

Achieving an overall breadth of insight, in a statistically representative sense, is not something that is possible or indeed desirable when conducting in-depth interviews. Instead, the strength of conducting interviews lies in their ability to generate various sorts of depth of insight. The experiences or views of participants that can be accessed by conducting interviews help us to understand participants’ subjective realities. The challenge, therefore, is for researchers to be clear about why depth of insight is the focus and what we should aim to glean from these types of insight.

Naturalistic or artificial interviews

Interviews make use of a form of interaction with which people are familiar 64 . By replicating a naturalistic form of interaction as a tool to gather social science data, researchers can capitalize on people’s familiarity and expectations of what happens in a conversation. This familiarity can also be a challenge, as people come to the interview with preconceived ideas about what this conversation might be for or about. People may draw on experiences of other similar conversations when taking part in a research interview (for example, job interviews, therapy sessions, confessional conversations, chats with friends). Researchers should be aware of such potential overlaps and think through their implications both in how the aims and purposes of the research interview are communicated to participants and in how interview data are interpreted.

Further, some argue that a limitation of interviews is that they are an artificial form of data collection. By taking people out of their daily lives and asking them to stand back and pass comment, we are creating a distance that makes it difficult to use such data to say something meaningful about people’s actions, experiences and views. Other approaches, such as ethnography, might be more suitable for tapping into what people actually do, as opposed to what they say they do 65 .

Dynamism and replicability

Interviews following a semi-structured format offer flexibility both to the researcher and the participant. As the conversation develops, the interlocutors can explore the topics raised in much more detail, if desired, or pass over ones that are not relevant. This flexibility allows for the unexpected and the unforeseen to be incorporated into the scope of the research.

However, this flexibility has a related challenge of replicability. Interviews cannot be reproduced because they are contingent upon the interaction between the researcher and the participant in that given moment of interaction. In some research paradigms, replicability can be a way of interrogating the robustness of research claims, by seeing whether they hold when they are repeated. This is not a useful framework to bring to in-depth interviews and instead quality criteria (such as transparency) tend to be employed as criteria of rigour.

Accessing the private and personal

Interviews have been recognized for their strength in accessing private, personal issues, which participants may feel more comfortable talking about in a one-to-one conversation. Furthermore, interviews are likely to take a more personable form with their extended questions and answers, perhaps making a participant feel more at ease when discussing sensitive topics in such a context. There is a similar, but separate, argument made about accessing what are sometimes referred to as vulnerable groups, who may be difficult to make contact with using other research methods.

There is an associated challenge of anonymity. There can be types of in-depth interview that make it particularly challenging to protect the identities of participants, such as interviewing within a small community, or multiple members of the same household. The challenge to ensure anonymity in such contexts is even more important and difficult when the topic of research is of a sensitive nature or participants are vulnerable.

Increasingly, researchers are collaborating in large-scale interview-based studies and integrating interviews into broader mixed-methods designs. At the same time, interviews can be seen as an old-fashioned (and perhaps outdated) mode of data collection. We review these debates and discussions and point to innovations in interview-based studies. These include the shift from face-to-face interviews to the use of online platforms, as well as integrating and adapting interviews towards more inclusive methodologies.

Collaborating and mixing

Qualitative researchers have long worked alone 66 . Increasingly, however, researchers are collaborating with others for reasons such as efficiency, institutional incentives (for example, funding for collaborative research) and a desire to pool expertise (for example, studying similar phenomena in different contexts 67 or via different methods). Collaboration can occur across disciplines and methods, cases and contexts and between industry/business, practitioners and researchers. In many settings and contexts, collaboration has become an imperative 68 .

Cheek notes how collaboration provides both advantages and disadvantages 68 . For example, collaboration can be advantageous, saving time and building on the divergent knowledge, skills and resources of different researchers. Scholars with different theoretical or case-based knowledge (or contacts) can work together to build research that is comparative and/or more than the sum of its parts. But such endeavours also carry with them practical and political challenges in terms of how resources might actually be pooled, shared or accounted for. When undertaking such projects, as Morse notes, it is worth thinking about the nature of the collaboration and being explicit about such a choice, its advantages and its disadvantages 66 .

A further tension, but also a motivation for collaboration, stems from integrating interviews as a method in a mixed-methods project, whether with other qualitative researchers (to combine with, for example, focus groups, document analysis or ethnography) or with quantitative researchers (to combine with, for example, surveys, social media analysis or big data analysis). Cheek and Morse both note the pitfalls of collaboration with quantitative researchers: that quality of research may be sacrificed, qualitative interpretations watered down or not taken seriously, or tensions experienced over the pace and different assumptions that come with different methods and approaches of research 66 , 68 .

At the same time, there can be real benefits of such mixed-methods collaboration, such as reaching different and more diverse audiences or testing assumptions and theories between research components in the same project (for example, testing insights from prior quantitative research via interviews, or vice versa), as long as the skillsets of collaborators are seen as equally beneficial to the project. Cheek provides a set of questions that, as a starting point, can be useful for guiding collaboration, whether mixed methods or otherwise. First, Cheek advises asking all collaborators about their assumptions and understandings concerning collaboration. Second, Cheek recommends discussing what each perspective highlights and focuses on (and conversely ignores or sidelines) 68 .

A different way to engage with the idea of collaboration and mixed methods research is by fostering greater collaboration between researchers in the Global South and Global North, thus reversing trends of researchers from the Global North extracting knowledge from the Global South 69 . Such forms of collaboration also align with interview innovations, discussed below, that seek to transform traditional interview approaches into more participatory and inclusive (as part of participatory methodologies).

Digital innovations and challenges

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has centred the question of technology within interview-based fieldwork. Although conducting synchronous oral interviews online — for example, via Zoom, Skype or other such platforms — has been a method used by a small constituency of researchers for many years, it became (and remains) a necessity for many researchers wanting to continue or start interview-based projects while COVID-19 prevents face-to-face data collection.

In the past, online interviews were often framed as an inferior form of data collection for not providing the kinds of (often necessary) insights and forms of immersion face-to-face interviews allow 70 , 71 . Online interviews do tend to be more decontextualized than interviews conducted face-to-face 72 . For example, it is harder to recognize, engage with and respond to non-verbal cues 71 . At the same time, they broaden participation to those who might not have been able to access or travel to sites where interviews would have been conducted otherwise, for example people with disabilities. Online interviews also offer more flexibility in terms of scheduling and time requirements. For example, they provide more flexibility around precarious employment or caring responsibilities without having to travel and be away from home. In addition, online interviews might also reduce discomfort between researchers and participants, compared with face-to-face interviews, enabling more discussion of sensitive material 71 . They can also provide participants with more control, enabling them to turn on and off the microphone and video as they choose, for example, to provide more time to reflect and disconnect if they so wish 72 .

That said, online interviews can also introduce new biases based on access to technology 72 . For example, in the Global South, there are often urban/rural and gender gaps between who has access to mobile phones and who does not, meaning that some population groups might be overlooked unless researchers sample mindfully 71 . There are also important ethical considerations when deciding between online and face-to-face interviews. Online interviews might seem to imply lower ethical risks than face-to-face interviews (for example, they lower the chances of identification of participants or researchers), but they also offer more barriers to building trust between researchers and participants 72 . Interacting only online with participants might not provide the information needed to assess risk, for example, participants’ access to a private space to speak 71 . Just because online interviews might be more likely to be conducted in private spaces does not mean that private spaces are safe, for example, for victims of domestic violence. Finally, online interviews prompt further questions about decolonizing research and engaging with participants if research is conducted from afar 72 , such as how to include participants meaningfully and challenge dominant assumptions while doing so remotely.

A further digital innovation, modulating how researchers conduct interviews and the kinds of data collected and analysed, stems from the use and integration of (new) technology, such as WhatsApp text or voice notes to conduct synchronous or asynchronous oral or written interviews 73 . Such methods can provide more privacy, comfort and control to participants and make recruitment easier, allowing participants to share what they want when they want to, using technology that already forms a part of their daily lives, especially for young people 74 , 75 . Such technology is also emerging in other qualitative methods, such as focus groups, with similar arguments around greater inclusivity versus traditional offline modes. Here, the digital challenge might be higher for researchers than for participants if they are less used to such technology 75 . And while there might be concerns about the richness, depth and quality of written messages as a form of interview data, Gibson reports that the reams of transcripts that resulted from a study using written messaging were dense with meaning to be analysed 75 .

Like with online and face-to-face interviews, it is important also to consider the ethical questions and challenges of using such technology, from gaining consent to ensuring participant safety and attending to their distress, without cues, like crying, that might be more obvious in a face-to-face setting 75 , 76 . Attention to the platform used for such interviews is also important and researchers should be attuned to the local and national context. For example, in China, many platforms are neither legal nor available 76 . There, more popular platforms — like WeChat — can be highly monitored by the government, posing potential risks to participants depending on the topic of the interview. Ultimately, researchers should consider trade-offs between online and offline interview modalities, being attentive to the social context and power dynamics involved.

The next 5–10 years

Continuing to integrate (ethically) this technology will be among the major persisting developments in interview-based research, whether to offer more flexibility to researchers or participants, or to diversify who can participate and on what terms.

Pushing the idea of inclusion even further is the potential for integrating interview-based studies within participatory methods, which are also innovating via integrating technology. There is no hard and fast line between researchers using in-depth interviews and participatory methods; many who employ participatory methods will use interviews at the beginning, middle or end phases of a research project to capture insights, perspectives and reflections from participants 77 , 78 . Participatory methods emphasize the need to resist existing power and knowledge structures. They broaden who has the right and ability to contribute to academic knowledge by including and incorporating participants not only as subjects of data collection, but as crucial voices in research design and data analysis 77 . Participatory methods also seek to facilitate local change and to produce research materials, whether for academic or non-academic audiences, including films and documentaries, in collaboration with participants.

In responding to the challenges of COVID-19, capturing the fraught situation wrought by the pandemic and the momentum to integrate technology, participatory researchers have sought to continue data collection from afar. For example, Marzi has adapted an existing project to co-produce participatory videos, via participants’ smartphones in Medellin, Colombia, alongside regular check-in conversations/meetings/interviews with participants 79 . Integrating participatory methods into interview studies offers a route by which researchers can respond to the challenge of diversifying knowledge, challenging assumptions and power hierarchies and creating more inclusive and collaborative partnerships between participants and researchers in the Global North and South.

Brinkmann, S. & Kvale, S. Doing Interviews Vol. 2 (Sage, 2018). This book offers a good general introduction to the practice and design of interview-based studies.

Silverman, D. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting And Reasonably Cheap Book About Qualitative Research (Sage, 2017).

Yin, R. K. Case Study Research And Applications: Design And Methods (Sage, 2018).

Small, M. L. How many cases do I need?’ On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 , 5–38 (2009). This article convincingly demonstrates how the logic of qualitative research differs from quantitative research and its goal of representativeness.

Google Scholar  

Gerson, K. & Damaske, S. The Science and Art of Interviewing (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research (Aldine, 1967).

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 13 , 201–216 (2021).

Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18 , 59–82 (2006).

Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S. & Young, T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18 , 148 (2018).

Silverman, D. How was it for you? The Interview Society and the irresistible rise of the (poorly analyzed) interview. Qual. Res. 17 , 144–158 (2017).

Jerolmack, C. & Murphy, A. The ethical dilemmas and social scientific tradeoffs of masking in ethnography. Sociol. Methods Res. 48 , 801–827 (2019).

MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Reyes, V. Ethnographic toolkit: strategic positionality and researchers’ visible and invisible tools in field research. Ethnography 21 , 220–240 (2020).

Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. Ethics, reflexivity and “ethically important moments” in research. Qual. Inq. 10 , 261–280 (2004).

Summers, K. For the greater good? Ethical reflections on interviewing the ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ in qualitative research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 23 , 593–602 (2020). This article argues that, in qualitative interview research, a clearer distinction needs to be drawn between ethical commitments to individual research participants and the group(s) to which they belong, a distinction that is often elided in existing ethics guidelines.

Yusupova, G. Exploring sensitive topics in an authoritarian context: an insider perspective. Soc. Sci. Q. 100 , 1459–1478 (2019).

Hemming, J. in Surviving Field Research: Working In Violent And Difficult Situations 21–37 (Routledge, 2009).

Murphy, E. & Dingwall, R. Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Soc. Sci. Med. 65 , 2223–2234 (2007).

Kostovicova, D. & Knott, E. Harm, change and unpredictability: the ethics of interviews in conflict research. Qual. Res. 22 , 56–73 (2022). This article highlights how interviews need to be considered as ethically unpredictable moments where engaging with change among participants can itself be ethical.

Andersson, R. Illegality, Inc.: Clandestine Migration And The Business Of Bordering Europe (Univ. California Press, 2014).

Ellis, R. What do we mean by a “hard-to-reach” population? Legitimacy versus precarity as barriers to access. Sociol. Methods Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995536 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide (Sage, 2022).

Alejandro, A. & Knott, E. How to pay attention to the words we use: the reflexive review as a method for linguistic reflexivity. Int. Stud. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viac025 (2022).

Alejandro, A., Laurence, M. & Maertens, L. in International Organisations and Research Methods: An Introduction (eds Badache, F., Kimber, L. R. & Maertens, L.) (Michigan Univ. Press, in the press).

Teeger, C. “Both sides of the story” history education in post-apartheid South Africa. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80 , 1175–1200 (2015).

Crotty, M. The Foundations Of Social Research: Meaning And Perspective In The Research Process (Routledge, 2020).

Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2 , 281–307 (2005).

Taylor, S. What is Discourse Analysis? (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013).

Riessman, C. K. Narrative Analysis (Sage, 1993).

Corbin, J. M. & Strauss, A. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13 , 3–21 (1990).

Timmermans, S. & Tavory, I. Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol. Theory 30 , 167–186 (2012).

Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Meth. 5 , 80–92 (2006).

Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. Eight challenges for interview researchers. Handb. Interview Res. 2 , 541–570 (2012).

Tobias Neely, M. Fit to be king: how patrimonialism on Wall Street leads to inequality. Socioecon. Rev. 16 , 365–385 (2018).

Rao, A. H. Gendered interpretations of job loss and subsequent professional pathways. Gend. Soc. 35 , 884–909 (2021). This article used interview data from unemployed men and women to illuminate how job loss becomes a pivotal moment shaping men’s and women’s orientation to paid work, especially in terms of curtailing women’s participation in paid work.

Hart, C. G. Trajectory guarding: managing unwanted, ambiguously sexual interactions at work. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86 , 256–278 (2021).

Goode, J. P. & Stroup, D. R. Everyday nationalism: constructivism for the masses. Soc. Sci. Q. 96 , 717–739 (2015).

Antonsich, M. The ‘everyday’ of banal nationalism — ordinary people’s views on Italy and Italian. Polit. Geogr. 54 , 32–42 (2016).

Fox, J. E. & Miller-Idriss, C. Everyday nationhood. Ethnicities 8 , 536–563 (2008).

Yusupova, G. Cultural nationalism and everyday resistance in an illiberal nationalising state: ethnic minority nationalism in Russia. Nations National. 24 , 624–647 (2018).

Kiely, R., Bechhofer, F. & McCrone, D. Birth, blood and belonging: identity claims in post-devolution Scotland. Sociol. Rev. 53 , 150–171 (2005).

Brubaker, R. & Cooper, F. Beyond ‘identity’. Theory Soc. 29 , 1–47 (2000).

Brubaker, R. Ethnicity Without Groups (Harvard Univ. Press, 2004).

Knott, E. Kin Majorities: Identity And Citizenship In Crimea And Moldova From The Bottom-Up (McGill Univ. Press, 2022).

Bucher, B. & Jasper, U. Revisiting ‘identity’ in international relations: from identity as substance to identifications in action. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 23 , 391–415 (2016).

Carter, P. L. Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture And Inequality In US And South African Schools (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

Bourdieu, P. in Cultural Theory: An Anthology Vol. 1, 81–93 (eds Szeman, I. & Kaposy, T.) (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).

Calarco, J. M. Negotiating Opportunities: How The Middle Class Secures Advantages In School (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

Carter, P. L. Keepin’ It Real: School Success Beyond Black And White (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).

Carter, P. L. ‘Black’ cultural capital, status positioning and schooling conflicts for low-income African American youth. Soc. Probl. 50 , 136–155 (2003).

Warikoo, N. K. The Diversity Bargain Balancing Acts: Youth Culture in the Global City (Univ. California Press, 2011).

Morris, E. W. “Tuck in that shirt!” Race, class, gender and discipline in an urban school. Sociol. Perspect. 48 , 25–48 (2005).

Lareau, A. Social class differences in family–school relationships: the importance of cultural capital. Sociol. Educ. 60 , 73–85 (1987).

Warikoo, N. Addressing emotional health while protecting status: Asian American and white parents in suburban America. Am. J. Sociol. 126 , 545–576 (2020).

Teeger, C. Ruptures in the rainbow nation: how desegregated South African schools deal with interpersonal and structural racism. Sociol. Educ. 88 , 226–243 (2015). This article leverages ‘ deviant ’ cases in an interview study with South African high schoolers to understand why the majority of participants were reluctant to code racially charged incidents at school as racist.

Ispa-Landa, S. & Conwell, J. “Once you go to a white school, you kind of adapt” black adolescents and the racial classification of schools. Sociol. Educ. 88 , 1–19 (2015).

Dwyer, P. J. Punitive and ineffective: benefit sanctions within social security. J. Soc. Secur. Law 25 , 142–157 (2018).

Summers, K. & Young, D. Universal simplicity? The alleged simplicity of Universal Credit from administrative and claimant perspectives. J. Poverty Soc. Justice 28 , 169–186 (2020).

Summers, K. et al. Claimants’ Experiences Of The Social Security System During The First Wave Of COVID-19 . https://www.distantwelfare.co.uk/winter-report (2021).

Desmond, M. Evicted: Poverty And Profit In The American City (Crown Books, 2016).

Reyes, V. Three models of transparency in ethnographic research: naming places, naming people and sharing data. Ethnography 19 , 204–226 (2018).

Robson, C. & McCartan, K. Real World Research (Wiley, 2016).

Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. Qualitative Researching With Text, Image And Sound: A Practical Handbook (SAGE, 2000).

Lareau, A. Listening To People: A Practical Guide To Interviewing, Participant Observation, Data Analysis And Writing It All Up (Univ. Chicago Press, 2021).

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage, 1985).

Jerolmack, C. & Khan, S. Talk is cheap. Sociol. Methods Res. 43 , 178–209 (2014).

Morse, J. M. Styles of collaboration in qualitative inquiry. Qual. Health Res. 18 , 3–4 (2008).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Lamont, M. et al. Getting Respect: Responding To Stigma And Discrimination In The United States, Brazil And Israel (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016).

Cheek, J. Researching collaboratively: implications for qualitative research and researchers. Qual. Health Res. 18 , 1599–1603 (2008).

Botha, L. Mixing methods as a process towards indigenous methodologies. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 14 , 313–325 (2011).

Howlett, M. Looking at the ‘field’ through a zoom lens: methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691 (2021).

Reñosa, M. D. C. et al. Selfie consents, remote rapport and Zoom debriefings: collecting qualitative data amid a pandemic in four resource-constrained settings. BMJ Glob. Health 6 , e004193 (2021).

Mwambari, D., Purdeková, A. & Bisoka, A. N. Covid-19 and research in conflict-affected contexts: distanced methods and the digitalisation of suffering. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794121999014 (2021).

Colom, A. Using WhatsApp for focus group discussions: ecological validity, inclusion and deliberation. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120986074 (2021).

Kaufmann, K. & Peil, C. The mobile instant messaging interview (MIMI): using WhatsApp to enhance self-reporting and explore media usage in situ. Mob. Media Commun. 8 , 229–246 (2020).

Gibson, K. Bridging the digital divide: reflections on using WhatsApp instant messenger interviews in youth research. Qual. Res. Psychol. 19 , 611–631 (2020).

Lawrence, L. Conducting cross-cultural qualitative interviews with mainland Chinese participants during COVID: lessons from the field. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120974157 (2020).

Ponzoni, E. Windows of understanding: broadening access to knowledge production through participatory action research. Qual. Res. 16 , 557–574 (2016).

Kong, T. S. Gay and grey: participatory action research in Hong Kong. Qual. Res. 18 , 257–272 (2018).

Marzi, S. Participatory video from a distance: co-producing knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic using smartphones. Qual. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211038171 (2021).

Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. InterViews: Learning The Craft Of Qualitative Research Interviewing (Sage, 2008).

Rao, A. H. The ideal job-seeker norm: unemployment and marital privileges in the professional middle-class. J. Marriage Fam. 83 , 1038–1057 (2021).

Rivera, L. A. Ivies, extracurriculars and exclusion: elite employers’ use of educational credentials. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 29 , 71–90 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the MY421 team and students for prompting how best to frame and communicate issues pertinent to in-depth interview studies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Methodology, London School of Economics, London, UK

Eleanor Knott, Aliya Hamid Rao, Kate Summers & Chana Teeger

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleanor Knott .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Methods Primers thanks Jonathan Potter and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A pre-written interview outline for a semi-structured interview that provides both a topic structure and the ability to adapt flexibly to the content and context of the interview and the interaction between the interviewer and participant. Others may refer to the topic guide as an interview protocol.

Here we refer to the participants that take part in the study as the sample. Other researchers may refer to the participants as a participant group or dataset.

This involves dividing a population into smaller groups based on particular characteristics, for example, age or gender, and then sampling randomly within each group.

A sampling method where the guiding logic when deciding who to recruit is to achieve the most relevant participants for the research topic, in terms of being rich in information or insights.

Researchers ask participants to introduce the researcher to others who meet the study’s inclusion criteria.

Similar to stratified sampling, but participants are not necessarily randomly selected. Instead, the researcher determines how many people from each category of participants should be recruited. Recruitment can happen via snowball or purposive sampling.

A method for developing, analysing and interpreting patterns across data by coding in order to develop themes.

An approach that interrogates the explicit, implicit and taken-for-granted dimensions of language as well as the contexts in which it is articulated to unpack its purposes and effects.

A form of transcription that simplifies what has been said by removing certain verbal and non-verbal details that add no further meaning, such as ‘ums and ahs’ and false starts.

The analytic framework, theoretical approach and often hypotheses, are developed prior to examining the data and then applied to the dataset.

The analytic framework and theoretical approach is developed from analysing the data.

An approach that combines deductive and inductive components to work recursively by going back and forth between data and existing theoretical frameworks (also described as an iterative approach). This approach is increasingly recognized not only as a more realistic but also more desirable third alternative to the more traditional inductive versus deductive binary choice.

A theoretical apparatus that emphasizes the role of cultural processes and capital in (intergenerational) social reproduction.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Knott, E., Rao, A.H., Summers, K. et al. Interviews in the social sciences. Nat Rev Methods Primers 2 , 73 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6

Download citation

Accepted : 14 July 2022

Published : 15 September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Development of a digital intervention for psychedelic preparation (dipp).

• Rosalind G. McAlpine
• Matthew D. Sacchet
• Sunjeev K. Kamboj

Scientific Reports (2024)

Between the dog and the wolf: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of bicultural, sexual minority people’s lived experiences

• Emelie Louise Miller
• Ingrid Zakrisson

Discover Psychology (2024)

Acknowledging that Men are Moral and Harmed by Gender Stereotypes Increases Men’s Willingness to Engage in Collective Action on Behalf of Women

• Alexandra Vázquez
• Lucía López-Rodríguez
• Marco Brambilla

Sex Roles (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Ethical consideration dilemma: systematic review of ethics in qualitative data collection through interviews

Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology

ISSN : 2633-7436

Article publication date: 11 August 2023

Issue publication date: 14 December 2023

Qualitative research that involves the use of human participants calls for the need to protect those participants to give their honest view during data collection. This is an important part of every primary data collection in qualitative studies using interviews. This paper aims to investigate all available ethical considerations that need to be observed by the researcher when conducting primary data collection through interview and to explore the theories that underpin the ethics in qualitative studies.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper systemically reviewed existing qualitative data on ethics and gathered information that were analysed and presented on the topic area.

The findings show that ethical considerations deal with the various approaches adopted by the researcher to make the participants feel safe to participate in any given researcher. During an interview process in qualitative research, the findings show that anonymity, voluntary participation, privacy, confidentiality, option to opt out and avoiding misuse of findings are ethical considerations that must be observed by the researcher. The outcome of the investigation also shows that deontology and utilitarianism, rights and virtue are the main theories that underpin ethical considerations in research.

Originality/value

The rights of the research participants need to be respected in qualitative research to assist in gathering accurate information to achieve the objectives of study. This and other ethical principles such as anonymity, privacy, confidentiality, voluntary participation and option to opt out guide the researcher to systematically adhere to data collection approaches that yield valid results in qualitative data collection using interviews.

• Primary data
• Qualitative research
• Ethical theory
• Informed consent
• Data collection
• Ethical approval

Nii Laryeafio, M. and Ogbewe, O.C. (2023), "Ethical consideration dilemma: systematic review of ethics in qualitative data collection through interviews", Journal of Ethics in Entrepreneurship and Technology , Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 94-110. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEET-09-2022-0014

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Michael Nii Laryeafio and Omoruyi Courage Ogbewe.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Qualitative research that involves human subjects should focus on using the best form of interaction to gather accurate information. The researcher is vested with the main ideas and the approach to interact with the participants during data collection. However, these human subjects have the choice of what kinds of information they provide to researchers based on the treatment that are shown to them by the researchers. Researchers such as Collis and Hussey (2014) and Smith et al. (2009) proposed that researchers must have a policy of respecting the rights and privileges given to human participants in any given qualitative studies to allow the freedom of expression and the option to opt out at any point during the data collection.

These and other privileges given to the human participants in a research aid in gathering information without fear or pressure from the participants. Saunders et al. (2016) also affirmed by saying that the accuracy of information gathered using interviews largely depends on the honesty of the participants, and this is caused by outlining the ethical considerations that needs to be observed by the researcher. Ethical considerations are fundamental in any kind of research, this provides the opportunity for the researcher to gather the most important information without causing any harm to the participants in the research ( Orb et al. , 2000 ). The aim of this paper is to present a systematic and comprehensive literature review on ethical considerations in qualitative data collection using interviews and highlighting the various theories that underpin the ethical issues in qualitative research.

2. Literature review

Research ethics considers the act of doing good and protecting the rights of participants in research, as well as avoiding any possible harm to any participants ( Kara and Pickering, 2017 ; UK Statistics Authority, 2022 ). Kara and Pickering (2017) further noted in their research study that research ethics often considers the elements which concerns primary data collection than secondary data. For example, in their research that analysed 29 published articles between 2000 and 2015, majority of the article (22) addressed ethical consideration such as anonymity, privacy, confidentiality, informed consent and formal ethical regulations that concerns primary data collection, and the rest consisted of other topics such as ethics and secondary data, ethics and data analysis, theory and life-writing. This became evident that though ethical considerations are associated with other kinds of data, it particularly concerns primary data collection than secondary data. This was also confirmed by Colnerud (2015) who also expressed that ethical considerations help in preventing or reducing any harm that could happen to the human participants during primary data collection. Thus, it becomes very important for the protection of human rights in any kind of research ( Cilliers and Viljieon, 2021 ). In the current trend of research investigation, it is illegal to violate human right under the pretence of research studies. The nature of ethical issues in qualitative research is so delicate as compared to quantitative research ( Drolet et al. , 2022 ). Researchers have the highest accountability to ensure that they notice or identify and foreseeable harm and safeguard the wellbeing of the participants ( Williams-Jones et al. , 2013 ). As such, the actions of researchers, especially those that engage in qualitative studies, have been under high scrutiny due to the likelihood of mistreating the human participants, to gain deeper findings and clarity of information generated.

As noted by Van Burg et al. (2022) , qualitative research has been vital in the development of theories on emerging techniques that helped the existence of men in recent times, such as crowdfunding ( Short et al. , 2017 ), digital technologies ( Nambisan et al. , 2019 ) and lean start-up approach ( Shepherd and Gruber, 2020 ). The relevance of qualitative research has called for the need to ensure internal coherence as noted by Howard-Grenville et al. (2021) where they pointed out that a perfect fit must exist in qualitative studies which helps to link the research question to data collection, data analysis, as well as findings and development of theory.

However, researchers that engage in qualitative studies are faced with three major challenges that raises the issue of ethics in data collection: the researcher–participants relationship, the subjective interpretation of data and findings by the researcher and the research design adopted ( Beauchemin et al. , 2021 ). There is the possibility of disclosing some damaging information under deception. The literature provides an example of researcher’s deception through Humphrey’s study of homosexuals ( Punch, 1994 ). Humphrey used participants’ observation as his data collection technique through the act of deception, and this raised major concerns and shocked American scholars who wanted to have his doctorate degree revoked. Humphrey engaged in controversial research where he observed homosexuals in a public bathroom, and under the disguise of working under a different investigation follows same homosexuals to their various homes. Though this contradicts the ethical principle, Clark (1996) expressed that deception allows the researcher to gather “uncontaminated” data. This approach of “deception” was adopted by Clark (1996) in her forensic unit research. While conducting research over a period of six weeks, Clarke pretended to be working as a nursing auxiliary to observe participants and later take notes. In other words, Clarke did not disclose her identify as a researcher, rather pretended to be a worker at the facility. Clark (1996 , p. 38) justified her approach by expressing that when “dealing with sensitive aspect of subject’s behaviour”, some degree of deception should be permitted. However, Kang and Hwang (2021) pointed out that the act of deception violates human right and exposes the participants to harm and danger.

Misconduct in research studies deeply affects the results of any investigation. While Bruhn et al. (2002) believed that the authenticity of research findings depends on data collection techniques, Davison (2004) also expressed that human participants can give their honest opinion on an investigation when they are given “convenient” environment to operate. Participants should not be manipulated under no circumstance to give any to be involved in a research data collection. Throughout the research life cycle, it is very important for researchers to consider any possible ethical challenges that could occur ( Giorgini et al. , 2016 ). Due to the difficulties associated with identifying any possible ethical issues, ethical committee acts as experts who access the research documents prior to the investigation to make sure all ethical “checklists” are met by the researcher ( Lynöe et al. , 1999 ).

3. Historical background to research ethics

There has been different school of thoughts when a historical account of the birth of ethics in research is being narrated. This approach to rightfully engage human participants in research started when people started to reflect on the best way to interact and live. To recall, history has it that the birth of research ethics in modern studies started when investigators had to protect the human participants in any kind of investigation. To this school of thought, the Doctors Trial of 1946–1947 gave way for a starting point to document regulations that should have been followed by investigators for the Nuremberg Trials for war criminals by the Nazis ( Annas and Grodin, 1992 ). To further expand on the scenario, there were a total of 23 physicians from Germany who wanted to conduct research with human subjects as the main participants in view of uncovering a scientific knowledge regarding limits of the human body as a result exposed those human participants involved in the research to high temperatures and altitudes ( Grodin, 1992 ).

The accused 23 German physicians ended up brutalising and torturing the human subjects involved, as well crippling most of them which led to the death of thousands of the research victims. During the Nazi racial purification policies, these physicians were also exploring ways to racially kill innocent people in a relatively painless manner for reasons of mercy. This was to relieve the foreigners of the racial discrimination met out to them by the Nazis, without their consent. These acts were the most destructive and gruesome experiments that led to the murder of thousands of victims in Germany by the Nazi party in 1942 ( Nuremberg Code, 1947 ).

Research participants must voluntarily consent to research participation.

Research aims should contribute to the good of society.

Research must be based on sound theory and prior animal testing.

Research must avoid unnecessary physical and mental suffering.

No research projects can go forward where serious injury and/or death are potential outcomes.

The degree of risk taken with research participants cannot exceed anticipated benefits of results.

Proper environment and protection for participants is necessary.

Experiments can be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.

Human subjects must be allowed to discontinue their participation at any time.

Scientists must be prepared to terminate the experiment if there is cause to believe that continuation will be harmful or result in injury or death.

Clinical research must conform to the moral and scientific principles that justify medical research and should be based on laboratory and animal experiments or other scientifically established facts.

Clinical research should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons and under the supervision of a qualified medical man.

Clinical research cannot legitimately be carried out unless the importance of the objective is in proportion to the inherent risk to the subject.

Every clinical research project should be preceded by careful assessment of inherent risks in comparison to foreseeable benefits to the subject or to others.

Special caution should be exercised by the doctor in performing clinical research in which the personality of the subject is liable to be altered by drugs or experimental procedure.

Following the DoH in 1964, the development of the “Belmont Report” in 1979 became the next set of ethical guidelines that was proposed by the National Commission for the maximum protection of human participants on Biomedical and Behavioural Research. The Belmont Report reviewed and reaffirmed three key ethical guidelines that researchers must follow when dealing with human participants in research, and these are respect for persons, beneficence and justice. The Nuremberg code, DoH and Belmont Report paved way for modern approaches to research ethics in research.

4. Ethical theories

There have been several attempts by scholars in the field of ethics to provide justifications for the need to oblige to some form of principles when engaging human participants in research ( Koski, 2009 ). In essence, it is common and appropriate to consider different ethical theories that underpin the principles of a researcher to clarify what is wrong or right during data collection that involves human participants. The following are four key ethical theories that form the philosophical position of researchers during data collection.

4.1 Deontology

This ethical theory is often associated with the works of Immanuel Kant who expressed that the rightness or wrongness of an action should not be dependent on the consequences of that action, rather on whether that action is right under a series of rules ( Beauchamp, 1991 ). This is mostly regarded as obligation or duty and thus referred to as the rule-based ethics. Under this theory, people must follow their rules and do their duty. Salzman (1995) also pointed out that deontology ethical theory exists within the domain of morality which helps to guide our choice of what is right and wrong. For example, when a computer scientist who has much knowledge in hacking systems learn that there is going to be a nuclear weapon launch that could kill lots of people. Under this circumstance, the computer scientist can hack and cancel the launch of the nuclear weapon, to avoid killing of people ( Olson, 1967 ). However, the deontic view is that it is unprofessional to break into the system of the nuclear weapon without consent or permission. Deontologist advises not to breach the professional code of conduct as a computer scientist ( Waller, 2005 ).

4.2 Utilitarianism

Unlike deontology, this theory mainly focusses on the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the outcome of that action. This is born out of consequentialism which holds that utilitarianism deals with taking actions that produces the greatest benefits to the greatest number of related people ( Shaw, 1998 ). This is a moral principle that holds that the best ethical choice is the actions that produces the best benefits to the greatest number. For example, a healthy person has a good liver, kidney, heart and lungs. Imagine there are four people at the hospital who needs organ transplant each. In this instance, a healthy person can save four people with his/her organs. Utilitarianism theory suggests that the life of one healthy person can save four people at the hospital (greatest number) and that is arguably the best choice to make ( McCloskey, 1957 ). The consequence of taking the life of just one person is saving the lives of four people, though other scholars suggest that taking the life of any person is unethical.

This is a duty-based ethical theory which explains the rights of every person, and it is the duty of another person to respect those rights, thus owing up the duty to respect the rights of another. As Traer (2009 p. 103) explains:

[…] the most widely accepted justification for moral rights relies on Kant's deontological argument that we have a duty to treat every person as an end, and not to our ends, because every person is autonomous and rational, and thus has intrinsic worth.

This theory highly judges a person based on his or her character, rather than the action or outcome of event. This deals with the moral reputation of a person that determines any ethical behaviour (Annas, 1993). As the name suggest, virtue can be expressed as a morally good tendency to act well in some aspects of life ( Hursthouse and Pettigrove, 2018 ). This mainly portrays the character traits and become central to the personality of a person.

When researchers are faced with decision-making situation or data collection when there is the need to adhere to ethical considerations, there are several ethical theories that gives the guidelines to reach a decision that is ethically correct. To reach the right decision when dealing with human participants, each ethical theory helps to adhere to the best practices that lead to taking the best decision.

5. Qualitative research

The choice of this type of research largely depends on the philosophical position of the researcher. This type of research relies on the information supplied by the human subjects in the research. They hold the idea that human subjects under any given piece of research should be given the chance to bring out their views about the topic area in the research. This should be devoid of any predetermined set of questions that gives participants less chance to express themselves. As expressed by Merriam (2009) , qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how people make sense of their world and the experiences they have in the world. This was affirmed by Parkinson and Drislane (2011) who also expressed that qualitative research use research techniques such as case studies and participants which helps in narrative and descriptive nature of practice. The most common idea from both authors concludes that qualitative research investigates events in their natural settings and successfully attempts to make meaning to the research based on the meanings the human subjects attach to them. Simply put, qualitative research deals with the gathering and analysing of non-numerical data to explore views, experiences or opinions of others.

6. Current and emerging trends in qualitative research

The community of research in qualitative studies has gone through several changes from where the human participants are harmed to the stage where the rights of participants are highly respected and protected ( Roth and von Unger, 2018 ). Qualitative researchers tend to treat ethics as the main characteristics between the researcher and what is researched. To move further, the advancement in technology has led to the transformation of many fields of research and qualitative research is no exception. As a result, qualitative research is going through tremendous and rapid changes and any researcher interested in such investigation should know the state of development in qualitative research ( Costa and Moreira, 2019 ). These changes and other emerging trends could be seen in three main areas ( ESOMAR, 2010 ): sources of data, data collection and analysis of data.

The traditional data sources under qualitative research were mainly through interviews, observation, focus groups and recordings ( Gill et al. , 2008 ). Currently, these methods have been heavily complemented by virtual, textual, visual and other data that is gathered from social media. The introduction of Web 2.0 technologies (interactive contents) has led to the development of social media platforms that enables people all over the world to share their lives and other private information online which is accessed by people all over the world ( Sykora, 2017 ). With creativity and innovation, qualitative researchers have found ways to leverage on this trend to conduct high quality research. As such, as many people around the world creates accounts on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms, there are vast amount of qualitative data streams that could be accessed by the qualitative researcher. In a nutshell, social media platforms have become an additional source of data for researchers.

The consequence of data available on social media platforms has brought about other emerging data collection tools such as data mining and web crawling techniques used in recent times. For example, software programmes such as Ncapture have been integrated into NVivo which helps to capture social media contents for fast qualitative data analysis. Ncapture is a free web-browser extension created for internet explorer and Google chrome which helps the researcher to collect contents from the web to effectively import into NVivo for qualitative data analysis ( Tom and Richards, 2003 ; Zamawe, 2015 ). This has led to the introduction of “netnography” (the combination of network and ethnography) as a new form of qualitative social media research. Netnography is a specific type of qualitative social media research that relates to data collection, analysis, representation and research ethics that is deeply rooted in research participant’s observation ( Kozinets, 2017 ). Kozinets (2002) further explained that netnography uses an interpretative research philosophy which helps to adapt participants’ observation approach of anthropology to the detail investigation of involvement and experiences which manifest through digital communications.

The traditional qualitative data analysis consists of using humans to code texts manually ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ); however, the introduction of social media research has turned efforts to using automated content analysis (ACA). This consists of techniques that are used to automatically analyse social media contents. Scholars such as Stockwell et al. (2009) and Sievert and Shirley (2014) added that ACA helps qualitative researchers to engage in large-scale data analysis and helps to produce efficient results.

7. Qualitative data collection methods and procedure

7.1 methods.

Data collection is one of the most important parts of every research investigation. It is the systematic process of gathering and collecting information on the interested variables in research to answer the research question and evaluate the outcome of a research (Collis and Hussey, 2016; Saunders et al. , 2016 ). In a qualitative research where human participants are involved, data collection translates into the various processes of gathering and collection data from the targeted participants about the topic area, through, for example, interviews. There are several methods of qualitative data collection, and it is up to the researcher to justify the methods used. The choice of data collection methods for qualitative research is highly influenced by the research philosophical positioning of the researcher ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ). The most common method of collecting qualitative data is through, interviews, group discussions or focus group, observations, surveys and note taking. It is worth mentioning that the interview could take place via telephone, online (through Skype, Zoom and Teams) or face-to-face, and be recorded for analysis. The focus of the research investigation is interviews as the main qualitative data collection methods.

7.2 Interviews

This is the most common form of data collection for qualitative research investigation (Collis and Hussey, 2016). This presents the great opportunity for researchers to fully interact with the participants to solicit for data about a topic area. There are several forms of interviews that are available to the researcher such as unstructured, semi-structured and structured interviews (Oats, 2016). Researchers can choose any form of interviews for the data collection based on the depth of data to be collected to answer the research questions.

7.3 Procedures

A long-standing process of conducting interviews to solicit for information from participants suggests that the researcher must have four main documents ready and to be sent to the participants (interviewee) before conducting the interview ( Denzin and Lincoln, 2011 ). These documents are as follows: consent form, information sheet, interview guide and introduction letter (when the researcher is seeking to involve organisations or institutions).

7.4 Information sheet

It is mostly called participant’s information sheet ( Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007 ). This is a written document that gives the summary of the research project and detailed out how the participants will be affected by their involvement in the data collection for the study ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ). Areas that are clearly detailed out in the information sheet are: (1) What is the study about? (2) How do I join? (3) What happens to the information? (4) Do I have to take part in the research? (5) Will I benefit from the research? and (6) What if I change my mind. These and many other information are provided on the information sheet to give the interviewee an awareness of the research investigation and how he or she will be protected.

7.5 Consent form

Having read the information sheet and become aware of the project, interviewees are given the consent form to sign to show their willingness to take part in the research. This is therefore a signed document that outlines the informed consent of an individual to partake in a research study (Collis and Hussey, 2016). In most cases, the consent form has some information with a tick box against it, asking individual to tick to agree to some key information that will take place in the research before finally signing the document. Some key information that requires a “tick” by the individual (interviewee) are (1) I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet dated for the above study, (2) I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason and (3) I understand that my name will not appear in any reports, articles or presentations.

7.6 Interview guide

Usually limited to a one-page document ( Menzies et al. , 2016 ), the interview guide simply lists the high-level topics that the researcher plans to cover in the interview with the high-level questions that the researcher wants the interviewee to answer under each topic. The topics and questions written on this document is guided by the research questions ( Lazar et al. , 2017 ) that is necessary and sufficient to achieve the aim of the research.

7.7 Introduction letter

This is a letter that is written to an organisation to allow members of its staff members to be involved in data collection ( Saunders et al. , 2016 ) or to seek permission to retrieve data from archives of the organisation, thus often called organisational letter.

All these documents mentioned above must be made ready to commence an interview by the researcher. The researcher through a sampling technique, selects and sends an invitation to the participants and records the number who has agreed to be interviewed. The interview is then recorded and transcribed for analysis.

8. Ethical considerations in conducting interviews

When the information sheet, consent form and interview guide has been designed by the researcher, it now time for the researcher to commence the interview process. This is the time where ethical considerations become very relevant. The following are some of the ethical considerations that must be observed by the researcher during the interview process.

8.1 Anonymity

Providing anonymity to the interviewees means that all the information collected is devoid of personal details of the interviewee such as address, email, name and other key information that could lead to the identification of the interviewee ( Crow and Wiles, 2008 ). Ensuring anonymity of information collected gives protection to the interviewees and allows them to give out key information which ensures reliability of findings ( Saunders et al. , 2015 ). This helps to protect the privacy of voluntary participants in the research investigation.

8.2 Privacy and confidentiality

The interviewer must ensure that any information collected from the interviewee must remain private and confidential; thus, ensuring that no third party has access to the raw data unless otherwise stated by the interviewee for exposure.

8.3 Voluntary participation

To gain reliable information from the interviewee, none must be forced or induced to participate in the research investigation. Forcing participant will mean that they are not willing to give out any information but for material compensation, they will take part which could lead to the collection of false information. Allowing for voluntary participation will ensure that participants understand the research area and accept to engage in the data collection ( Mumford et al. , 2021 ).

8.4 Option to opt out

The researcher must respect the rights of interviews at any point during the data collection to opt out. When this happens any already collected data about the participants must be discarded. This ensures that no interviewee is forced to engage in the research if some questions go against their virtues ( Mumford et al. , 2021 ). The researcher owes it a responsibility to respect the rights of the interviewees.

8.5 Non-maleficence/Beneficence

The ethical principle of non-maleficence and beneficence describes the researcher’s obligation to fully avoid causing any harm to the participant intentionally or be able to identify and eliminate any source of harm to the participant ( Guillemin and Gillam, 2004 ). The researcher in this instance should not over-burden the participant with more questions or create a situation where the participant feels uncomfortable. Any deliberate attempt by the researcher to cause an unwelcome environment will impact negatively to the responses that will be gathered ( Wilson et al. , 2008 ). This was initially a concern in the nursing research where a patient places full trust in the hands of a nurse or health officer, and therefore suffers a deliberate harm by the health officer which could be avoided ( Alderson, 2000 ). For example, where patients handle sensitive and private information to the health officer due to trust. Table 1 below gives a typology of ethical concerns faced by interviewers.

9. Key ethical concerns in entrepreneurship and technology

Technology and entrepreneurship are constantly developing fields that provide numerous benefits to society. However, they also bring up a few ethical concerns. The following are some of the most important ethical issues in technology and entrepreneurship:

Privacy: Personal data collection, storage and use are now easier than ever thanks to technology ( Reynolds, 2019 ). This raises concerns regarding who has access to that data and how it is being used. Technologists and entrepreneurs must respect the privacy of individuals and be open about their data practices.

Security: Cyberattacks and data breaches are becoming increasingly common as technology usage rises ( Reynolds, 2019 ). Business owners and technologists should do whatever it takes to safeguard client information.

Intellectual property: New concepts and inventions are frequently developed through technology. Intellectual property rights must be respected by technologists and entrepreneurs alike, and they must avoid violating the rights of others ( Reynolds, 2019 ).

Bias and discrimination: If technology is not designed and implemented in a way that is fair and inclusive, bias and discrimination can continue ( Van Burg et al. , 2022 ). Technologists and entrepreneurs need to be aware of the possibility of bias and discrimination and take steps to reduce it.

Social obligation: Technologists and entrepreneurs have a responsibility to think about how their products and services will affect society ( Van Burg et al. , 2022 ). They should guarantee that their developments are not unsafe to society and that they are adding to everyone's benefit.

Labour issues: Entrepreneurs and technologists must consider the effects on workers as technology alters the nature of work. They should guarantee that their advancements do not prompt work dislodging or double-dealing ( Van Burg et al. , 2022 ).

Business and innovation present numerous moral difficulties that should be tended to. It is essential for technologists and entrepreneurs to be aware of these issues and to take steps to guarantee that their innovations are socially responsible and beneficial.

10. Gaining ethical approval

Research that involves the use of human participants needs to seek for ethical approval from an ethics committee. Saunders et al. (2016) further expressed that all research that involves human tissues requires that ethical approval must be sought by the university’s research ethics committee. Obtaining ethical approval means that the researcher has adhered to the acceptable ethical standards of a reliable and genuine research study ( Bickman and Rog, 2009 ).

For the application process, the researcher must make available the research proposal, together with the data collection instrument, participants’ information sheet, consent form and then apply for ethics from the university’s ethics committee by filling the ethics form online and attaching the proposal for submission. The ethics committee has been named differently by many universities based on the country or university of application, for example, it is called the “Institutional Review Board” (IRB) in the USA. Section 9 below gives a detail overview of IRB and its composition. The ethics committee (or IRS) reviews the application and examines the proposal to meet all requirements per the ethics standards. Once all requirements are met by the applicant (researcher), ethical approval is granted for the research to commence.

11. Institutional review board

The IRB is also referred to as an independent ethics committee ( Mohamadi et al. , 2014 ) with the sole mandate of reviewing the proposed research methods by researchers to ensure that the methodological pathway is ethical. This is an officially constituted group under the FDA in the USA. This committee is called “Research Ethics Committees” in Spain. This committee assumes the central role in research by approving (or rejecting), monitoring, reviewing social science research involving human participants. The primary aim of the IRB is to conduct a high-level risk-benefit analysis to determine whether research involving humans should be allowed and thus brings no harm and other related risk to the human participants involved ( McNeil, 2014 ).

The purpose of the IRB is to ensure that various steps are taken by the committee to assist in protecting the rights and welfare of the human elements in the research. This means that by the review of the research protocols and other related materials by the IRB, any psychological or physical harm are eliminated ( Alicia, 2009 ). The review process takes the form of assessing the research methods and fully promoting informed consent and voluntary participation by all participants who can make such decisions. The composition of IRB varies among countries; however, it consists of academic scholars and other non-academic scholars which helps to bring a greater scope of understanding and helps to ensure sense of ethics in human-related research. It important to note that the IRB is often applied in health and other social science research which includes sociology, psychology and anthropology. This research often relates to social behaviour, attitude or opinions, as well as research on the quality of health care provided and means of improving the health-care practices.

The growth of research in ethical considerations and debates among qualitative researchers to adapt the IRB reviews to social science research necessitated the formation of specialised ethics committees (as called in the UK) to exclusively oversee social science research investigations. For a better review by the IRB, the specialised ethics committee tries to adequately understand research conducted by social scientists.

It is a usual practice that universities around the world publish all ethical concerns that must be addressed in respective research on their official websites. Students are expected to carefully review such principles and apply to their research. Due to differences or constant changes in culture, all ethical committee members must be subjected to constant training programme to be able to incorporate new and updated cultural changes into the ethical principles for students to be aware. This will help to improve the ethical committee processes. In addition, these ethicists must train teachers or supervisors who oversee the work of research students so that they can acquire the updated and most relevant ethical issues in qualitative research. These supervisors will also teach and explain to students how to apply all needed concerns in ethics. Because ethical concerns are mostly general in most qualitative research, through training programme organised for the students, they become aware to a more narrowed and focused ethical concerns regarding the specific human participants in research. In a cycle of approach, well knowledgeable students on specific ethical issues in qualitative research are more likely to address all ethical concerns before applying for ethical approval. This situation improves the process of the ethics committee and makes their role more effective by responding to students’ applications promptly, because of rightfully responding to all specific ethical concerns. This is illustrated in the framework below ( Figure 1 ).

12. Conclusion

Human beings are at the centre of qualitative research, and the rights of these human participants need to be respected to give out valid information. Researchers conducting a qualitative research investigation must adhere to ethical considerations such as anonymity, voluntary participation, privacy and confidentiality and freedom to walk out in a researcher. Researchers must also make sure consent forms and information sheet are given to the participants to read and agree to take part in a research investigation before conducting interviews. Adhering to ethical considerations in research demonstrate that the research investigation meets the standard of ensuring reliability and validity of findings.

13. Limitations and suggestions for future research

One limitation of this research is it focused on ensuring that the research participants are safe and can give out the right information through tape-recorded interviews. The security nature of the recording device (technology used) can however, exposed the interviewee through device hacking and other cyber-attacks. Further research is therefore recommended to examine the kinds of recording device to use during interview recording to provide data protection from the public and other cyber criminals. The study was also limited to giving a general consent form to the interviewee to sign before the researcher commences the interview. Further research is therefore suggested to explore the content of the consent form to clearly state the most relevant parts that seeks to protect the interviewee. There should also be further research to fully examine the retention and use of recording by the researcher for future studies. This will help to give a measure on how long any interview data recorded should be kept by the researcher before been discarded. In addition, the researcher relied heavily on secondary data that has been collated by other past researchers, and due to the current trends in qualitative research, it is highly suggested that future researcher should adopt the interpretative philosophy using semi-structured interview to fully interact with scholars in qualitative research to uncover any new knowledge about ethics in qualitative research. Research in qualitative studies often overlooks the cultural diversity among participants that helps to understand the worldview of participants. Future research studies should be directed towards exploring how research design in qualitative research should focus on addressing cultural issues in data recoding. This is because there are some tribes or cultures that frowns on recordings and the taking and retention of information after the person’s death. In addition, future research should focus on the effect of training programmes that are organised for the ethics committee and its effects on ethical approval process. In the words, are there any given forums or developmental programmes that are made available to the ethics committee in view of improving knowledge on current ethical concerns and how it has made their role more effective.

A typology of ethical issues in an interview

Source: Authors’ own work

Alderson , P. ( 2000 ), Qualitative Research: A Vital Resource for Ethical Healthcare , The Welcome Trust , London .

Alicia , M. ( 2009 ), “ Coast IRB, caught in sting, to close ”, The Wall Street Journal .

Annas , G.J. and Grodin , M.A. ( 1992 ), The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code , Oxford University Press , New York, NY .

Beauchamp , T.L. ( 1991 ), Philosophical Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy , 2nd ed. , McGraw Hill , New York, NY .

Beauchemin , É. , Côté , L.P. , Drolet , M.J. and Williams-Jones , B. ( 2021 ), “ Conceptualizing ethical issues in the conduct of research: results from a critical and systematic literature review ”, Journal of Academic Ethics , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 335 - 358 , doi: 10.1007/s10805-021-09411-7 .

Bickman , L. and Rog , D. ( 2009 ), “ Applied research design: a practical approach ”, in Bickman , L. and Rog , D. (Eds), Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods , 2nd ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA , pp. 3 - 43 .

Bruhn , J.G. , Zajac , G. , Al-Kazemi , A.A. and Prescott , L.D. ( 2002 ), “ Moral positions and academic conduct: parameters of tolerance for ethics failure ”, The Journal of Higher Education , Vol. 73 No. 4 , pp. 461 - 493 , doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0033 .

Cilliers , L. and Viljieon , K. ( 2021 ), “ A framework of ethical issues to consider when conducting internet-based research ”, South African Journal of Information Management , ISSN: 1560-63x, 2078-1865 .

Clark , H.H. ( 1996 ), Using Language , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge .

Collis , J. and Hussey , R. ( 2014 ), Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students , 4th ed. , Macmillan education; Palgrave .

Colnerud , G. ( 2015 ), “ Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: an empirical study ”, Research Ethics , Vol. 10 No. 4 , pp. 238 - 253 , doi: 10.1177/1747016114552339 .

Costa , A.P. and Moreira , A. ( 2019 ), “ Technology ethics in qualitative research: how to be ”, The Qualitative Report , Vol. 24 No. 13 , pp. 1 - 4 .

Creswell , J. and Plano Clark , V. ( 2007 ), Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Crow , G. and Wiles , R. ( 2008 ), “ Managing anonymity and confidentiality in social research: the case of visual data in community research ”, ESRC National centre for research methods .

Davison , J. ( 2004 ), “ Dilemmas in research: issues of vulnerability and disempowerment for the social workers/researcher ”, Journal of Social Work Practice , Vol. 18 No. 3 , pp. 379 - 393 , doi: 10.1080/0265053042000314447 .

Denzin , N. and Lincoln , Y. ( 2011 ), Handbook of Qualitative Research , 4th ed. , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Drolet , M. , Rose-Derouin , E. , Leblanc , J. , Ruest , M. and Williams-Jones , B. ( 2022 ), “ Ethical issues in research: perceptions of researchers, research ethics board members and research ethics experts ”, Journal of Academic Ethics , Vol. 21 No. 2 , pp. 269 - 292 , doi: 10.1007/s10805-022-09455-3 .

ESOMAR ( 2010 ), “ Current and emerging trends in qualitative research ”, Athens, Greece in combination with congress-Odyssey , Retrieved from: Current And Emerging Trends In Qualitative Research – WebSM (accessed 18 December 2022 ).

Gill , P. , Stewart , K. , Treasure , E. and Chadwick , B. ( 2008 ), “ Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups ”, British Dental Journal , Vol. 204 No. 6 , pp. 291 - 295 .

Giorgini , V. , Mecca , J.T. , Gibson , C. , Medeiros , K. , Mumford , M.D. , Connelly , S. and Devenport , L.D. ( 2016 ), “ Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct ”, Accountability in Research , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 123 - 138 , doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.955607 .

Grodin , M.A. ( 1992 ), “ Historical origins of the Nuremberg code ”, in Annas , G.J. and Grodin , M.A. (Eds), The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human Rights in Human Experimentation , Oxford University Press , Oxford .

Guillemin , M. and Gillam , L. ( 2004 ), “ Ethics, reflexivity and ‘ethically important moments’ in research ”, Qualitative Inquiry , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 261 - 280 .

Howard-Grenville , J. , Nelson , A. , Vough , H. and Zilber , T. ( 2021 ), “ From the editors – achieving fit and avoiding misfit in qualitative research ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 64 No. 5 , pp. 1313 - 1323 .

Hursthouse , R. and Pettigrove , G. ( 2018 ), “ Virtue ethics ”, in Zalta , E.N. (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.) , Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University , Retrieved 2021-02-19 .

Kang , E. and Hwang , H. ( 2021 ), “ Ethical conducts in qualitative research methodology; participants observation and interview process ”, Journal of Research and Publication Ethics , Vol. 2 No. 2 , pp. 5 - 10 .

Kara , H. and Pickering , L. ( 2017 ), “ New directions in qualitative research ethics ”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology , Vol. 20 No. 3 , pp. 239 - 241 .

Koski , G. ( 2009 ), “ Ethical issues in translational research and clinical investigation ”, Clinical and Translational Science , Academic Press .

Kozinets , R.V. ( 2002 ), “ The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities ”, Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 39 No. 1 , pp. 61 - 72 .

Kozinets , R.V. ( 2017 ), “ Management netnography: axiological and methodological developments in online cultural business research ”, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Business and Management Research Methods , Sage , London .

Lazar , J. , Feng , J. and Hochheiser , H. ( 2017 ), Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction , 2nd ed. , Morgan Kaufmann Publishers , Cambridge, MA .

Lynöe , N. , Sandlund , M. and Jacobsson , L. ( 1999 ), “ Research ethics committees: a comparative study of assessment of ethical dilemmas ”, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health , Vol. 27 No. 2 , pp. 152 - 159 .

McCloskey , H.J. ( 1957 ), “ An examination of restricted utilitarianism ”, The Philosophical Review , Vol. 66 No. 4 , pp. 466 - 485 , doi: 10.2307/2182745 .

McNeil , C. ( 2014 ), “ Debate over institutional review boards continues as alternative options emerge ”, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute , Vol. 99 No. 7 , pp. 502 - 503 .

Menzies , T. , Williams , L. and Zimmerman , T. ( 2016 ), Perspectives on Data Science for Software Engineering , Elsevier .

Merriam , S. ( 2009 ), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Mohamadi , A. , Asghari , F. and Rashidian , A. ( 2014 ), “ Continuing review of ethics in clinical trials: a surveillance study in Iran ”, Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine , PMC 4648212. PMID 26587202 , Vol. 7 , p. 22

Mumford , M.D. , Higgs , C. and Gujar , Y. ( 2021 ), “ Ethics in coercive environments: ensuring voluntary participation in research ”, in Panicker , S. and Stanley , B. (Eds), Handbook of Research Ethics in Psychological Science , American Psychological Association , pp. 113 - 123 .

Nambisan , S. , Wright , M. and Feldman , M. ( 2019 ), “ The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: progress, challenges and key themes ”, Research Policy , Vol. 48 No. 8 , p. 103773 , doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.018 .

Nuremberg Code ( 1947 ), “ The doctor's trial: the medical case of the subsequent Nuremberg proceedings ”, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Online Exhibitions , Retrieved from: Nuremberg Code – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (ushmm.org) (accessed 2 April 2022 ).

Olson , R.G. ( 1967 ), “ Deontological ethics ”, in Edwards , P. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Collier Macmillan , London .

Orb , A. , Eisenhauer , L. and Wynaden , D. ( 2000 ), “ Ethics in qualitative research ”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 93 - 96 .

Parkinson , G. and Drislane , R. ( 2011 ), “ Qualitative research. In online dictionary of the social sciences ”, available at: http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl

Punch , M. ( 1994 ), Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research. Handbook of Qualitative Research , Sage , Newbery Park, CA .

Reynolds , G.W. ( 2019 ), Ethics in Information Technology , 6th ed. , Cengage Learning .

Roth , W. and von Unger , H. ( 2018 ), “ Current perspectives on research ethics in qualitative research ”, Qualitative Social Research , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 798 - 809 .

Salzman , T.A. ( 1995 ), Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology , University Press .

Saunders , B. , Kitzinger , J. and Kitzinger , C. ( 2015 ), “ Anonymising interview data: challenges and compromise in practice ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 15 No. 5 , pp. 616 - 632 .

Saunders , M. , Lewis , P. and Thornhill , A. ( 2016 ), Research Methods for Business Students , 6th ed. , Pearson .

Shaw , W. ( 1998 ), Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism , Wiley-Blackwell , ISBN 978-0-631-20294-3 .

Shepherd , D.A. and Gruber , M. ( 2020 ), “ The lean startup framework: closing the academic–practitioner divide ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 45 No. 5 , p. 104225871989941 , doi: 10.1177/1042258719899415 .

Short , J.C. , Ketchen , D.J. , McKenny , A.F. , Allison , T.H. and Ireland , R.D. ( 2017 ), “ Research on crowdfunding: reviewing the (very recent) past and celebrating the present ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 41 No. 2 , pp. 149 - 160 , doi: 10.1111/etap.12270 .

Sievert , C. and Shirley , K.E. ( 2014 ), “ A method for visualizing and interpreting topics ”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces , Association for Computational Linguistics , Baltimore, MD , pp. 63 - 70 .

Smith , J. , Flowers , P. and Larkin , M. ( 2009 ), Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research , Sage , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Stockwell , P. , Colomb , R.M. , Smith , A.E. and Wiles , J. ( 2009 ), “ Use of an automatic content analysis tool: a technique for seeing both local and global scope ”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , Vol. 67 No. 5 , pp. 424 - 436 .

Sykora , M. ( 2017 ), “ Web 1.0 to web 2.0: an observational study and empirical evidence for the historical r(evolution) of the social web ”, International Journal of Web Engineering and Technology , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 70 - 94 .

Tom , R. and Richards , L. ( 2003 ), “ The way ahead in qualitative research ”, Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods , Vol. 2 No. 1 .

Traer , R. ( 2009 ), Doing Environmental Ethics , Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group .

UK Statistics Authority ( 2022 ), “ Ethical considerations associated with qualitative research methods ”, available at: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/ethical-considerations-associated-with-qualitative-research-methods/pages/2/ ( accessed 24 April 2023 ).

Van Burg , E. , Cornelissen , J. , Stam , W. and Jack , S. ( 2022 ), “ Advancing qualitative entrepreneurship research: leveraging methodological plurality for achieving scholarly impact ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol. 46 No. 1 , pp. 3 - 20 .

Waller , B.N. ( 2005 ), Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues , Pearson Longman , New York, NY .

Williams-Jones , B. , Potvin , M.J. , Mathieu , G. and Smith , E. ( 2013 ), “ Barriers to research on research ethics review and conflicts of interest ”, IRB: Ethics and Human Research , Vol. 35 No. 5 , pp. 14 - 20 .

Wilson , S. , Draper , H. and Ives , J. ( 2008 ), “ Ethical issues regarding recruitment to research studies within the primary care consultation ”, Family Practice , Vol. 25 No. 6 , pp. 456 - 461 .

Zamawe , F.C. ( 2015 ), “ The implication of using NVivo software in qualitative data analysis: evidence-based reflections ”, Malawi Medical Journal , Vol. 27 No. 1 , pp. 13 - 15 .

Further reading

Annas , J. ( 2022 ), “ Virtue and duty: negotiating between different ethical traditions ”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , S2CID 143268990 – via SpringerLink , Vol. 49 No. 4 , p. 609 , doi: 10.1007/s10790-015-9520-y .

Enfield , K.B. and Truwit , J.D. ( 2008 ), “ The purpose, composition, and function of an institutional review board: balancing priorities ”, Respiratory Care , Vol. 53 No. 10 , pp. 1330 - 1336 .

Perrault , E.K. and Keating , D.M. ( 2017 ), “ Seeking ways to inform the uninformed: improving the informed consent process in online social science research ”, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , Vol. 13 No. 1 , pp. 50 - 60 .

Perrault , E.K. and Nazione , S.A. ( 2016 ), “ Informed consent – uninformed participants: shortcomings of online social science consent forms and recommendations for improvement ”, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics , Vol. 11 No. 3 , pp. 274 - 280 .

Pope , T.M. ( 2009 ), “ Multi-Institutional healthcare ethics committees: the procedurally fair internal dispute resolution mechanism ”, Campbell Law Review , Vol. 31 , pp. 257 - 331 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples

Published on October 18, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from people.

The goals of human research often include understanding real-life phenomena, studying effective treatments, investigating behaviors, and improving lives in other ways. What you decide to research and how you conduct that research involve key ethical considerations.

These considerations work to

• protect the rights of research participants
• enhance research validity
• maintain scientific or academic integrity

Table of contents

Why do research ethics matter, getting ethical approval for your study, types of ethical issues, voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, potential for harm, results communication, examples of ethical failures, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research ethics.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe for research subjects.

You’ll balance pursuing important research objectives with using ethical research methods and procedures. It’s always necessary to prevent permanent or excessive harm to participants, whether inadvertent or not.

Defying research ethics will also lower the credibility of your research because it’s hard for others to trust your data if your methods are morally questionable.

Even if a research idea is valuable to society, it doesn’t justify violating the human rights or dignity of your study participants.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Before you start any study involving data collection with people, you’ll submit your research proposal to an institutional review board (IRB) .

An IRB is a committee that checks whether your research aims and research design are ethically acceptable and follow your institution’s code of conduct. They check that your research materials and procedures are up to code.

If successful, you’ll receive IRB approval, and you can begin collecting data according to the approved procedures. If you want to make any changes to your procedures or materials, you’ll need to submit a modification application to the IRB for approval.

If unsuccessful, you may be asked to re-submit with modifications or your research proposal may receive a rejection. To get IRB approval, it’s important to explicitly note how you’ll tackle each of the ethical issues that may arise in your study.

There are several ethical issues you should always pay attention to in your research design, and these issues can overlap with each other.

You’ll usually outline ways you’ll deal with each issue in your research proposal if you plan to collect data from participants.

Voluntary participation means that all research subjects are free to choose to participate without any pressure or coercion.

All participants are able to withdraw from, or leave, the study at any point without feeling an obligation to continue. Your participants don’t need to provide a reason for leaving the study.

It’s important to make it clear to participants that there are no negative consequences or repercussions to their refusal to participate. After all, they’re taking the time to help you in the research process , so you should respect their decisions without trying to change their minds.

Voluntary participation is an ethical principle protected by international law and many scientific codes of conduct.

Take special care to ensure there’s no pressure on participants when you’re working with vulnerable groups of people who may find it hard to stop the study even when they want to.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Informed consent refers to a situation in which all potential participants receive and understand all the information they need to decide whether they want to participate. This includes information about the study’s benefits, risks, funding, and institutional approval.

You make sure to provide all potential participants with all the relevant information about

• what the study is about
• the risks and benefits of taking part
• how long the study will take
• your supervisor’s contact information and the institution’s approval number

Usually, you’ll provide participants with a text for them to read and ask them if they have any questions. If they agree to participate, they can sign or initial the consent form. Note that this may not be sufficient for informed consent when you work with particularly vulnerable groups of people.

If you’re collecting data from people with low literacy, make sure to verbally explain the consent form to them before they agree to participate.

For participants with very limited English proficiency, you should always translate the study materials or work with an interpreter so they have all the information in their first language.

In research with children, you’ll often need informed permission for their participation from their parents or guardians. Although children cannot give informed consent, it’s best to also ask for their assent (agreement) to participate, depending on their age and maturity level.

Anonymity means that you don’t know who the participants are and you can’t link any individual participant to their data.

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, and videos.

In many cases, it may be impossible to truly anonymize data collection . For example, data collected in person or by phone cannot be considered fully anonymous because some personal identifiers (demographic information or phone numbers) are impossible to hide.

You’ll also need to collect some identifying information if you give your participants the option to withdraw their data at a later stage.

Data pseudonymization is an alternative method where you replace identifying information about participants with pseudonymous, or fake, identifiers. The data can still be linked to participants but it’s harder to do so because you separate personal information from the study data.

Confidentiality means that you know who the participants are, but you remove all identifying information from your report.

All participants have a right to privacy, so you should protect their personal data for as long as you store or use it. Even when you can’t collect data anonymously, you should secure confidentiality whenever you can.

Some research designs aren’t conducive to confidentiality, but it’s important to make all attempts and inform participants of the risks involved.

As a researcher, you have to consider all possible sources of harm to participants. Harm can come in many different forms.

• Psychological harm: Sensitive questions or tasks may trigger negative emotions such as shame or anxiety.
• Social harm: Participation can involve social risks, public embarrassment, or stigma.
• Physical harm: Pain or injury can result from the study procedures.
• Legal harm: Reporting sensitive data could lead to legal risks or a breach of privacy.

It’s best to consider every possible source of harm in your study as well as concrete ways to mitigate them. Involve your supervisor to discuss steps for harm reduction.

Make sure to disclose all possible risks of harm to participants before the study to get informed consent. If there is a risk of harm, prepare to provide participants with resources or counseling or medical services if needed.

Some of these questions may bring up negative emotions, so you inform participants about the sensitive nature of the survey and assure them that their responses will be confidential.

The way you communicate your research results can sometimes involve ethical issues. Good science communication is honest, reliable, and credible. It’s best to make your results as transparent as possible.

Take steps to actively avoid plagiarism and research misconduct wherever possible.

Plagiarism means submitting others’ works as your own. Although it can be unintentional, copying someone else’s work without proper credit amounts to stealing. It’s an ethical problem in research communication because you may benefit by harming other researchers.

Self-plagiarism is when you republish or re-submit parts of your own papers or reports without properly citing your original work.

This is problematic because you may benefit from presenting your ideas as new and original even though they’ve already been published elsewhere in the past. You may also be infringing on your previous publisher’s copyright, violating an ethical code, or wasting time and resources by doing so.

In extreme cases of self-plagiarism, entire datasets or papers are sometimes duplicated. These are major ethical violations because they can skew research findings if taken as original data.

You notice that two published studies have similar characteristics even though they are from different years. Their sample sizes, locations, treatments, and results are highly similar, and the studies share one author in common.

Research misconduct

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement about data analyses.

Research misconduct is a serious ethical issue because it can undermine academic integrity and institutional credibility. It leads to a waste of funding and resources that could have been used for alternative research.

Later investigations revealed that they fabricated and manipulated their data to show a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. Wakefield also neglected to disclose important conflicts of interest, and his medical license was taken away.

This fraudulent work sparked vaccine hesitancy among parents and caregivers. The rate of MMR vaccinations in children fell sharply, and measles outbreaks became more common due to a lack of herd immunity.

Research scandals with ethical failures are littered throughout history, but some took place not that long ago.

Some scientists in positions of power have historically mistreated or even abused research participants to investigate research problems at any cost. These participants were prisoners, under their care, or otherwise trusted them to treat them with dignity.

To demonstrate the importance of research ethics, we’ll briefly review two research studies that violated human rights in modern history.

These experiments were inhumane and resulted in trauma, permanent disabilities, or death in many cases.

After some Nazi doctors were put on trial for their crimes, the Nuremberg Code of research ethics for human experimentation was developed in 1947 to establish a new standard for human experimentation in medical research.

In reality, the actual goal was to study the effects of the disease when left untreated, and the researchers never informed participants about their diagnoses or the research aims.

Although participants experienced severe health problems, including blindness and other complications, the researchers only pretended to provide medical care.

When treatment became possible in 1943, 11 years after the study began, none of the participants were offered it, despite their health conditions and high risk of death.

Ethical failures like these resulted in severe harm to participants, wasted resources, and lower trust in science and scientists. This is why all research institutions have strict ethical guidelines for performing research.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information—for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Ethical Considerations in Research | Types & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/research-ethics/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, data collection | definition, methods & examples, what is self-plagiarism | definition & how to avoid it, how to avoid plagiarism | tips on citing sources, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Ethical Issues in Research: Perceptions of Researchers, Research Ethics Board Members and Research Ethics Experts

Marie-josée drolet.

1 Department of Occupational Therapy (OT), Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada

Eugénie Rose-Derouin

2 Bachelor OT program, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), Trois-Rivières (Québec), Canada

Julie-Claude Leblanc

Mélanie ruest, bryn williams-jones.

3 Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal (Québec), Canada

In the context of academic research, a diversity of ethical issues, conditioned by the different roles of members within these institutions, arise. Previous studies on this topic addressed mainly the perceptions of researchers. However, to our knowledge, no studies have explored the transversal ethical issues from a wider spectrum, including other members of academic institutions as the research ethics board (REB) members, and the research ethics experts. The present study used a descriptive phenomenological approach to document the ethical issues experienced by a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts. Data collection involved socio-demographic questionnaires and individual semi-structured interviews. Following the triangulation of different perspectives (researchers, REB members and ethics experts), emerging ethical issues were synthesized in ten units of meaning: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. This study highlighted several problematic elements that can support the identification of future solutions to resolve transversal ethical issues in research that affect the heterogeneous members of the academic community.

Introduction

Research includes a set of activities in which researchers use various structured methods to contribute to the development of knowledge, whether this knowledge is theoretical, fundamental, or applied (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). University research is carried out in a highly competitive environment that is characterized by ever-increasing demands (i.e., on time, productivity), insufficient access to research funds, and within a market economy that values productivity and speed often to the detriment of quality or rigour – this research context creates a perfect recipe for breaches in research ethics, like research misbehaviour or misconduct (i.e., conduct that is ethically questionable or unacceptable because it contravenes the accepted norms of responsible conduct of research or compromises the respect of core ethical values that are widely held by the research community) (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ; Sieber, 2004 ). Problematic ethics and integrity issues – e.g., conflicts of interest, falsification of data, non-respect of participants’ rights, and plagiarism, to name but a few – have the potential to both undermine the credibility of research and lead to negative consequences for many stakeholders, including researchers, research assistants and personnel, research participants, academic institutions, and society as a whole (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ). It is thus evident that the academic community should be able to identify these different ethical issues in order to evaluate the nature of the risks that they pose (and for whom), and then work towards their prevention or management (i.e., education, enhanced policies and procedures, risk mitigation strategies).

In this article, we define an “ethical issue” as any situation that may compromise, in whole or in part, the respect of at least one moral value (Swisher et al., 2005 ) that is considered socially legitimate and should thus be respected. In general, ethical issues occur at three key moments or stages of the research process: (1) research design (i.e., conception, project planning), (2) research conduct (i.e., data collection, data analysis) and (3) knowledge translation or communication (e.g., publications of results, conferences, press releases) (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). According to Sieber ( 2004 ), ethical issues in research can be classified into five categories, related to: (a) communication with participants and the community, (b) acquisition and use of research data, (c) external influence on research, (d) risks and benefits of the research, and (e) selection and use of research theories and methods. Many of these issues are related to breaches of research ethics norms, misbehaviour or research misconduct. Bruhn et al., ( 2002 ) developed a typology of misbehaviour and misconduct in academia that can be used to judge the seriousness of different cases. This typology takes into consideration two axes of reflection: (a) the origin of the situation (i.e., is it the researcher’s own fault or due to the organizational context?), and (b) the scope and severity (i.e., is this the first instance or a recurrent behaviour? What is the nature of the situation? What are the consequences, for whom, for how many people, and for which organizations?).

A previous detailed review of the international literature on ethical issues in research revealed several interesting findings (Beauchemin et al., 2021 ). Indeed, the current literature is dominated by descriptive ethics, i.e., the sharing by researchers from various disciplines of the ethical issues they have personally experienced. While such anecdotal documentation is relevant, it is insufficient because it does not provide a global view of the situation. Among the reviewed literature, empirical studies were in the minority (Table  1 ) – only about one fifth of the sample (n = 19) presented empirical research findings on ethical issues in research. The first of these studies was conducted almost 50 years ago (Hunt et al., 1984 ), with the remainder conducted in the 1990s. Eight studies were conducted in the United States (n = 8), five in Canada (n = 5), three in England (n = 3), two in Sweden (n = 2) and one in Ghana (n = 1).

Summary of Empirical Studies on Ethical Issues in Research by the year of publication

Further, the majority of studies in our sample (n = 12) collected the perceptions of a homogeneous group of participants, usually researchers (n = 14) and sometimes health professionals (n = 6). A minority of studies (n = 7) triangulated the perceptions of diverse research stakeholders (i.e., researchers and research participants, or students). To our knowledge, only one study has examined perceptions of ethical issues in research by research ethics board members (REB; Institutional Review Boards [IRB] in the USA), and none to date have documented the perceptions of research ethics experts. Finally, nine studies (n = 9) adopted a qualitative design, seven studies (n = 7) a quantitative design, and three (n = 3) a mixed-methods design.

More studies using empirical research methods are needed to better identify broader trends, to enrich discussions on the values that should govern responsible conduct of research in the academic community, and to evaluate the means by which these values can be supported in practice (Bahn, 2012 ; Beauchemin et al., 2021 ; Bruhn et al., 2002 ; Henderson et al., 2013 ; Resnik & Elliot, 2016; Sieber 2004 ). To this end, we conducted an empirical qualitative study to document the perceptions and experiences of a heterogeneous group of Canadian researchers, REB members, and research ethics experts, to answer the following broad question: What are the ethical issues in research?

Research Methods

Research design.

A qualitative research approach involving individual semi-structured interviews was used to systematically document ethical issues (De Poy & Gitlin, 2010 ; Hammell et al., 2000 ). Specifically, a descriptive phenomenological approach inspired by the philosophy of Husserl was used (Husserl, 1970 , 1999 ), as it is recommended for documenting the perceptions of ethical issues raised by various practices (Hunt & Carnavale, 2011 ).

Ethical considerations

The principal investigator obtained ethics approval for this project from the Research Ethics Board of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR). All members of the research team signed a confidentiality agreement, and research participants signed the consent form after reading an information letter explaining the nature of the research project.

Sampling and recruitment

As indicated above, three types of participants were sought: (1) researchers from different academic disciplines conducting research (i.e., theoretical, fundamental or empirical) in Canadian universities; (2) REB members working in Canadian organizations responsible for the ethical review, oversight or regulation of research; and (3) research ethics experts, i.e., academics or ethicists who teach research ethics, conduct research in research ethics, or are scholars who have acquired a specialization in research ethics. To be included in the study, participants had to work in Canada, speak and understand English or French, and be willing to participate in the study. Following Thomas and Polio’s (2002) recommendation to recruit between six and twelve participants (for a homogeneous sample) to ensure data saturation, for our heterogeneous sample, we aimed to recruit approximately twelve participants in order to obtain data saturation. Having used this method several times in related projects in professional ethics, data saturation is usually achieved with 10 to 15 participants (Drolet & Goulet, 2018 ; Drolet & Girard, 2020 ; Drolet et al., 2020 ). From experience, larger samples only serve to increase the degree of data saturation, especially in heterogeneous samples (Drolet et al., 2017 , 2019 ; Drolet & Maclure, 2016 ).

Purposive sampling facilitated the identification of participants relevant to documenting the phenomenon in question (Fortin, 2010 ). To ensure a rich and most complete representation of perceptions, we sought participants with varied and complementary characteristics with regards to the social roles they occupy in research practice (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ). A triangulation of sources was used for the recruitment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006 ). The websites of Canadian universities and Canadian health institution REBs, as well as those of major Canadian granting agencies (i.e., the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Fonds de recherche du Quebec), were searched to identify individuals who might be interested in participating in the study. Further, people known by the research team for their knowledge and sensitivity to ethical issues in research were asked to participate. Research participants were also asked to suggest other individuals who met the study criteria.

Data Collection

Two tools were used for data collecton: (a) a socio-demographic questionnaire, and (b) a semi-structured individual interview guide. English and French versions of these two documents were used and made available, depending on participant preferences. In addition, although the interview guide contained the same questions, they were adapted to participants’ specific roles (i.e., researcher, REB member, research ethics expert). When contacted by email by the research assistant, participants were asked to confirm under which role they wished to participate (because some participants might have multiple, overlapping responsibilities) and they were sent the appropriate interview guide.

The interview guides each had two parts: an introduction and a section on ethical issues. The introduction consisted of general questions to put the participant at ease (i.e., “Tell me what a typical day at work is like for you”). The section on ethical issues was designed to capture the participant’s perceptions through questions such as: “Tell me three stories you have experienced at work that involve an ethical issue?” and “Do you feel that your organization is doing enough to address, manage, and resolve ethical issues in your work?”. Although some interviews were conducted in person, the majority were conducted by videoconference to promote accessibility and because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were digitally recorded so that the verbatim could be transcribed in full, and varied between 40 and 120 min in duration, with an average of 90 min. Research assistants conducted the interviews and transcribed the verbatim.

Data Analysis

The socio-demographic questionnaires were subjected to simple descriptive statistical analyses (i.e., means and totals), and the semi-structured interviews were subjected to qualitative analysis. The steps proposed by Giorgi ( 1997 ) for a Husserlian phenomenological reduction of the data were used. After collecting, recording, and transcribing the interviews, all verbatim were analyzed by at least two analysts: a research assistant (2nd author of this article) and the principal investigator (1st author) or a postdoctoral fellow (3rd author). The repeated reading of the verbatim allowed the first analyst to write a synopsis, i.e., an initial extraction of units of meaning. The second analyst then read the synopses, which were commented and improved if necessary. Agreement between analysts allowed the final drafting of the interview synopses, which were then analyzed by three analysts to generate and organize the units of meaning that emerged from the qualitative data.

Participants

Sixteen individuals (n = 16) participated in the study, of whom nine (9) identified as female and seven (7) as male (Table  2 ). Participants ranged in age from 22 to 72 years, with a mean age of 47.5 years. Participants had between one (1) and 26 years of experience in the research setting, with an average of 14.3 years of experience. Participants held a variety of roles, including: REB members (n = 11), researchers (n = 10), research ethics experts (n = 4), and research assistant (n = 1). As mentioned previously, seven (7) participants held more than one role, i.e., REB member, research ethics expert, and researcher. The majority (87.5%) of participants were working in Quebec, with the remaining working in other Canadian provinces. Although all participants considered themselves to be francophone, one quarter (n = 4) identified themselves as belonging to a cultural minority group.

Description of Participants

With respect to their academic background, most participants (n = 9) had a PhD, three (3) had a post-doctorate, two (2) had a master’s degree, and two (2) had a bachelor’s degree. Participants came from a variety of disciplines: nine (9) had a specialty in the humanities or social sciences, four (4) in the health sciences and three (3) in the natural sciences. In terms of their knowledge of ethics, five (5) participants reported having taken one university course entirely dedicated to ethics, four (4) reported having taken several university courses entirely dedicated to ethics, three (3) had a university degree dedicated to ethics, while two (2) only had a few hours or days of training in ethics and two (2) reported having no knowledge of ethics.

Ethical issues

As Fig.  1 illustrates, ten units of meaning emerge from the data analysis, namely: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. To illustrate the results, excerpts from verbatim interviews are presented in the following sub-sections. Most of the excerpts have been translated into English as the majority of interviews were conducted with French-speaking participants.

Ethical issues in research according to the participants

Research Integrity

The research environment is highly competitive and performance-based. Several participants, in particular researchers and research ethics experts, felt that this environment can lead both researchers and research teams to engage in unethical behaviour that reflects a lack of research integrity. For example, as some participants indicated, competition for grants and scientific publications is sometimes so intense that researchers falsify research results or plagiarize from colleagues to achieve their goals.

Some people will lie or exaggerate their research findings in order to get funding. Then, you see it afterwards, you realize: “ah well, it didn’t work, but they exaggerated what they found and what they did” (participant 14). Another problem in research is the identification of authors when there is a publication. Very often, there are authors who don’t even know what the publication is about and that their name is on it. (…) The time that it surprised me the most was just a few months ago when I saw someone I knew who applied for a teaching position. He got it I was super happy for him. Then I looked at his publications and … there was one that caught my attention much more than the others, because I was in it and I didn’t know what that publication was. I was the second author of a publication that I had never read (participant 14). I saw a colleague who had plagiarized another colleague. [When the colleague] found out about it, he complained. So, plagiarism is a serious [ethical breach]. I would also say that there is a certain amount of competition in the university faculties, especially for grants (…). There are people who want to win at all costs or get as much as possible. They are not necessarily going to consider their colleagues. They don’t have much of a collegial spirit (participant 10).

These examples of research misbehaviour or misconduct are sometimes due to or associated with situations of conflicts of interest, which may be poorly managed by certain researchers or research teams, as noted by many participants.

Conflict of interest

The actors and institutions involved in research have diverse interests, like all humans and institutions. As noted in Chap. 7 of the Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2, 2018),

“researchers and research students hold trust relationships, either directly or indirectly, with participants, research sponsors, institutions, their professional bodies and society. These trust relationships can be put at risk by conflicts of interest that may compromise independence, objectivity or ethical duties of loyalty. Although the potential for such conflicts has always existed, pressures on researchers (i.e., to delay or withhold dissemination of research outcomes or to use inappropriate recruitment strategies) heighten concerns that conflicts of interest may affect ethical behaviour” (p. 92).

The sources of these conflicts are varied and can include interpersonal conflicts, financial partnerships, third-party pressures, academic or economic interests, a researcher holding multiple roles within an institution, or any other incentive that may compromise a researcher’s independence, integrity, and neutrality (TCPS2, 2018). While it is not possible to eliminate all conflicts of interest, it is important to manage them properly and to avoid temptations to behave unethically.

Ethical temptations correspond to situations in which people are tempted to prioritize their own interests to the detriment of the ethical goods that should, in their own context, govern their actions (Swisher et al., 2005 ). In the case of researchers, this refers to situations that undermine independence, integrity, neutrality, or even the set of principles that govern research ethics (TCPS2, 2018) or the responsible conduct of research. According to study participants, these types of ethical issues frequently occur in research. Many participants, especially researchers and REB members, reported that conflicts of interest can arise when members of an organization make decisions to obtain large financial rewards or to increase their academic profile, often at the expense of the interests of members of their research team, research participants, or even the populations affected by their research.

A company that puts money into making its drug work wants its drug to work. So, homeopathy is a good example, because there are not really any consequences of homeopathy, there are not very many side effects, because there are no effects at all. So, it’s not dangerous, but it’s not a good treatment either. But some people will want to make it work. And that’s a big issue when you’re sitting at a table and there are eight researchers, and there are two or three who are like that, and then there are four others who are neutral, and I say to myself, this is not science. I think that this is a very big ethical issue (participant 14). There are also times in some research where there will be more links with pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, there are then large amounts of money that will be very interesting for the health-care institutions because they still receive money for clinical trials. They’re still getting some compensation because its time consuming for the people involved and all that. The pharmaceutical companies have money, so they will compensate, and that is sometimes interesting for the institutions, and since we are a bit caught up in this, in the sense that we have no choice but to accept it. (…) It may not be the best research in the world, there may be a lot of side effects due to the drugs, but it’s good to accept it, we’re going to be part of the clinical trial (participant 3). It is integrity, what we believe should be done or said. Often by the pressure of the environment, integrity is in tension with the pressures of the environment, so it takes resistance, it takes courage in research. (…) There were all the debates there about the problems of research that was funded and then the companies kept control over what was written. That was really troubling for a lot of researchers (participant 5).

Further, these situations sometimes have negative consequences for research participants as reported by some participants.

Respect for research participants

Many research projects, whether they are psychosocial or biomedical in nature, involve human participants. Relationships between the members of research teams and their research participants raise ethical issues that can be complex. Research projects must always be designed to respect the rights and interests of research participants, and not just those of researchers. However, participants in our study – i.e., REB members, researchers, and research ethics experts – noted that some research teams seem to put their own interests ahead of those of research participants. They also emphasized the importance of ensuring the respect, well-being, and safety of research participants. The ethical issues related to this unit of meaning are: respect for free, informed and ongoing consent of research participants; respect for and the well-being of participants; data protection and confidentiality; over-solicitation of participants; ownership of the data collected on participants; the sometimes high cost of scientific innovations and their accessibility; balance between the social benefits of research and the risks to participants (particularly in terms of safety); balance between collective well-being (development of knowledge) and the individual rights of participants; exploitation of participants; paternalism when working with populations in vulnerable situations; and the social acceptability of certain types of research. The following excerpts present some of these issues.

Where it disturbs me ethically is in the medical field – because it’s more in the medical field that we’re going to see this – when consent forms are presented to patients to solicit them as participants, and then [these forms] have an average of 40 pages. That annoys me. When they say that it has to be easy to understand and all that, adapted to the language, and then the hyper-technical language plus there are 40 pages to read, I don’t understand how you’re going to get informed consent after reading 40 pages. (…) For me, it doesn’t work. I read them to evaluate them and I have a certain level of education and experience in ethics, and there are times when I don’t understand anything (participant 2). There is a lot of pressure from researchers who want to recruit research participants (…). The idea that when you enter a health care institution, you become a potential research participant, when you say “yes to a research, you check yes to all research”, then everyone can ask you. I think that researchers really have this fantasy of saying to themselves: “as soon as people walk through the door of our institution, they become potential participants with whom we can communicate and get them involved in all projects”. There’s a kind of idea that, yes, it can be done, but it has to be somewhat supervised to avoid over-solicitation (…). Researchers are very interested in facilitating recruitment and making it more fluid, but perhaps to the detriment of confidentiality, privacy, and respect; sometimes that’s what it is, to think about what type of data you’re going to have in your bank of potential participants? Is it just name and phone number or are you getting into more sensitive information? (participant 9).

In addition, one participant reported that their university does not provide the resources required to respect the confidentiality of research participants.

The issue is as follows: researchers, of course, commit to protecting data with passwords and all that, but we realize that in practice, it is more difficult. It is not always as protected as one might think, because professor-researchers will run out of space. Will the universities make rooms available to researchers, places where they can store these things, especially when they have paper documentation, and is there indeed a guarantee of confidentiality? Some researchers have told me: “Listen; there are even filing cabinets in the corridors”. So, that certainly poses a concrete challenge. How do we go about challenging the administrative authorities? Tell them it’s all very well to have an ethics committee, but you have to help us, you also have to make sure that the necessary infrastructures are in place so that what we are proposing is really put into practice (participant 4).

If the relationships with research participants are likely to raise ethical issues, so too are the relationships with students, notably research assistants. On this topic, several participants discussed the lack of supervision or recognition offered to research assistants by researchers as well as the power imbalances between members of the research team.

Lack of Supervision and Power Imbalances

Many research teams are composed not only of researchers, but also of students who work as research assistants. The relationship between research assistants and other members of research teams can sometimes be problematic and raise ethical issues, particularly because of the inevitable power asymmetries. In the context of this study, several participants – including a research assistant, REB members, and researchers – discussed the lack of supervision or recognition of the work carried out by students, psychological pressure, and the more or less well-founded promises that are sometimes made to students. Participants also mentioned the exploitation of students by certain research teams, which manifest when students are inadequately paid, i.e., not reflective of the number of hours actually worked, not a fair wage, or even a wage at all.

[As a research assistant], it was more of a feeling of distress that I felt then because I didn’t know what to do. (…) I was supposed to get coaching or be supported, but I didn’t get anything in the end. It was like, “fix it by yourself”. (…) All research assistants were supposed to be supervised, but in practice they were not (participant 1). Very often, we have a master’s or doctoral student that we put on a subject and we consider that the project will be well done, while the student is learning. So, it happens that the student will do a lot of work and then we realize that the work is poorly done, and it is not necessarily the student’s fault. He wasn’t necessarily well supervised. There are directors who have 25 students, and they just don’t supervise them (participant 14). I think it’s really the power relationship. I thought to myself, how I saw my doctorate, the beginning of my research career, I really wanted to be in that laboratory, but they are the ones who are going to accept me or not, so what do I do to be accepted? I finally accept their conditions [which was to work for free]. If these are the conditions that are required to enter this lab, I want to go there. So, what do I do, well I accepted. It doesn’t make sense, but I tell myself that I’m still privileged, because I don’t have so many financial worries, one more reason to work for free, even though it doesn’t make sense (participant 1). In research, we have research assistants. (…). The fact of using people… so that’s it, you have to take into account where they are, respect them, but at the same time they have to show that they are there for the research. In English, we say “carry” or take care of people. With research assistants, this is often a problem that I have observed: for grant machines, the person is the last to be found there. Researchers, who will take, use student data, without giving them the recognition for it (participant 5). The problem at our university is that they reserve funding for Canadian students. The doctoral clientele in my field is mostly foreign students. So, our students are poorly funded. I saw one student end up in the shelter, in a situation of poverty. It ended very badly for him because he lacked financial resources. Once you get into that dynamic, it’s very hard to get out. I was made aware of it because the director at the time had taken him under her wing and wanted to try to find a way to get him out of it. So, most of my students didn’t get funded (participant 16). There I wrote “manipulation”, but it’s kind of all promises all the time. I, for example, was promised a lot of advancement, like when I got into the lab as a graduate student, it was said that I had an interest in [this particular area of research]. I think there are a lot of graduate students who must have gone through that, but it is like, “Well, your CV has to be really good, if you want to do a lot of things and big things. If you do this, if you do this research contract, the next year you could be the coordinator of this part of the lab and supervise this person, get more contracts, be paid more. Let’s say: you’ll be invited to go to this conference, this big event”. They were always dangling something, but you have to do that first to get there. But now, when you’ve done that, you have to do this business. It’s like a bit of manipulation, I think. That was very hard to know who is telling the truth and who is not (participant 1).

These ethical issues have significant negative consequences for students. Indeed, they sometimes find themselves at the mercy of researchers, for whom they work, struggling to be recognized and included as authors of an article, for example, or to receive the salary that they are due. For their part, researchers also sometimes find themselves trapped in research structures that can negatively affect their well-being. As many participants reported, researchers work in organizations that set very high productivity standards and in highly competitive contexts, all within a general culture characterized by individualism.

Individualism and performance

Participants, especially researchers, discussed the culture of individualism and performance that characterizes the academic environment. In glorifying excellence, some universities value performance and productivity, often at the expense of psychological well-being and work-life balance (i.e., work overload and burnout). Participants noted that there are ethical silences in their organizations on this issue, and that the culture of individualism and performance is not challenged for fear of retribution or simply to survive, i.e., to perform as expected. Participants felt that this culture can have a significant negative impact on the quality of the research conducted, as research teams try to maximize the quantity of their work (instead of quality) in a highly competitive context, which is then exacerbated by a lack of resources and support, and where everything must be done too quickly.

The work-life balance with the professional ethics related to work in a context where you have too much and you have to do a lot, it is difficult to balance all that and there is a lot of pressure to perform. If you don’t produce enough, that’s it; after that, you can’t get any more funds, so that puts pressure on you to do more and more and more (participant 3). There is a culture, I don’t know where it comes from, and that is extremely bureaucratic. If you dare to raise something, you’re going to have many, many problems. They’re going to make you understand it. So, I don’t talk. It is better: your life will be easier. I think there are times when you have to talk (…) because there are going to be irreparable consequences. (…) I’m not talking about a climate of terror, because that’s exaggerated, it’s not true, people are not afraid. But people close their office door and say nothing because it’s going to make their work impossible and they’re not going to lose their job, they’re not going to lose money, but researchers need time to be focused, so they close their office door and say nothing (participant 16).

Researchers must produce more and more, and they feel little support in terms of how to do such production, ethically, and how much exactly they are expected to produce. As this participant reports, the expectation is an unspoken rule: more is always better.

It’s sometimes the lack of a clear line on what the expectations are as a researcher, like, “ah, we don’t have any specific expectations, but produce, produce, produce, produce.” So, in that context, it’s hard to be able to put the line precisely: “have I done enough for my work?” (participant 3).

Inadequate ethical Guidance

While the productivity expectation is not clear, some participants – including researchers, research ethics experts, and REB members – also felt that the ethical expectations of some REBs were unclear. The issue of the inadequate ethical guidance of research includes the administrative mechanisms to ensure that research projects respect the principles of research ethics. According to those participants, the forms required for both researchers and REB members are increasingly long and numerous, and one participant noted that the standards to be met are sometimes outdated and disconnected from the reality of the field. Multicentre ethics review (by several REBs) was also critiqued by a participant as an inefficient method that encumbers the processes for reviewing research projects. Bureaucratization imposes an ever-increasing number of forms and ethics guidelines that actually hinder researchers’ ethical reflection on the issues at stake, leading the ethics review process to be perceived as purely bureaucratic in nature.

The ethical dimension and the ethical review of projects have become increasingly bureaucratized. (…) When I first started working (…) it was less bureaucratic, less strict then. I would say [there are now] tons of forms to fill out. Of course, we can’t do without it, it’s one of the ways of marking out ethics and ensuring that there are ethical considerations in research, but I wonder if it hasn’t become too bureaucratized, so that it’s become a kind of technical reflex to fill out these forms, and I don’t know if people really do ethical reflection as such anymore (participant 10). The fundamental structural issue, I would say, is the mismatch between the normative requirements and the real risks posed by the research, i.e., we have many, many requirements to meet; we have very long forms to fill out but the research projects we evaluate often pose few risks (participant 8). People [in vulnerable situations] were previously unable to participate because of overly strict research ethics rules that were to protect them, but in the end [these rules] did not protect them. There was a perverse effect, because in the end there was very little research done with these people and that’s why we have very few results, very little evidence [to support practices with these populations] so it didn’t improve the quality of services. (…) We all understand that we have to be careful with that, but when the research is not too risky, we say to ourselves that it would be good because for once a researcher who is interested in that population, because it is not a very popular population, it would be interesting to have results, but often we are blocked by the norms, and then we can’t accept [the project] (participant 2).

Moreover, as one participant noted, accessing ethics training can be a challenge.

There is no course on research ethics. […] Then, I find that it’s boring because you go through university and you come to do your research and you know how to do quantitative and qualitative research, but all the research ethics, where do you get this? I don’t really know (participant 13).

Yet, such training could provide relevant tools to resolve, to some extent, the ethical issues that commonly arise in research. That said, and as noted by many participants, many ethical issues in research are related to social injustices over which research actors have little influence.

Social Injustices

For many participants, notably researchers, the issues that concern social injustices are those related to power asymmetries, stigma, or issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion, i.e., social injustices related to people’s identities (Blais & Drolet, 2022 ). Participants reported experiencing or witnessing discrimination from peers, administration, or lab managers. Such oppression is sometimes cross-sectional and related to a person’s age, cultural background, gender or social status.

I have my African colleague who was quite successful when he arrived but had a backlash from colleagues in the department. I think it’s unconscious, nobody is overtly racist. But I have a young person right now who is the same, who has the same success, who got exactly the same early career award and I don’t see the same backlash. He’s just as happy with what he’s doing. It’s normal, they’re young and they have a lot of success starting out. So, I think there is discrimination. Is it because he is African? Is it because he is black? I think it’s on a subconscious level (participant 16).

Social injustices were experienced or reported by many participants, and included issues related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when one researcher is a woman.

If you do international research, there are things you can’t talk about (…). It is really a barrier to research to not be able to (…) address this question [i.e. the question of inequalities between men and women]. Women’s inequality is going to be addressed [but not within the country where the research takes place as if this inequality exists elsewhere but not here]. There are a lot of women working on inequality issues, doing work and it’s funny because I was talking to a young woman who works at Cairo University and she said to me: “Listen, I saw what you had written, you’re right. I’m willing to work on this but guarantee me a position at your university with a ticket to go”. So yes, there are still many barriers [for women in research] (participant 16).

Because of the varied contextual characteristics that intervene in their occurrence, these social injustices are also related to distributive injustices, as discussed by many participants.

Distributive Injustices

Although there are several views of distributive justice, a classical definition such as that of Aristotle ( 2012 ), describes distributive justice as consisting in distributing honours, wealth, and other social resources or benefits among the members of a community in proportion to their alleged merit. Justice, then, is about determining an equitable distribution of common goods. Contemporary theories of distributive justice are numerous and varied. Indeed, many authors (e.g., Fraser 2011 ; Mills, 2017 ; Sen, 2011 ; Young, 2011 ) have, since Rawls ( 1971 ), proposed different visions of how social burdens and benefits should be shared within a community to ensure equal respect, fairness, and distribution. In our study, what emerges from participants’ narratives is a definite concern for this type of justice. Women researchers, francophone researchers, early career researchers or researchers belonging to racialized groups all discussed inequities in the distribution of research grants and awards, and the extra work they need to do to somehow prove their worth. These inequities are related to how granting agencies determine which projects will be funded.

These situations make me work 2–3 times harder to prove myself and to show people in power that I have a place as a woman in research (participant 12). Number one: it’s conservative thinking. The older ones control what comes in. So, the younger people have to adapt or they don’t get funded (participant 14).

Whether it is discrimination against stigmatized or marginalized populations or interest in certain hot topics, granting agencies judge research projects according to criteria that are sometimes questionable, according to those participants. Faced with difficulties in obtaining funding for their projects, several strategies – some of which are unethical – are used by researchers in order to cope with these situations.

Sometimes there are subjects that everyone goes to, such as nanotechnology (…), artificial intelligence or (…) the therapeutic use of cannabis, which are very fashionable, and this is sometimes to the detriment of other research that is just as relevant, but which is (…), less sexy, less in the spirit of the time. (…) Sometimes this can lead to inequities in the funding of certain research sectors (participant 9). When we use our funds, we get them given to us, we pretty much say what we think we’re going to do with them, but things change… So, when these things change, sometimes it’s an ethical decision, but by force of circumstances I’m obliged to change the project a little bit (…). Is it ethical to make these changes or should I just let the money go because I couldn’t use it the way I said I would? (participant 3).

Moreover, these distributional injustices are not only linked to social injustices, but also epistemic injustices. Indeed, the way in which research honours and grants are distributed within the academic community depends on the epistemic authority of the researchers, which seems to vary notably according to their language of use, their age or their gender, but also to the research design used (inductive versus deductive), their decision to use (or not use) animals in research, or to conduct activist research.

Epistemic injustices

The philosopher Fricker ( 2007 ) conceptualized the notions of epistemic justice and injustice. Epistemic injustice refers to a form of social inequality that manifests itself in the access, recognition, and production of knowledge as well as the various forms of ignorance that arise (Godrie & Dos Santos, 2017 ). Addressing epistemic injustice necessitates acknowledging the iniquitous wrongs suffered by certain groups of socially stigmatized individuals who have been excluded from knowledge, thus limiting their abilities to interpret, understand, or be heard and account for their experiences. In this study, epistemic injustices were experienced or reported by some participants, notably those related to difficulties in obtaining grants or disseminating research results in one’s native language (i.e., even when there is official bilingualism) or being considered credible and fundable in research when a researcher is a woman or an early career researcher.

I have never sent a grant application to the federal government in English. I have always done it in French, even though I know that when you receive the review, you can see that reviewers didn’t understand anything because they are English-speaking. I didn’t want to get in the boat. It’s not my job to translate, because let’s be honest, I’m not as good in English as I am in French. So, I do them in my first language, which is the language I’m most used to. Then, technically at the administrative level, they are supposed to be able to do it, but they are not good in French. (…) Then, it’s a very big Canadian ethical issue, because basically there are technically two official languages, but Canada is not a bilingual country, it’s a country with two languages, either one or the other. (…) So I was not funded (participant 14).

Researchers who use inductive (or qualitative) methods observed that their projects are sometimes less well reviewed or understood, while research that adopts a hypothetical-deductive (or quantitative) or mixed methods design is better perceived, considered more credible and therefore more easily funded. Of course, regardless of whether a research project adopts an inductive, deductive or mixed-methods scientific design, or whether it deals with qualitative or quantitative data, it must respect a set of scientific criteria. A research project should achieve its objectives by using proven methods that, in the case of inductive research, are credible, reliable, and transferable or, in the case of deductive research, generalizable, objective, representative, and valid (Drolet & Ruest, accepted ). Participants discussing these issues noted that researchers who adopt a qualitative design or those who question the relevance of animal experimentation or are not militant have sometimes been unfairly devalued in their epistemic authority.

There is a mini war between quantitative versus qualitative methods, which I think is silly because science is a method. If you apply the method well, it doesn’t matter what the field is, it’s done well and it’s perfect ” (participant 14). There is also the issue of the place of animals in our lives, because for me, ethics is human ethics, but also animal ethics. Then, there is a great evolution in society on the role of the animal… with the new law that came out in Quebec on the fact that animals are sensitive beings. Then, with the rise of the vegan movement, [we must ask ourselves]: “Do animals still have a place in research?” That’s a big question and it also means that there are practices that need to evolve, but sometimes there’s a disconnection between what’s expected by research ethics boards versus what’s expected in the field (participant 15). In research today, we have more and more research that is militant from an ideological point of view. And so, we have researchers, because they defend values that seem important to them, we’ll talk for example about the fight for equality and social justice. They have pressure to defend a form of moral truth and have the impression that everyone thinks like them or should do so, because they are defending a moral truth. This is something that we see more and more, namely the lack of distance between ideology and science (participant 8).

The combination or intersectionality of these inequities, which seems to be characterized by a lack of ethical support and guidance, is experienced in the highly competitive and individualistic context of research; it provides therefore the perfect recipe for researchers to experience ethical distress.

Ethical distress

The concept of “ethical distress” refers to situations in which people know what they should do to act ethically, but encounter barriers, generally of an organizational or systemic nature, limiting their power to act according to their moral or ethical values (Drolet & Ruest, 2021 ; Jameton, 1984 ; Swisher et al., 2005 ). People then run the risk of finding themselves in a situation where they do not act as their ethical conscience dictates, which in the long term has the potential for exhaustion and distress. The examples reported by participants in this study point to the fact that researchers in particular may be experiencing significant ethical distress. This distress takes place in a context of extreme competition, constant injunctions to perform, and where administrative demands are increasingly numerous and complex to complete, while paradoxically, they lack the time to accomplish all their tasks and responsibilities. Added to these demands are a lack of resources (human, ethical, and financial), a lack of support and recognition, and interpersonal conflicts.

We are in an environment, an elite one, you are part of it, you know what it is: “publish or perish” is the motto. Grants, there is a high level of performance required, to do a lot, to publish, to supervise students, to supervise them well, so yes, it is clear that we are in an environment that is conducive to distress. (…). Overwork, definitely, can lead to distress and eventually to exhaustion. When you know that you should take the time to read the projects before sharing them, but you don’t have the time to do that because you have eight that came in the same day, and then you have others waiting… Then someone rings a bell and says: “ah but there, the protocol is a bit incomplete”. Oh yes, look at that, you’re right. You make up for it, but at the same time it’s a bit because we’re in a hurry, we don’t necessarily have the resources or are able to take the time to do things well from the start, we have to make up for it later. So yes, it can cause distress (participant 9). My organization wanted me to apply in English, and I said no, and everyone in the administration wanted me to apply in English, and I always said no. Some people said: “Listen, I give you the choice”, then some people said: “Listen, I agree with you, but if you’re not [submitting] in English, you won’t be funded”. Then the fact that I am young too, because very often they will look at the CV, they will not look at the project: “ah, his CV is not impressive, we will not finance him”. This is complete nonsense. The person is capable of doing the project, the project is fabulous: we fund the project. So, that happened, organizational barriers: that happened a lot. I was not eligible for Quebec research funds (…). I had big organizational barriers unfortunately (participant 14). At the time of my promotion, some colleagues were not happy with the type of research I was conducting. I learned – you learn this over time when you become friends with people after you enter the university – that someone was against me. He had another candidate in mind, and he was angry about the selection. I was under pressure for the first three years until my contract was renewed. I almost quit at one point, but another colleague told me, “No, stay, nothing will happen”. Nothing happened, but these issues kept me awake at night (participant 16).

This difficult context for many researchers affects not only the conduct of their own research, but also their participation in research. We faced this problem in our study, despite the use of multiple recruitment methods, including more than 200 emails – of which 191 were individual solicitations – sent to potential participants by the two research assistants. REB members and organizations overseeing or supporting research (n = 17) were also approached to see if some of their employees would consider participating. While it was relatively easy to recruit REB members and research ethics experts, our team received a high number of non-responses to emails (n = 175) and some refusals (n = 5), especially by researchers. The reasons given by those who replied were threefold: (a) fear of being easily identified should they take part in the research, (b) being overloaded and lacking time, and (c) the intrusive aspect of certain questions (i.e., “Have you experienced a burnout episode? If so, have you been followed up medically or psychologically?”). In light of these difficulties and concerns, some questions in the socio-demographic questionnaire were removed or modified. Talking about burnout in research remains a taboo for many researchers, which paradoxically can only contribute to the unresolved problem of unhealthy research environments.

Returning to the research question and objective

The question that prompted this research was: What are the ethical issues in research? The purpose of the study was to describe these issues from the perspective of researchers (from different disciplines), research ethics board (REB) members, and research ethics experts. The previous section provided a detailed portrait of the ethical issues experienced by different research stakeholders: these issues are numerous, diverse and were recounted by a range of stakeholders.

The results of the study are generally consistent with the literature. For example, as in our study, the literature discusses the lack of research integrity on the part of some researchers (Al-Hidabi et al., 2018 ; Swazey et al., 1993 ), the numerous conflicts of interest experienced in research (Williams-Jones et al., 2013 ), the issues of recruiting and obtaining the free and informed consent of research participants (Provencher et al., 2014 ; Keogh & Daly, 2009 ), the sometimes difficult relations between researchers and REBs (Drolet & Girard, 2020 ), the epistemological issues experienced in research (Drolet & Ruest, accepted; Sieber 2004 ), as well as the harmful academic context in which researchers evolve, insofar as this is linked to a culture of performance, an overload of work in a context of accountability (Berg & Seeber, 2016 ; FQPPU; 2019 ) that is conducive to ethical distress and even burnout.

If the results of the study are generally in line with those of previous publications on the subject, our findings also bring new elements to the discussion while complementing those already documented. In particular, our results highlight the role of systemic injustices – be they social, distributive or epistemic – within the environments in which research is carried out, at least in Canada. To summarize, the results of our study point to the fact that the relationships between researchers and research participants are likely still to raise worrying ethical issues, despite widely accepted research ethics norms and institutionalized review processes. Further, the context in which research is carried out is not only conducive to breaches of ethical norms and instances of misbehaviour or misconduct, but also likely to be significantly detrimental to the health and well-being of researchers, as well as research assistants. Another element that our research also highlighted is the instrumentalization and even exploitation of students and research assistants, which is another important and worrying social injustice given the inevitable power imbalances between students and researchers.

Moreover, in a context in which ethical issues are often discussed from a micro perspective, our study helps shed light on both the micro- and macro-level ethical dimensions of research (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ; Glaser 1994 ). However, given that ethical issues in research are not only diverse, but also and above all complex, a broader perspective that encompasses the interplay between the micro and macro dimensions can enable a better understanding of these issues and thereby support the identification of the multiple factors that may be at their origin. Triangulating the perspectives of researchers with those of REB members and research ethics experts enabled us to bring these elements to light, and thus to step back from and critique the way that research is currently conducted. To this end, attention to socio-political elements such as the performance culture in academia or how research funds are distributed, and according to what explicit and implicit criteria, can contribute to identifying the sources of the ethical issues described above.

Contemporary culture characterized by the social acceleration

The German sociologist and philosopher Rosa (2010) argues that late modernity – that is, the period between the 1980s and today – is characterized by a phenomenon of social acceleration that causes various forms of alienation in our relationship to time, space, actions, things, others and ourselves. Rosa distinguishes three types of acceleration: technical acceleration , the acceleration of social changes and the acceleration of the rhythm of life . According to Rosa, social acceleration is the main problem of late modernity, in that the invisible social norm of doing more and faster to supposedly save time operates unchallenged at all levels of individual and collective life, as well as organizational and social life. Although we all, researchers and non-researchers alike, perceive this unspoken pressure to be ever more productive, the process of social acceleration as a new invisible social norm is our blind spot, a kind of tyrant over which we have little control. This conceptualization of the contemporary culture can help us to understand the context in which research is conducted (like other professional practices). To this end, Berg & Seeber ( 2016 ) invite faculty researchers to slow down in order to better reflect and, in the process, take care of their health and their relationships with their colleagues and students. Many women professors encourage their fellow researchers, especially young women researchers, to learn to “say No” in order to protect their mental and physical health and to remain in their academic careers (Allaire & Descheneux, 2022 ). These authors also remind us of the relevance of Kahneman’s ( 2012 ) work which demonstrates that it takes time to think analytically, thoroughly, and logically. Conversely, thinking quickly exposes humans to cognitive and implicit biases that then lead to errors in thinking (e.g., in the analysis of one’s own research data or in the evaluation of grant applications or student curriculum vitae). The phenomenon of social acceleration, which pushes the researcher to think faster and faster, is likely to lead to unethical bad science that can potentially harm humankind. In sum, Rosa’s invitation to contemporary critical theorists to seriously consider the problem of social acceleration is particularly insightful to better understand the ethical issues of research. It provides a lens through which to view the toxic context in which research is conducted today, and one that was shared by the participants in our study.

Clark & Sousa ( 2022 ) note, it is important that other criteria than the volume of researchers’ contributions be valued in research, notably quality. Ultimately, it is the value of the knowledge produced and its influence on the concrete lives of humans and other living beings that matters, not the quantity of publications. An interesting articulation of this view in research governance is seen in a change in practice by Australia’s national health research funder: they now restrict researchers to listing on their curriculum vitae only the top ten publications from the past ten years (rather than all of their publications), in order to evaluate the quality of contributions rather than their quantity. To create environments conducive to the development of quality research, it is important to challenge the phenomenon of social acceleration, which insidiously imposes a quantitative normativity that is both alienating and detrimental to the quality and ethical conduct of research. Based on our experience, we observe that the social norm of acceleration actively disfavours the conduct of empirical research on ethics in research. The fact is that researchers are so busy that it is almost impossible for them to find time to participate in such studies. Further, operating in highly competitive environments, while trying to respect the values and ethical principles of research, creates ethical paradoxes for members of the research community. According to Malherbe ( 1999 ), an ethical paradox is a situation where an individual is confronted by contradictory injunctions (i.e., do more, faster, and better). And eventually, ethical paradoxes lead individuals to situations of distress and burnout, or even to ethical failures (i.e., misbehaviour or misconduct) in the face of the impossibility of responding to contradictory injunctions.

Strengths and Limitations of the study

The triangulation of perceptions and experiences of different actors involved in research is a strength of our study. While there are many studies on the experiences of researchers, rarely are members of REBs and experts in research ethics given the space to discuss their views of what are ethical issues. Giving each of these stakeholders a voice and comparing their different points of view helped shed a different and complementary light on the ethical issues that occur in research. That said, it would have been helpful to also give more space to issues experienced by students or research assistants, as the relationships between researchers and research assistants are at times very worrying, as noted by a participant, and much work still needs to be done to eliminate the exploitative situations that seem to prevail in certain research settings. In addition, no Indigenous or gender diverse researchers participated in the study. Given the ethical issues and systemic injustices that many people from these groups face in Canada (Drolet & Goulet, 2018 ; Nicole & Drolet, in press ), research that gives voice to these researchers would be relevant and contribute to knowledge development, and hopefully also to change in research culture.

Further, although most of the ethical issues discussed in this article may be transferable to the realities experienced by researchers in other countries, the epistemic injustice reported by Francophone researchers who persist in doing research in French in Canada – which is an officially bilingual country but in practice is predominantly English – is likely specific to the Canadian reality. In addition, and as mentioned above, recruitment proved exceedingly difficult, particularly amongst researchers. Despite this difficulty, we obtained data saturation for all but two themes – i.e., exploitation of students and ethical issues of research that uses animals. It follows that further empirical research is needed to improve our understanding of these specific issues, as they may diverge to some extent from those documented here and will likely vary across countries and academic research contexts.

Conclusions

This study, which gave voice to researchers, REB members, and ethics experts, reveals that the ethical issues in research are related to several problematic elements as power imbalances and authority relations. Researchers and research assistants are subject to external pressures that give rise to integrity issues, among others ethical issues. Moreover, the current context of social acceleration influences the definition of the performance indicators valued in academic institutions and has led their members to face several ethical issues, including social, distributive, and epistemic injustices, at different steps of the research process. In this study, ten categories of ethical issues were identified, described and illustrated: (1) research integrity, (2) conflicts of interest, (3) respect for research participants, (4) lack of supervision and power imbalances, (5) individualism and performance, (6) inadequate ethical guidance, (7) social injustices, (8) distributive injustices, (9) epistemic injustices, and (10) ethical distress. The triangulation of the perspectives of different members (i.e., researchers from different disciplines, REB members, research ethics experts, and one research assistant) involved in the research process made it possible to lift the veil on some of these ethical issues. Further, it enabled the identification of additional ethical issues, especially systemic injustices experienced in research. To our knowledge, this is the first time that these injustices (social, distributive, and epistemic injustices) have been clearly identified.

Finally, this study brought to the fore several problematic elements that are important to address if the research community is to develop and implement the solutions needed to resolve the diverse and transversal ethical issues that arise in research institutions. A good starting point is the rejection of the corollary norms of “publish or perish” and “do more, faster, and better” and their replacement with “publish quality instead of quantity”, which necessarily entails “do less, slower, and better”. It is also important to pay more attention to the systemic injustices within which researchers work, because these have the potential to significantly harm the academic careers of many researchers, including women researchers, early career researchers, and those belonging to racialized groups as well as the health, well-being, and respect of students and research participants.

Acknowledgements

The team warmly thanks the participants who took part in the research and who made this study possible. Marie-Josée Drolet thanks the five research assistants who participated in the data collection and analysis: Julie-Claude Leblanc, Élie Beauchemin, Pénéloppe Bernier, Louis-Pierre Côté, and Eugénie Rose-Derouin, all students at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières (UQTR), two of whom were active in the writing of this article. MJ Drolet and Bryn Williams-Jones also acknowledge the financial contribution of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), which supported this research through a grant. We would also like to thank the reviewers of this article who helped us improve it, especially by clarifying and refining our ideas.

Competing Interests and Funding

As noted in the Acknowledgements, this research was supported financially by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Al-Hidabi, Abdulmalek, M. D., & The, P. L. (2018). Multiple Publications: The Main Reason for the Retraction of Papers in Computer Science. In K. Arai, S. Kapoor, & R. Bhatia (eds), Future of Information and Communication Conference (FICC): Advances in Information and Communication, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (AISC), Springer, vol. 886, pp. 511–526
• Allaire, S., & Deschenaux, F. (2022). Récits de professeurs d’université à mi-carrière. Si c’était à refaire… . Presses de l’Université du Québec
• Aristotle . Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bahn S. Keeping Academic Field Researchers Safe: Ethical Safeguards. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2012; 10 :83–91. doi: 10.1007/s10805-012-9159-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Balk DE. Bereavement Research Using Control Groups: Ethical Obligations and Questions. Death Studies. 1995; 19 :123–138. doi: 10.1080/07481189508252720. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beauchemin, É., Côté, L. P., Drolet, M. J., & Williams-Jones, B. (2021). Conceptualizing Ethical Issues in the Conduct of Research: Results from a Critical and Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Academic Ethics , Early Online. 10.1007/s10805-021-09411-7
• Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The Slow Professor . University of Toronto Press
• Birchley G, Huxtable R, Murtagh M, Meulen RT, Flach P, Gooberman-Hill R. Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers’ perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies. BMC Medical Ethics. 2017; 18 (23):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blais, J., & Drolet, M. J. (2022). Les injustices sociales vécues en camp de réfugiés: les comprendre pour mieux intervenir auprès de personnes ayant séjourné dans un camp de réfugiés. Recueil annuel belge d’ergothérapie , 14, 37–48
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods . Allyn & Bacon
• Bouffard C. Le développement des pratiques de la génétique médicale et la construction des normes bioéthiques. Anthropologie et Sociétés. 2000; 24 (2):73–90. doi: 10.7202/015650ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human development. Experiments by nature and design . Harvard University Press
• Bruhn JG, Zajac G, Al-Kazemi AA, Prescott LD. Moral positions and academic conduct: Parameters of tolerance for ethics failure. Journal of Higher Education. 2002; 73 (4):461–493. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2002.0033. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark, A., & Sousa (2022). It’s time to end Canada’s obsession with research quantity. University Affairs/Affaires universitaires , February 14th. https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/effective-successfull-happy-academic/its-time-to-end-canadas-obsession-with-research-quantity/?utm_source=University+Affairs+e-newsletter&utm_campaign=276a847f 70-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2022_02_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_314bc2ee29-276a847f70-425259989
• Colnerud G. Ethical dilemmas in research in relation to ethical review: An empirical study. Research Ethics. 2015; 10 (4):238–253. doi: 10.1177/1747016114552339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davison J. Dilemmas in Research: Issues of Vulnerability and Disempowerment for the Social Workers/Researcher. Journal of Social Work Practice. 2004; 18 (3):379–393. doi: 10.1080/0265053042000314447. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DePoy E, Gitlin LN. Introduction to Research. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet, M. J., & Goulet, M. (2018). Travailler avec des patients autochtones du Canada ? Perceptions d’ergothérapeutes du Québec des enjeux éthiques de cette pratique. Recueil annuel belge francophone d’ergothérapie , 10 , 25–56
• Drolet MJ, Girard K. Les enjeux éthiques de la recherche en ergothérapie: un portrait préoccupant. Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2020; 3 (3):21–40. doi: 10.7202/1073779ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Girard K, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de l’enseignement en ergothérapie: des injustices au sein des départements universitaires. Revue canadienne de bioéthique. 2020; 3 (1):22–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Maclure J. Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique de l’ergothérapie: perceptions d’ergothérapeutes. Revue Approches inductives. 2016; 3 (2):166–196. doi: 10.7202/1037918ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Pinard C, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de la pratique privée: des ergothérapeutes du Québec lancent un cri d’alarme. Ethica – Revue interdisciplinaire de recherche en éthique. 2017; 21 (2):173–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet MJ, Ruest M. De l’éthique à l’ergothérapie: un cadre théorique et une méthode pour soutenir la pratique professionnelle. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drolet, M. J., & Ruest, M. (accepted). Quels sont les enjeux éthiques soulevés par la recherche scientifique? In M. Lalancette & J. Luckerhoff (dir). Initiation au travail intellectuel et à la recherche . Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 18 p
• Drolet MJ, Sauvageau A, Baril N, Gaudet R. Les enjeux éthiques de la formation clinique en ergothérapie. Revue Approches inductives. 2019; 6 (1):148–179. doi: 10.7202/1060048ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fédération québécoise des professeures et des professeurs d’université (FQPPU) Enquête nationale sur la surcharge administrative du corps professoral universitaire québécois. Principaux résultats et pistes d’action. Montréal: FQPPU; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fortin MH. Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche. Méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Montréal, QC: Chenelière éducation; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser DM. Ethical dilemmas and practical problems for the practitioner researcher. Educational Action Research. 1997; 5 (1):161–171. doi: 10.1080/09650799700200014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraser, N. (2011). Qu’est-ce que la justice sociale? Reconnaissance et redistribution . La Découverte
• Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing . Oxford University Press
• Giorgi A, et al. De la méthode phénoménologique utilisée comme mode de recherche qualitative en sciences humaines: théories, pratique et évaluation. In: Poupart J, Groulx LH, Deslauriers JP, et al., editors. La recherche qualitative: enjeux épistémologiques et méthodologiques. Boucherville, QC: Gaëtan Morin; 1997. pp. 341–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgini V, Mecca JT, Gibson C, Medeiros K, Mumford MD, Connelly S, Devenport LD. Researcher Perceptions of Ethical Guidelines and Codes of Conduct. Accountability in Research. 2016; 22 (3):123–138. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.955607. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser, J. W. (1994). Three realms of ethics: Individual, institutional, societal. Theoretical model and case studies . Kansas Cuty, Sheed & Ward
• Godrie B, Dos Santos M. Présentation: inégalités sociales, production des savoirs et de l’ignorance. Sociologie et sociétés. 2017; 49 (1):7. doi: 10.7202/1042804ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammell KW, Carpenter C, Dyck I. Using Qualitative Research: A Practical Introduction for Occupational and Physical Therapists. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson M, Johnson NF, Auld G. Silences of ethical practice: dilemmas for researchers using social media. Educational Research and Evaluation. 2013; 19 (6):546–560. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2013.805656. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E. The train of thoughts in the lectures. In: Polifroni EC, Welch M, editors. Perspectives on Philosophy of Science in Nursing. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt SD, Chonko LB, Wilcox JB. Ethical problems of marketing researchers. Journal of Marketing Research. 1984; 21 :309–324. doi: 10.1177/002224378402100308. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt MR, Carnevale FA. Moral experience: A framework for bioethics research. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011; 37 (11):658–662. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.039008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jameton, A. (1984). Nursing practice: The ethical issues . Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall
• Jarvis K. Dilemmas in International Research and the Value of Practical Wisdom. Developing World Bioethics. 2017; 17 (1):50–58. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12121. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman D. Système 1, système 2: les deux vitesses de la pensée. Paris: Flammarion; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keogh B, Daly L. The ethics of conducting research with mental health service users. British Journal of Nursing. 2009; 18 (5):277–281. doi: 10.12968/bjon.2009.18.5.40539. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lierville AL, Grou C, Pelletier JF. Enjeux éthiques potentiels liés aux partenariats patients en psychiatrie: État de situation à l’Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal. Santé mentale au Québec. 2015; 40 (1):119–134. doi: 10.7202/1032386ar. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynöe N, Sandlund M, Jacobsson L. Research ethics committees: A comparative study of assessment of ethical dilemmas. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 1999; 27 (2):152–159. doi: 10.1177/14034948990270020401. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malherbe JF. Compromis, dilemmes et paradoxes en éthique clinique. Anjou: Éditions Fides; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGinn R. Discernment and denial: Nanotechnology researchers’ recognition of ethical responsibilities related to their work. NanoEthics. 2013; 7 :93–105. doi: 10.1007/s11569-013-0174-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills, C. W. (2017). Black Rights / White rongs. The Critique of Racial Liberalism . Oxford University Press
• Miyazaki AD, Taylor KA. Researcher interaction biases and business ethics research: Respondent reactions to researcher characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008; 81 (4):779–795. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9547-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mondain N, Bologo E. L’intentionnalité du chercheur dans ses pratiques de production des connaissances: les enjeux soulevés par la construction des données en démographie et santé en Afrique. Cahiers de recherche sociologique. 2009; 48 :175–204. doi: 10.7202/039772ar. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nicole, M., & Drolet, M. J. (in press). Fitting transphobia and cisgenderism in occupational therapy, Occupational Therapy Now
• Pope KS, Vetter VA. Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. The American Psychologist. 1992; 47 (3):397–411. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.3.397. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Provencher V, Mortenson WB, Tanguay-Garneau L, Bélanger K, Dagenais M. Challenges and strategies pertaining to recruitment and retention of frail elderly in research studies: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2014; 59 (1):18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2014.03.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice . Harvard University Press
• Resnik DB, Elliott KC. The Ethical Challenges of Socially Responsible Science. Accountability in Research. 2016; 23 (1):31–46. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.1002608. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosa, H. (2010). Accélération et aliénation. Vers une théorie critique de la modernité tardive . Paris, Découverte
• Sen, A. K. (2011). The Idea of Justice . The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
• Sen, A. K. (1995). Inegality Reexaminated . Oxford University Press
• Sieber JE. Empirical Research on Research Ethics. Ethics & Behavior. 2004; 14 (4):397–412. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1404_9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sigmon ST. Ethical practices and beliefs of psychopathology researchers. Ethics & Behavior. 1995; 5 (4):295–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0504_1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS. Ethical Problems in Academic Research. American Scientist. 1993; 81 (6):542–553. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swisher LL, Arsalanian LE, Davis CM. The realm-individual-process-situation (RIPS) model of ethical decision-making. HPA Resource. 2005; 5 (3):3–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2) (2018). Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans . Government of Canada, Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/documents/tcps2-2018-en-interactive-final.pdf
• Thomas SP, Pollio HR. Listening to Patients: A Phenomenological Approach to Nursing Research and Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiegand DL, Funk M. Consequences of clinical situations that cause critical care nurses to experience moral distress. Nursing Ethics. 2012; 19 (4):479–487. doi: 10.1177/0969733011429342. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams-Jones B, Potvin MJ, Mathieu G, Smith E. Barriers to research on research ethics review and conflicts of interest. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2013; 35 (5):14–20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young, I. M. (2011). Justice and the Politics of difference . Princeton University Press

University of Chicago

Ethical Guidelines for Online Interviews

In all research encounters, it is vital to keep in mind that the ethnographer’s primary goal should be maintaining the wellbeing of interlocutors. This mission extends into virtual environments as well, including in the realm of online interviews. In order to ensure that both the ethnographer and the participant benefit from this experience, the following ethical guidelines should be kept in mind:

• Before coming to the interview, the ethnographer should create a set of open-ended questions that invite the participant to share as much as they see fit. The researcher should not create leading questions in an attempt to fish for certain responses, but rather write questions that encourage the interviewee to respond freely and openly.
• Transparency and honesty are two of the most important facets of conducting an online interview. Prior to formally beginning the interview, the researcher should give a thorough explanation of the interview’s purpose in a manner that is accessible to the interviewee. Encourage the participant to ask questions so that they fully understand the course of the interview and feel comfortable providing the information they will be asked for. The ethnographer should explain the specific use for this information and ask for consent to use what the interviewee shares with them in future endeavors. It is important to disclose that the interview will be recorded, but also assure that the recording will only be used by the researcher as a reminder of their conversation and will not be shared with anyone else. This will further help to ensure that the interviewee feels as comfortable as possible. 
• Respect that interaction in an online environment feels different from community to community and from person to person, much like interaction in real life. Be conscious of how you approach conversation, and, above all, ensure that the interviewee feels comfortable and listened to wholeheartedly. If something is unclear, the researcher should ask for clarification so that misunderstandings are greatly reduced.
• Throughout the course of the interview, the researcher should remember that the interviewee is the primary focus. The interviewee should feel comfortable speaking whatever comes to their mind, and the researcher should be mindful of how the interviewee feels throughout the conversation. If the interviewee expresses discomfort or is unwilling to answer a question, the researcher should not push for an answer, as this goes against protecting the interviewee’s wellbeing.
• Understand that, in an online space, the right to privacy and anonymity should still be afforded to interlocutors. Even though the lines between private and public can often be blurred in online worlds, it is important to preserve the wellbeing of the participant. This means taking extra steps to ensure that the interviewee remains anonymous if they so choose, and that the dissemination of the final product does not impose on the interviewee’s personal and private life in any way. Participants may be providing extremely personal, sensitive, or even sacred information, and it is the responsibility of the researcher to keep this in mind during the interview as well as after.
• At the end of the interview, the researcher should be sure to remind the interviewee of the purpose of their conversation, as well as what the information obtained will be used for. This allows the interviewee to once again feel assured and informed of what their words will be going towards. 
• After completing the interview, the ethnographer should continue to ensure that the privacy of the interviewee is protected in write-ups and further research endeavors by paying adequate attention to how the interviewee’s information is integrated into conclusions.

No Comments Yet

Leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Library Support for Qualitative Research

• Interview Research
• Resources for Methodology
• Remote Research & Virtual Fieldwork

Resources for Research Interviewing

Nih-funded qualitative research.

• Oral History
• Data Management & Repositories
• Campus Access

Types of Interviews

• Engaging Participants

Interview Questions

• Conducting Interviews
• Transcription
• Coding and Analysis
• Managing & Finding Interview Data
• UX & Market Research Interviews

Textbooks, Guidebooks, and Handbooks  

• The Ethnographic Interview by James P. Spradley  “Spradley wrote this book for the professional and student who have never done ethnographic fieldwork (p. 231) and for the professional ethnographer who is interested in adapting the author’s procedures (p. iv). Part 1 outlines in 3 chapters Spradley’s version of ethnographic research, and it provides the background for Part 2 which consists of 12 guided steps (chapters) ranging from locating and interviewing an informant to writing an ethnography. Most of the examples come from the author’s own fieldwork among U.S. subcultures . . . Steps 6 and 8 explain lucidly how to construct a domain and a taxonomic analysis” (excerpted from book review by James D. Sexton, 1980).  
• Fundamentals of Qualitative Research by Johnny Saldana (Series edited by Patricia Leavy)  Provides a soup-to-nuts overview of the qualitative data collection process, including interviewing, participant observation, and other methods.  
• InterViews by Steinar Kvale  Interviewing is an essential tool in qualitative research and this introduction to interviewing outlines both the theoretical underpinnings and the practical aspects of the process. After examining the role of the interview in the research process, Steinar Kvale considers some of the key philosophical issues relating to interviewing: the interview as conversation, hermeneutics, phenomenology, concerns about ethics as well as validity, and postmodernism. Having established this framework, the author then analyzes the seven stages of the interview process - from designing a study to writing it up.  
• Practical Evaluation by Michael Quinn Patton  Surveys different interviewing strategies, from, a) informal/conversational, to b) interview guide approach, to c) standardized and open-ended, to d) closed/quantitative. Also discusses strategies for wording questions that are open-ended, clear, sensitive, and neutral, while supporting the speaker. Provides suggestions for probing and maintaining control of the interview process, as well as suggestions for recording and transcription.  
• The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research by Amir B. Marvasti (Editor); James A. Holstein (Editor); Jaber F. Gubrium (Editor); Karyn D. McKinney (Editor)  The new edition of this landmark volume emphasizes the dynamic, interactional, and reflexive dimensions of the research interview. Contributors highlight the myriad dimensions of complexity that are emerging as researchers increasingly frame the interview as a communicative opportunity as much as a data-gathering format. The book begins with the history and conceptual transformations of the interview, which is followed by chapters that discuss the main components of interview practice. Taken together, the contributions to The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft encourage readers simultaneously to learn the frameworks and technologies of interviewing and to reflect on the epistemological foundations of the interview craft.  
• The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods by Nigel G. Fielding, Raymond M. Lee and Grant Blank (Editors) Bringing together the leading names in both qualitative and quantitative online research, this new edition is organised into nine sections: 1. Online Research Methods 2. Designing Online Research 3. Online Data Capture and Data Collection 4. The Online Survey 5. Digital Quantitative Analysis 6. Digital Text Analysis 7. Virtual Ethnography 8. Online Secondary Analysis: Resources and Methods 9. The Future of Online Social Research

ONLINE RESOURCES, COMMUNITIES, AND DATABASES  

• Interviews as a Method for Qualitative Research (video) This short video summarizes why interviews can serve as useful data in qualitative research.  
• Companion website to Bloomberg and Volpe's  Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End,  4th ed Provides helpful templates and appendices featured in the book, as well as links to other useful dissertation resources.
• International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry Annual conference hosted by the International Center for Qualitative Inquiry at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which aims to facilitate the development of qualitative research methods across a wide variety of academic disciplines, among other initiatives.  
• METHODSPACE ​​​​​​​​An online home of the research methods community, where practicing researchers share how to make research easier.  
• SAGE researchmethods ​​​​​​​Researchers can explore methods concepts to help them design research projects, understand particular methods or identify a new method, conduct their research, and write up their findings. A "methods map" facilitates finding content on methods.

The decision to conduct interviews, and the type of interviewing to use, should flow from, or align with, the methodological paradigm chosen for your study, whether that paradigm is interpretivist, critical, positivist, or participative in nature (or a combination of these).

Structured:

• Structured Interview. Entry in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methodsby Floyd J. Fowler Jr., Editors: Michael S. Lewis-Beck; Alan E. Bryman; Tim Futing Liao (Editor)  A concise article noting standards, procedures, and recommendations for developing and testing structured interviews. For an example of structured interview questions, you may view the Current Population Survey, May 2008: Public Participation in the Arts Supplement (ICPSR 29641), Apr 15, 2011 at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR29641.v1 (To see the survey questions, preview the user guide, which can be found under the "Data and Documentation" tab. Then, look for page 177 (attachment 8).

Semi-Structured:

• Semi-Structured Interview. Entry in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methodsby Lioness Ayres; Editor: Lisa M. Given  The semi-structured interview is a qualitative data collection strategy in which the researcher asks informants a series of predetermined but open-ended questions. The researcher has more control over the topics of the interview than in unstructured interviews, but in contrast to structured interviews or questionnaires that use closed questions, there is no fixed range of responses to each question.

Unstructured:

• Unstructured Interview. Entry in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methodsby Michael W. Firmin; Editor: Lisa M. Given  Unstructured interviews in qualitative research involve asking relatively open-ended questions of research participants in order to discover their percepts on the topic of interest. Interviews, in general, are a foundational means of collecting data when using qualitative research methods. They are designed to draw from the interviewee constructs embedded in his or her thinking and rationale for decision making. The researcher uses an inductive method in data gathering, regardless of whether the interview method is open, structured, or semi-structured. That is, the researcher does not wish to superimpose his or her own viewpoints onto the person being interviewed. Rather, inductively, the researcher wishes to understand the participant's perceptions, helping him or her to articulate percepts such that they will be understood clearly by the journal reader.

Genres and Uses

Focus groups:.

• "Focus Groups." Annual Review of Sociology 22 (1996): 129-1524.by David L. Morgan  Discusses the use of focus groups and group interviews as methods for gathering qualitative data used by sociologists and other academic and applied researchers. Focus groups are recommended for giving voice to marginalized groups and revealing the group effect on opinion formation.  
• Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide (See Module 4: "Focus Groups")by Mack, N., et al.  This field guide is based on an approach to doing team-based, collaborative qualitative research that has repeatedly proven successful in research projects sponsored by Family Health International (FHI) throughout the developing world. With its straightforward delivery of information on the main qualitative methods being used in public health research today, the guide speaks to the need for simple yet effective instruction on how to do systematic and ethically sound qualitative research. The aim of the guide is thus practical. In bypassing extensive discussion on the theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research, it distinguishes itself as a how-to guide to be used in the field.

In-Depth (typically One-on-One):

• A Practical Introduction to in-Depth Interviewingby Alan Morris  Are you new to qualitative research or a bit rusty and in need of some inspiration? Are you doing a research project involving in-depth interviews? Are you nervous about carrying out your interviews? This book will help you complete your qualitative research project by providing a nuts and bolts introduction to interviewing. With coverage of ethics, preparation strategies and advice for handling the unexpected in the field, this handy guide will help you get to grips with the basics of interviewing before embarking on your research. While recognising that your research question and the context of your research will drive your approach to interviewing, this book provides practical advice often skipped in traditional methods textbooks.  
• Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide (See Module 3: "In-Depth Interviews")by Mack, N., et al.  This field guide is based on an approach to doing team-based, collaborative qualitative research that has repeatedly proven successful in research projects sponsored by Family Health International (FHI) throughout the developing world. With its straightforward delivery of information on the main qualitative methods being used in public health research today, the guide speaks to the need for simple yet effective instruction on how to do systematic and ethically sound qualitative research. The aim of the guide is thus practical. In bypassing extensive discussion on the theoretical underpinnings of qualitative research, it distinguishes itself as a how-to guide to be used in the field.

Folklore Research and Oral Histories:

In addition to the following resource, see the  Oral History   page of this guide for helpful resources on Oral History interviewing.

American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress. Folklife and Fieldwork: A Layman’s Introduction to Field Techniques Interviews gathered for purposes of folklore research are similar to standard social science interviews in some ways, but also have a good deal in common with oral history approaches to interviewing. The focus in a folklore research interview is on documenting and trying to understand the interviewee's way of life relative to a culture or subculture you are studying. This guide includes helpful advice and tips for conducting fieldwork in folklore, such as tips for planning, conducting, recording, and archiving interviews.

An interdisciplinary scientific program within the Institute for Quantitative Social Science which encourages and facilitates research and instruction in the theory and practice of survey research. The primary mission of PSR is to provide survey research resources to enhance the quality of teaching and research at Harvard.

• Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveysby Don A. Dillman; Jolene D. Smyth; Leah Melani Christian  The classic survey design reference, updated for the digital age. The new edition is thoroughly updated and revised, and covers all aspects of survey research. It features expanded coverage of mobile phones, tablets, and the use of do-it-yourself surveys, and Dillman's unique Tailored Design Method is also thoroughly explained. This new edition is complemented by copious examples within the text and accompanying website. It includes: Strategies and tactics for determining the needs of a given survey, how to design it, and how to effectively administer it. How and when to use mail, telephone, and Internet surveys to maximum advantage. Proven techniques to increase response rates. Guidance on how to obtain high-quality feedback from mail, electronic, and other self-administered surveys. Direction on how to construct effective questionnaires, including considerations of layout. The effects of sponsorship on the response rates of surveys. Use of capabilities provided by newly mass-used media: interactivity, presentation of aural and visual stimuli. The Fourth Edition reintroduces the telephone--including coordinating land and mobile.

User Experience (UX) and Marketing:

• See the  "UX & Market Research Interviews"  tab on this guide, above. May include  Focus Groups,  above.

Screening for Research Site Selection:

• Research interviews are used not only to furnish research data for theoretical analysis in the social sciences, but also to plan other kinds of studies. For example, interviews may allow researchers to screen appropriate research sites to conduct empirical studies (such as randomized controlled trials) in a variety of fields, from medicine to law. In contrast to interviews conducted in the course of social research, such interviews do not typically serve as the data for final analysis and publication.

ENGAGING PARTICIPANTS

Research ethics  .

• Human Subjects (IRB) The Committee on the Use of Human Subjects (CUHS) serves as the Institutional Review Board for the University area which includes the Cambridge and Allston campuses at Harvard. Find your IRB  contact person , or learn about  required ethics training.  You may also find the  IRB Lifecycle Guide  helpful. This is the preferred IRB portal for Harvard graduate students and other researchers. IRB forms can be downloaded via the  ESTR Library  (click on the "Templates and Forms" tab, then navigate to pages 2 and 3 to find the documents labelled with “HUA” for the Harvard University Area IRB. Nota bene: You may use these forms only if you submit your study to the Harvard University IRB). The IRB office can be reached through email at [email protected] or by telephone at (617) 496-2847.  
• Undergraduate Research Training Program (URTP) Portal The URTP at Harvard University is a comprehensive platform to create better prepared undergraduate researchers. The URTP is comprised of research ethics training sessions, a student-focused curriculum, and an online decision form that will assist students in determining whether their project requires IRB review. Students should examine the  URTP's guide for student researchers: Introduction to Human Subjects Research Protection.  
• Ethics reports From the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR)  
• Respect, Beneficence, and Justice: QDR General Guidance for Human Participants If you are hoping to share your qualitative interview data in a repository after it has been collected, you will need to plan accordingly via informed consent, careful de-identification procedures, and data access controls. Consider  consulting with the Qualitative Research Support Group at Harvard Library  and consulting with  Harvard's Dataverse contacts  to help you think through all of the contingencies and processes.  
• "Conducting a Qualitative Child Interview: Methodological Considerations." Journal of Advanced Nursing 42/5 (2003): 434-441 by Kortesluoma, R., et al.  The purpose of this article is to illustrate the theoretical premises of child interviewing, as well as to describe some practical methodological solutions used during interviews. Factors that influence data gathered from children and strategies for taking these factors into consideration during the interview are also described.  
• "Crossing Cultural Barriers in Research Interviewing." Qualitative Social Work 63/3 (2007): 353-372 by Sands, R., et al.  This article critically examines a qualitative research interview in which cultural barriers between a white non-Muslim female interviewer and an African American Muslim interviewee, both from the USA, became evident and were overcome within the same interview.  
• Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith  This essential volume explores intersections of imperialism and research - specifically, the ways in which imperialism is embedded in disciplines of knowledge and tradition as 'regimes of truth.' Concepts such as 'discovery' and 'claiming' are discussed and an argument presented that the decolonization of research methods will help to reclaim control over indigenous ways of knowing and being. The text includes case-studies and examples, and sections on new indigenous literature and the role of research in indigenous struggles for social justice.  

This resource, sponsored by University of Oregon Libraries, exemplifies the use of interviewing methodologies in research that foregrounds traditional knowledge. The methodology page summarizes the approach.

• Ethics: The Need to Tread Carefully. Chapter in A Practical Introduction to in-Depth Interviewing by Alan Morris  Pay special attention to the sections in chapter 2 on "How to prevent and respond to ethical issues arising in the course of the interview," "Ethics in the writing up of your interviews," and "The Ethics of Care."  
• Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology by Joan Cassell (Editor); Sue-Ellen Jacobs (Editor)  This publication of the American Anthropological Association presents and discusses issues and sources on ethics in anthropology, as well as realistic case studies of ethical dilemmas. It is meant to help social science faculty introduce discussions of ethics in their courses. Some of the topics are relevant to interviews, or at least to studies of which interviews are a part. See chapters 3 and 4 for cases, with solutions and commentary, respectively.  
• Research Ethics from the Chanie Wenjack School for Indigenous Studies, Trent University  (Open Access) An overview of Indigenous research ethics and protocols from the across the globe.  
• Resources for Equity in Research Consult these resources for guidance on creating and incorporating equitable materials into public health research studies that entail community engagement.

The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics by Ron Iphofen (Editor); Martin Tolich (Editor)  This handbook is a much-needed and in-depth review of the distinctive set of ethical considerations which accompanies qualitative research. This is particularly crucial given the emergent, dynamic and interactional nature of most qualitative research, which too often allows little time for reflection on the important ethical responsibilities and obligations. Contributions from leading international researchers have been carefully organized into six key thematic sections: Part One: Thick Descriptions Of Qualitative Research Ethics; Part Two: Qualitative Research Ethics By Technique; Part Three: Ethics As Politics; Part Four: Qualitative Research Ethics With Vulnerable Groups; Part Five: Relational Research Ethics; Part Six: Researching Digitally. This Handbook is a one-stop resource on qualitative research ethics across the social sciences that draws on the lessons learned and the successful methods for surmounting problems - the tried and true, and the new.

RESEARCH COMPLIANCE AND PRIVACY LAWS

Research Compliance Program for FAS/SEAS at Harvard : The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), including the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), and the Office of the Vice Provost for Research (OVPR) have established a shared Research Compliance Program (RCP). An area of common concern for interview studies is international projects and collaboration . RCP is a resource to provide guidance on which international activities may be impacted by US sanctions on countries, individuals, or entities and whether licenses or other disclosure are required to ship or otherwise share items, technology, or data with foreign collaborators.

• Harvard Global Support Services (GSS) is for students, faculty, staff, and researchers who are studying, researching, or working abroad. Their services span safety and security, health, culture, outbound immigration, employment, financial and legal matters, and research center operations. These include travel briefings and registration, emergency response, guidance on international projects, and managing in-country operations.

Generative AI: Harvard-affiliated researchers should not enter data classified as confidential ( Level 2 and above ), including non-public research data, into publicly-available generative AI tools, in accordance with the University’s Information Security Policy. Information shared with generative AI tools using default settings is not private and could expose proprietary or sensitive information to unauthorized parties.

Privacy Laws: Be mindful of any potential privacy laws that may apply wherever you conduct your interviews. The General Data Protection Regulation is a high-profile example (see below):

• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and rules relating to the free movement of personal data. It protects fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of personal data. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. For a nice summary of what the GDPR requires, check out the GDPR "crash course" here .

SEEKING CONSENT  

If you would like to see examples of consent forms, ask your local IRB, or take a look at these resources:

• Model consent forms for oral history, suggested by the Centre for Oral History and Digital Storytelling at Concordia University  
• For NIH-funded research, see this  resource for developing informed consent language in research studies where data and/or biospecimens will be stored and shared for future use.

POPULATION SAMPLING

If you wish to assemble resources to aid in sampling, such as the USPS Delivery Sequence File, telephone books, or directories of organizations and listservs, please contact our  data librarian  or write to  [email protected] .

• Research Randomizer   A free web-based service that permits instant random sampling and random assignment. It also contains an interactive tutorial perfect for students taking courses in research methods.  
• Practical Tools for Designing and Weighting Survey Samples by Richard Valliant; Jill A. Dever; Frauke Kreuter  Survey sampling is fundamentally an applied field. The goal in this book is to put an array of tools at the fingertips of practitioners by explaining approaches long used by survey statisticians, illustrating how existing software can be used to solve survey problems, and developing some specialized software where needed. This book serves at least three audiences: (1) Students seeking a more in-depth understanding of applied sampling either through a second semester-long course or by way of a supplementary reference; (2) Survey statisticians searching for practical guidance on how to apply concepts learned in theoretical or applied sampling courses; and (3) Social scientists and other survey practitioners who desire insight into the statistical thinking and steps taken to design, select, and weight random survey samples. Several survey data sets are used to illustrate how to design samples, to make estimates from complex surveys for use in optimizing the sample allocation, and to calculate weights. Realistic survey projects are used to demonstrate the challenges and provide a context for the solutions. The book covers several topics that either are not included or are dealt with in a limited way in other texts. These areas include: sample size computations for multistage designs; power calculations related to surveys; mathematical programming for sample allocation in a multi-criteria optimization setting; nuts and bolts of area probability sampling; multiphase designs; quality control of survey operations; and statistical software for survey sampling and estimation. An associated R package, PracTools, contains a number of specialized functions for sample size and other calculations. The data sets used in the book are also available in PracTools, so that the reader may replicate the examples or perform further analyses.  
• Sampling: Design and Analysis by Sharon L. Lohr  Provides a modern introduction to the field of sampling. With a multitude of applications from a variety of disciplines, the book concentrates on the statistical aspects of taking and analyzing a sample. Overall, the book gives guidance on how to tell when a sample is valid or not, and how to design and analyze many different forms of sample surveys.  
• Sampling Techniques by William G. Cochran  Clearly demonstrates a wide range of sampling methods now in use by governments, in business, market and operations research, social science, medicine, public health, agriculture, and accounting. Gives proofs of all the theoretical results used in modern sampling practice. New topics in this edition include the approximate methods developed for the problem of attaching standard errors or confidence limits to nonlinear estimates made from the results of surveys with complex plans.  
• "Understanding the Process of Qualitative Data Collection" in Chapter 13 (pp. 103–1162) of 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher by John W. Creswell  Provides practical "how-to" information for beginning researchers in the social, behavioral, and health sciences with many applied examples from research design, qualitative inquiry, and mixed methods.The skills presented in this book are crucial for a new qualitative researcher starting a qualitative project.  
• Survey Methodology by Robert M. Groves; Floyd J. Fowler; Mick P. Couper; James M. Lepkowski; Eleanor Singer; Roger Tourangeau; Floyd J. Fowler  coverage includes sampling frame evaluation, sample design, development of questionnaires, evaluation of questions, alternative modes of data collection, interviewing, nonresponse, post-collection processing of survey data, and practices for maintaining scientific integrity.

The way a qualitative researcher constructs and approaches interview questions should flow from, or align with, the methodological paradigm chosen for the study, whether that paradigm is interpretivist, critical, positivist, or participative in nature (or a combination of these).

Constructing Your Questions

Helpful texts:.

• "Developing Questions" in Chapter 4 (pp. 98–108) of Becoming Qualitative Researchers by Corrine Glesne  Ideal for introducing the novice researcher to the theory and practice of qualitative research, this text opens students to the diverse possibilities within this inquiry approach, while helping them understand how to design and implement specific research methods.  
• "Learning to Interview in the Social Sciences" Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4) 2003, 643–668 by Roulston, K., deMarrais, K., & Lewis, J. B. See especially the section on "Phrasing and Negotiating Questions" on pages 653-655 and common problems with framing questions noted on pages 659 - 660.  
• Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods (See sections on “Lightly and Heavily Structured Depth Interviewing: Theory-Questions and Interviewer-Questions” and “Preparing for any Interviewing Sequence") by Tom Wengraf  Unique in its conceptual coherence and the level of practical detail, this book provides a comprehensive resource for those concerned with the practice of semi-structured interviewing, the most commonly used interview approach in social research, and in particular for in-depth, biographic narrative interviewing. It covers the full range of practices from the identification of topics through to strategies for writing up research findings in diverse ways.  
• "Scripting a Qualitative Purpose Statement and Research Questions" in Chapter 12 (pp. 93–102) of 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher by John W. Creswell  Provides practical "how-to" information for beginning researchers in the social, behavioral, and health sciences with many applied examples from research design, qualitative inquiry, and mixed methods.The skills presented in this book are crucial for a new qualitative researcher starting a qualitative project.  
• Some Strategies for Developing Interview Guides for Qualitative Interviews by Sociology Department, Harvard University Includes general advice for conducting qualitative interviews, pros and cons of recording and transcription, guidelines for success, and tips for developing and phrasing effective interview questions.  
• Tip Sheet on Question Wording by Harvard University Program on Survey Research

Let Theory Guide You:

The quality of your questions depends on how you situate them within a wider body of knowledge. Consider the following advice:

A good literature review has many obvious virtues. It enables the investigator to define problems and assess data. It provides the concepts on which percepts depend. But the literature review has a special importance for the qualitative researcher. This consists of its ability to sharpen his or her capacity for surprise (Lazarsfeld, 1972b). The investigator who is well versed in the literature now has a set of expectations the data can defy. Counterexpectational data are conspicuous, readable, and highly provocative data. They signal the existence of unfulfilled theoretical assumptions, and these are, as Kuhn (1962) has noted, the very origins of intellectual innovation. A thorough review of the literature is, to this extent, a way to manufacture distance. It is a way to let the data of one's research project take issue with the theory of one's field.

McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Interview, Sage: Newbury Park, CA, p. 31

When drafting your interview questions, remember that everything follows from your central research question. Also, on the way to writing your "operationalized" interview questions, it's  helpful to draft broader, intermediate questions, couched in theory. Nota bene:  While it is important to know the literature well before conducting your interview(s), be careful not to present yourself to your research participant(s) as "the expert," which would be presumptuous and could be intimidating. Rather, the purpose of your knowledge is to make you a better, keener listener.

If you'd like to supplement what you learned about relevant theories through your coursework and literature review, try these sources:

• Annual Reviews   Review articles sum up the latest research in many fields, including social sciences, biomedicine, life sciences, and physical sciences. These are timely collections of critical reviews written by leading scientists.  
• HOLLIS - search for resources on theories in your field   Modify this example search by entering the name of your field in place of "your discipline," then hit search.  
• Oxford Bibliographies   Written and reviewed by academic experts, every article in this database is an authoritative guide to the current scholarship in a variety of fields, containing original commentary and annotations.  
• ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT)   Indexes dissertations and masters' theses from most North American graduate schools as well as some European universities. Provides full text for most indexed dissertations from 1990-present.  
• Very Short Introductions   Launched by Oxford University Press in 1995, Very Short Introductions offer concise introductions to a diverse range of subjects from Climate to Consciousness, Game Theory to Ancient Warfare, Privacy to Islamic History, Economics to Literary Theory.

CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS

Equipment and software:  .

• Lamont Library  loans microphones and podcast starter kits, which will allow you to capture audio (and you may record with software, such as Garage Band). 
• Cabot Library  loans digital recording devices, as well as USB microphones.

If you prefer to use your own device, you may purchase a small handheld audio recorder, or use your cell phone.

• Audio Capture Basics (PDF)  - Helpful instructions, courtesy of the Lamont Library Multimedia Lab.
• Getting Started with Podcasting/Audio:  Guidelines from Harvard Library's Virtual Media Lab for preparing your interviewee for a web-based recording (e.g., podcast, interview)
• ​ Camtasia Screen Recorder and Video Editor
• Zoom: Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing
• Visit the Multimedia Production Resources guide! Consult it to find and learn how to use audiovisual production tools, including: cameras, microphones, studio spaces, and other equipment at Cabot Science Library and Lamont Library.
• Try the virtual office hours offered by the Lamont Multimedia Lab!

TIPS FOR CONDUCTING INTERVIEWS

Quick handout:  .

• Research Interviewing Tips (Courtesy of Dr. Suzanne Spreadbury)

Remote Interviews:  

• For Online or Distant Interviews, See "Remote Research & Virtual Fieldwork" on this guide .  
• Deborah Lupton's Bibliography: Doing Fieldwork in a Pandemic

Seeking Consent:

Books and articles:  .

• "App-Based Textual Interviews: Interacting With Younger Generations in a Digitalized Social Reallity."International Journal of Social Research Methodology (12 June 2022). Discusses the use of texting platforms as a means to reach young people. Recommends useful question formulations for this medium.  
• "Learning to Interview in the Social Sciences." Qualitative Inquiry, 9(4) 2003, 643–668 by Roulston, K., deMarrais, K., & Lewis, J. B. See especially the section on "Phrasing and Negotiating Questions" on pages 653-655 and common problems with framing questions noted on pages 659-660.  
• "Slowing Down and Digging Deep: Teaching Students to Examine Interview Interaction in Depth." LEARNing Landscapes, Spring 2021 14(1) 153-169 by Herron, Brigette A. and Kathryn Roulston. Suggests analysis of videorecorded interviews as a precursor to formulating one's own questions. Includes helpful types of probes.  
• Using Interviews in a Research Project by Nigel Joseph Mathers; Nicholas J Fox; Amanda Hunn; Trent Focus Group.  A work pack to guide researchers in developing interviews in the healthcare field. Describes interview structures, compares face-to-face and telephone interviews. Outlines the ways in which different types of interview data can be analysed.  
• “Working through Challenges in Doing Interview Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, (December 2011), 348–66 by Roulston, Kathryn.  The article explores (1) how problematic interactions identified in the analysis of focus group data can lead to modifications in research design, (2) an approach to dealing with reported data in representations of findings, and (3) how data analysis can inform question formulation in successive rounds of data generation. Findings from these types of examinations of interview data generation and analysis are valuable for informing both interview practice as well as research design.

Videos:  

The way a qualitative researcher transcribes interviews should flow from, or align with, the methodological paradigm chosen for the study, whether that paradigm is interpretivist, critical, positivist, or participative in nature (or a combination of these).

TRANSCRIPTION

Before embarking on a transcription project, it's worthwhile to invest in the time and effort necessary to capture good audio, which will make the transcription process much easier. If you haven't already done so, check out the  audio capture guidelines from Harvard Library's Virtual Media Lab , or  contact a media staff member  for customized recommendations. First and foremost, be mindful of common pitfalls by watching this short video that identifies  the most common errors to avoid!

SOFTWARE:  

• Adobe Premiere Pro Speech-To-Text  automatically generates transcripts and adds captions to your videos. Harvard affiliates can download Adobe Premiere in the Creative Cloud Suite.  
• GoTranscript  provides cost-effective human-generated transcriptions.  
• pyTranscriber  is an app for generating automatic transcription and/or subtitles for audio and video files. It uses the Google Cloud Speech-to-Text service, has a friendly graphical user interface, and is purported to work nicely with Chinese.   
• Otter  provides a new way to capture, store, search and share voice conversations, lectures, presentations, meetings, and interviews. The startup is based in Silicon Valley with a team of experienced Ph.Ds and engineers from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Nuance (à la Dragon). Free accounts available. This is the software that  Zoom  uses to generate automated transcripts, so if you have access to a Zoom subscription, you have access to Otter transcriptions with it (applicable in several  languages ). As with any automated approach, be prepared to correct any errors after the fact, by hand.  
• Panopto  is available to Harvard affiliates and generates  ASR (automated speech recognition) captions . You may upload compatible audio files into it. As with any automatically generated transcription, you will need to make manual revisions. ASR captioning is available in several  languages . Panopto maintains robust security practices, including strong authentication measures and end-to-end encryption, ensuring your content remains private and protected.  
• REV.Com  allows you to record and transcribe any calls on the iPhone, both outgoing and incoming. It may be useful for recording phone interviews. Rev lets you choose whether you want an AI- or human-generated transcription, with a fast turnaround. Rev has Service Organization Controls Type II (SOC2) certification (a SOC2 cert looks at and verifies an organization’s processing integrity, privacy practices, and security safeguards).   
• Scribie Audio/Video Transcription  provides automated or manual transcriptions for a small fee. As with any transcription service, some revisions will be necessary after the fact, particularly for its automated transcripts.  
• Sonix  automatically transcribes, translates, and helps to organize audio and video files in over 40 languages. It's fast and affordable, with good accuracy. The free trial includes 30 minutes of free transcription.  
• TranscriptionWing  uses a human touch process to clean up machine-generated transcripts so that the content will far more accurately reflect your audio recording.   
• Whisper is a tool from OpenAI that facilitates transcription of sensitive audiovisual recordings (e.g., of research interviews) on your own device. Installation and use depends on your operating system and which version you install. Important Note: The Whisper API, where audio is sent to OpenAI to be processed by them and then sent back (usually through a programming language like Python) is NOT appropriate for sensitive data. The model should be downloaded with tools such as those described in this FAQ , so that audio is kept to your local machine. For assistance, contact James Capobianco .

EQUIPMENT:  

• Transcription pedals  are in circulation and available to borrow from the Circulation desk at Lamont, or use at Lamont Library's Media Lab on level B. For hand-transcribing your interviews, they work in conjunction with software such as  Express Scribe , which is loaded on Media Lab computers, or you may download for free on your own machine (Mac or PC versions; scroll down the downloads page for the latter). The pedals are plug-and-play USB, allow a wide range of playback speeds, and have 3 programmable buttons, which are typically set to rewind/play/fast-forward. Instructions are included in the bag that covers installation and set-up of the software, and basic use of the pedals.

NEED HELP?  

• Try the virtual office hours offered by the Lamont Multimedia Lab!    
• If you're creating podcasts, login to  Canvas  and check out the  Podcasting/Audio guide . 

Helpful Texts:  

• "Transcription as a Crucial Step of Data Analysis" in Chapter 5 of The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysisby Uwe Flick (Editor)  Covers basic terminology for transcription, shares caveats for transcribers, and identifies components of vocal behavior. Provides notation systems for transcription, suggestions for transcribing turn-taking, and discusses new technologies and perspectives. Includes a bibliography for further reading.  
• "Transcribing the Oral Interview: Part Art, Part Science " on p. 10 of the Centre for Community Knowledge (CCK) newsletter: TIMESTAMPby Mishika Chauhan and Saransh Srivastav

QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

Software  .

• Free download available for Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) affiliates
• Desktop access at Lamont Library Media Lab, 3rd floor
• Desktop access at Harvard Kennedy School Library (with HKS ID)
• Remote desktop access for Harvard affiliates from  IQSS Computer Labs . Email them at  [email protected] and ask for a new lab account and remote desktop access to NVivo.
• Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) access available to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health affiliates

CODING AND THEMEING YOUR DATA

Data analysis methods should flow from, or align with, the methodological paradigm chosen for your study, whether that paradigm is interpretivist, critical, positivist, or participative in nature (or a combination of these). Some established methods include Content Analysis, Critical Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Gestalt Analysis, Grounded Theory Analysis, Interpretive Analysis, Narrative Analysis, Normative Analysis, Phenomenological Analysis, Rhetorical Analysis, and Semiotic Analysis, among others. The following resources should help you navigate your methodological options and put into practice methods for coding, themeing, interpreting, and presenting your data.

• Users can browse content by topic, discipline, or format type (reference works, book chapters, definitions, etc.). SRM offers several research tools as well: a methods map, user-created reading lists, a project planner, and advice on choosing statistical tests.  
• Abductive Coding: Theory Building and Qualitative (Re)Analysis by Vila-Henninger, et al.  The authors recommend an abductive approach to guide qualitative researchers who are oriented towards theory-building. They outline a set of tactics for abductive analysis, including the generation of an abductive codebook, abductive data reduction through code equations, and in-depth abductive qualitative analysis.  
• Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Research: After the Interview by Charles F. Vanover, Paul A. Mihas, and Johnny Saldana (Editors)   Providing insight into the wide range of approaches available to the qualitative researcher and covering all steps in the research process, the authors utilize a consistent chapter structure that provides novice and seasoned researchers with pragmatic, "how-to" strategies. Each chapter author introduces the method, uses one of their own research projects as a case study of the method described, shows how the specific analytic method can be used in other types of studies, and concludes with three questions/activities to prompt class discussion or personal study.   
• "Analyzing Qualitative Data." Theory Into Practice 39, no. 3 (2000): 146-54 by Margaret D. LeCompte   This article walks readers though rules for unbiased data analysis and provides guidance for getting organized, finding items, creating stable sets of items, creating patterns, assembling structures, and conducting data validity checks.  
• "Coding is Not a Dirty Word" in Chapter 1 (pp. 1–30) of Enhancing Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research with Technology by Shalin Hai-Jew (Editor)   Current discourses in qualitative research, especially those situated in postmodernism, represent coding and the technology that assists with coding as reductive, lacking complexity, and detached from theory. In this chapter, the author presents a counter-narrative to this dominant discourse in qualitative research. The author argues that coding is not necessarily devoid of theory, nor does the use of software for data management and analysis automatically render scholarship theoretically lightweight or barren. A lack of deep analytical insight is a consequence not of software but of epistemology. Using examples informed by interpretive and critical approaches, the author demonstrates how NVivo can provide an effective tool for data management and analysis. The author also highlights ideas for critical and deconstructive approaches in qualitative inquiry while using NVivo. By troubling the positivist discourse of coding, the author seeks to create dialogic spaces that integrate theory with technology-driven data management and analysis, while maintaining the depth and rigor of qualitative research.   
• The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers by Johnny Saldana   An in-depth guide to the multiple approaches available for coding qualitative data. Clear, practical and authoritative, the book profiles 32 coding methods that can be applied to a range of research genres from grounded theory to phenomenology to narrative inquiry. For each approach, Saldaña discusses the methods, origins, a description of the method, practical applications, and a clearly illustrated example with analytic follow-up. Essential reading across the social sciences.  
• Flexible Coding of In-depth Interviews: A Twenty-first-century Approach by Nicole M. Deterding and Mary C. Waters The authors suggest steps in data organization and analysis to better utilize qualitative data analysis technologies and support rigorous, transparent, and flexible analysis of in-depth interview data.  
• From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not by Roy Suddaby Walks readers through common misconceptions that hinder grounded theory studies, reinforcing the two key concepts of the grounded theory approach: (1) constant comparison of data gathered throughout the data collection process and (2) the determination of which kinds of data to sample in succession based on emergent themes (i.e., "theoretical sampling").  
• “Good enough” methods for life-story analysis, by Wendy Luttrell. In Quinn N. (Ed.), Finding culture in talk (pp. 243–268). Demonstrates for researchers of culture and consciousness who use narrative how to concretely document reflexive processes in terms of where, how and why particular decisions are made at particular stages of the research process.   
• Presentation slides on coding and themeing your data, derived from Saldana, Spradley, and LeCompte Click to request access.  
• Qualitative Data Analysis by Matthew B. Miles; A. Michael Huberman   A practical sourcebook for researchers who make use of qualitative data, presenting the current state of the craft in the design, testing, and use of qualitative analysis methods. Strong emphasis is placed on data displays matrices and networks that go beyond ordinary narrative text. Each method of data display and analysis is described and illustrated.  
• "A Survey of Qualitative Data Analytic Methods" in Chapter 4 (pp. 89–138) of Fundamentals of Qualitative Research by Johnny Saldana   Provides an in-depth introduction to coding as a heuristic, particularly focusing on process coding, in vivo coding, descriptive coding, values coding, dramaturgical coding, and versus coding. Includes advice on writing analytic memos, developing categories, and themeing data.   
• "Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research." Qualitative Research : QR, 1(3), 385–405 by Jennifer Attride-Stirling Details a technique for conducting thematic analysis of qualitative material, presenting a step-by-step guide of the analytic process, with the aid of an empirical example. The analytic method presented employs established, well-known techniques; the article proposes that thematic analyses can be usefully aided by and presented as thematic networks.  
• Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clark Walks readers through the process of reflexive thematic analysis, step by step. The method may be adapted in fields outside of psychology as relevant. Pair this with One Size Fits All? What Counts as Quality Practice in Reflexive Thematic Analysis? by Virginia Braun and Victoria Clark

TESTING OR GENERATING THEORIES

The quality of your data analysis depends on how you situate what you learn within a wider body of knowledge. Consider the following advice:

Once you have coalesced around a theory, realize that a theory should  reveal  rather than  color  your discoveries. Allow your data to guide you to what's most suitable. Grounded theory  researchers may develop their own theory where current theories fail to provide insight.  This guide on Theoretical Models  from Alfaisal University Library provides a helpful overview on using theory.

MANAGING & FINDING INTERVIEW DATA

Managing your elicited interview data, general guidance:  .

• Research Data Management @ Harvard A reference guide with information and resources to help you manage your research data. See also: Harvard Research Data Security Policy , on the Harvard University Research Data Management website.  
• Data Management For Researchers: Organize, Maintain and Share Your Data for Research Success by Kristin Briney. A comprehensive guide for scientific researchers providing everything they need to know about data management and how to organize, document, use and reuse their data.  
• Open Science Framework (OSF) An open-source project management tool that makes it easy to collaborate within and beyond Harvard throughout a project's lifecycle. With OSF you can manage, store, and share documents, datasets, and other information with your research team. You can also publish your work to share it with a wider audience. Although data can be stored privately, because this platform is hosted on the Internet and designed with open access in mind, it is not a good choice for highly sensitive data.  
• Free cloud storage solutions for Harvard affiliates to consider include:  Google Drive ,  DropBox , or  OneDrive ( up to DSL3 )  

Data Confidentiality and Secure Handling:  

• Data Security Levels at Harvard - Research Data Examples This resource provided by Harvard Data Security helps you determine what level of access is appropriate for your data. Determine whether it should be made available for public use, limited to the Harvard community, or be protected as either "confidential and sensitive," "high risk," or "extremely sensitive." See also:  Harvard Data Classification Table  
• Harvard's Best Practices for Protecting Privacy and  Harvard Information Security Collaboration Tools Matrix Follow the nuts-and-bolts advice for privacy best practices at Harvard. The latter resource reveals the level of security that can be relied upon for a large number of technological tools and platforms used at Harvard to conduct business, such as email, Slack, Accellion Kiteworks, OneDrive/SharePoint, etc.  
• “Protecting Participant Privacy While Maintaining Content and Context: Challenges in Qualitative Data De‐identification and Sharing.” Proceedings of the ASIST Annual Meeting 57 (1) (2020): e415-420 by Myers, Long, and Polasek Presents an informed and tested protocol, based on the De-Identification guidelines published by the Qualitative Data Repository (QDR) at Syracuse University. Qualitative researchers may consult it to guide their data de-identification efforts.  
• QDS Qualitative Data Sharing Toolkit The Qualitative Data Sharing (QDS) project and its toolkit was funded by the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG009351). It provides tools and resources to help researchers, especially those in the health sciences, share qualitative research data while protecting privacy and confidentiality. It offers guidance on preparing data for sharing through de-identification and access control. These health sciences research datasets in ICPSR's Qualitative Data Sharing (QDS) Project Series were de-identified using the QuaDS Software and the project’s QDS guidelines.  
• Table of De-Identification Techniques  
• Generative AI Harvard-affiliated researchers should not enter data classified as confidential ( Level 2 and above ), including non-public research data, into publicly-available generative AI tools, in accordance with the University’s Information Security Policy. Information shared with generative AI tools using default settings is not private and could expose proprietary or sensitive information to unauthorized parties.  
• Harvard Information Security Quick Reference Guide Storage guidelines, based on the data's security classification level (according to its IRB classification) is displayed on page 2, under "handling."  
• Email Encryption Harvard Microsoft 365 users can now send encrypted messages and files directly from the Outlook web or desktop apps. Encrypting an email adds an extra layer of security to the message and its attachments (up to 150MB), and means only the intended recipient (and their inbox delegates with full access) can view it. Message encryption in Outlook is approved for sending high risk ( level 4 ) data and below.  

Sharing Qualitative Data:  

• Repositories for Qualitative Data If you have cleared this intention with your IRB, secured consent from participants, and properly de-identified your data, consider sharing your interviews in one of the data repositories included in the link above. Depending on the nature of your research and the level of risk it may present to participants, sharing your interview data may not be appropriate. If there is any chance that sharing such data will be desirable, you will be much better off if you build this expectation into your plans from the beginning.  
• Guide for Sharing Qualitative Data at ICPSR The Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) has created this resource for investigators planning to share qualitative data at ICPSR. This guide provides an overview of elements and considerations for archiving qualitative data, identifies steps for investigators to follow during the research life cycle to ensure that others can share and reuse qualitative data, and provides information about exemplars of qualitative data  

International Projects:

• Research Compliance Program for FAS/SEAS at Harvard The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), including the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), and the Office of the Vice Provost for Research (OVPR) have established a shared Research Compliance Program (RCP). An area of common concern for interview studies is international projects and collaboration . RCP is a resource to provide guidance on which international activities may be impacted by US sanctions on countries, individuals, or entities and whether licenses or other disclosure are required to ship or otherwise share items, technology, or data with foreign collaborators.

Finding Extant Interview Data

Finding journalistic interviews:  .

• Academic Search Premier This all-purpose database is great for finding articles from magazines and newspapers. In the Advanced Search, it allows you to specify "Document Type":  Interview.  
• Guide to Newspapers and Newspaper Indexes Use this guide created to Harvard Librarians to identify newspapers collections you'd like to search. To locate interviews, try adding the term  "interview"  to your search, or explore a database's search interface for options to  limit your search to interviews.  Nexis Uni  and  Factiva  are the two main databases for current news.   
• Listen Notes Search for podcast episodes at this podcast aggregator, and look for podcasts that include interviews. Make sure to vet the podcaster for accuracy and quality! (Listen Notes does not do much vetting.)  
• NPR  and  ProPublica  are two sites that offer high-quality long-form reporting, including journalistic interviews, for free.

Finding Oral History and Social Research Interviews:  

• To find oral histories, see the Oral History   page of this guide for helpful resources on Oral History interviewing.  
• Repositories for Qualitative Data It has not been a customary practice among qualitative researchers in the social sciences to share raw interview data, but some have made this data available in repositories, such as the ones listed on the page linked above. You may find published data from structured interview surveys (e.g., questionnaire-based computer-assisted telephone interview data), as well as some semi-structured and unstructured interviews.  
• If you are merely interested in studies interpreting data collected using interviews, rather than finding raw interview data, try databases like  PsycInfo ,  Sociological Abstracts , or  Anthropology Plus , among others. 

Finding Interviews in Archival Collections at Harvard Library:

In addition to the databases and search strategies mentioned under the  "Finding Oral History and Social Research Interviews" category above,  you may search for interviews and oral histories (whether in textual or audiovisual formats) held in archival collections at Harvard Library.

• HOLLIS searches all documented collections at Harvard, whereas HOLLIS for Archival Discovery searches only those with finding aids. Although HOLLIS for Archival Discovery covers less material, you may find it easier to parse your search results, especially when you wish to view results at the item level (within collections). Try these approaches:

Search in  HOLLIS :  

• To retrieve items available online, do an Advanced Search for  interview* OR "oral histor*" (in Subject), with Resource Type "Archives/Manuscripts," then refine your search by selecting "Online" under "Show Only" on the right of your initial result list.  Revise the search above by adding your topic in the Keywords or Subject field (for example:  African Americans ) and resubmitting the search.  
•  To enlarge your results set, you may also leave out the "Online" refinement; if you'd like to limit your search to a specific repository, try the technique of searching for  Code: Library + Collection on the "Advanced Search" page .   

Search in  HOLLIS for Archival Discovery :  

• To retrieve items available online, search for   interview* OR "oral histor*" limited to digital materials . Revise the search above by adding your topic (for example:  artist* ) in the second search box (if you don't see the box, click +).  
• To preview results by collection, search for  interview* OR "oral histor*" limited to collections . Revise the search above by adding your topic (for example:  artist* ) in the second search box (if you don't see the box, click +). Although this method does not allow you to isolate digitized content, you may find the refinement options on the right side of the screen (refine by repository, subject or names) helpful.  Once your select a given collection, you may search within it  (e.g., for your topic or the term interview).

UX & MARKET RESEARCH INTERVIEWS

Ux at harvard library  .

• User Experience and Market Research interviews can inform the design of tangible products and services through responsive, outcome-driven insights. The  User Research Center  at Harvard Library specializes in this kind of user-centered design, digital accessibility, and testing. They also offer guidance and  resources  to members of the Harvard Community who are interested in learning more about UX methods. Contact [email protected] or consult the URC website for more information.

Websites  

• User Interviews: The Beginner’s Guide (Chris Mears)  
• Interviewing Users (Jakob Nielsen)

Books  

• Interviewing Users: How to Uncover Compelling Insights by Steve Portigal; Grant McCracken (Foreword by)  Interviewing is a foundational user research tool that people assume they already possess. Everyone can ask questions, right? Unfortunately, that's not the case. Interviewing Users provides invaluable interviewing techniques and tools that enable you to conduct informative interviews with anyone. You'll move from simply gathering data to uncovering powerful insights about people.  
• Rapid Contextual Design by Jessamyn Wendell; Karen Holtzblatt; Shelley Wood  This handbook introduces Rapid CD, a fast-paced, adaptive form of Contextual Design. Rapid CD is a hands-on guide for anyone who needs practical guidance on how to use the Contextual Design process and adapt it to tactical projects with tight timelines and resources. Rapid Contextual Design provides detailed suggestions on structuring the project and customer interviews, conducting interviews, and running interpretation sessions. The handbook walks you step-by-step through organizing the data so you can see your key issues, along with visioning new solutions, storyboarding to work out the details, and paper prototype interviewing to iterate the design all with as little as a two-person team with only a few weeks to spare *Includes real project examples with actual customer data that illustrate how a CD project actually works.

Videos  

Instructional Presentations on Interview Skills  

• Interview/Oral History Research for RSRA 298B: Master's Thesis Reading and Research (Spring 2023) Slideshow covers: Why Interviews?, Getting Context, Engaging Participants, Conducting the Interview, The Interview Guide, Note Taking, Transcription, File management, and Data Analysis.  
• Interview Skills From an online class on February 13, 2023:  Get set up for interview research. You will leave prepared to choose among the three types of interviewing methods, equipped to develop an interview schedule, aware of data management options and their ethical implications, and knowledgeable of technologies you can use to record and transcribe your interviews. This workshop complements Intro to NVivo, a qualitative data analysis tool useful for coding interview data.

NIH Data Management & Sharing Policy (DMSP) This policy, effective January 25, 2023, applies to all research, funded or conducted in whole or in part by NIH, that results in the generation of  scientific data , including NIH-funded qualitative research. Click here to see some examples of how the DMSP policy has been applied in qualitative research studies featured in the 2021 Qualitative Data Management Plan (DMP) Competition . As a resource for the community, NIH has developed a resource for developing informed consent language in research studies where data and/or biospecimens will be stored and shared for future use. It is important to note that the DMS Policy does NOT require that informed consent obtained from research participants must allow for broad sharing and the future use of data (either with or without identifiable private information). See the FAQ for more information.

• << Previous: Remote Research & Virtual Fieldwork
• Next: Oral History >>

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

Ethical Issues in Research

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 05 March 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Juwel Rana 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Segufta Dilshad 2 &
• Md. Ali Ahsan 5  

343 Accesses

2 Citations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Bulmer M (1982) Social Research Ethics: An Examination of the Merits of Covert Participant Observation. Holmes & Meier Publishers

Google Scholar  

Butler I (2002) A Code of Ethics for Social Work and Social Care Research. Br J Soc Work [Internet]. 32(2):239–48. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/32.2.239

Fisher CB, Anushko AE (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods [Internet]. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; p. 95–109. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/the-sage-handbook-of-socialresearch-methods

Hill J, Wright LT (2001) A qualitative research agenda for small to medium-sized enterprises. Mark Intell Plan 19(6):432–443

Homan R (1991) The ethics of social research. Addison-Wesley Longman Limited

Israel M, Hay I (2006) Research ethics for social scientists. Sage

Kimmel AJ (1988) Ethics and values in applied social research. 1st ed. SAGE Publications Inc

Orb A, Eisenhauer L, Wynaden D (2001) Ethics in qualitative research. J Nurs Scholarsh 33(1):93–96

Principles of research ethics [Internet]. Lund Research Ltd. 2012 [cited 2020 Dec 15]. Available from: https://dissertation.laerd.com/principles-of-research-ethics.php

Robley LR (1995) The ethics of qualitative nursing research. J Prof Nurs 11(1):45–48

Wiles R, Charles V, Crow G, Heath S (2006) Researching researchers: lessons for research ethics. Qual Res. 6(3):283–99

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Health, School of Health and Life Sciences, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Juwel Rana & Segufta Dilshad

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA

Department of Research and Innovation, South Asia Institute for Social Transformation (SAIST), Dhaka, Bangladesh

Space and Environment Research Center (SERC), Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Md. Ali Ahsan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juwel Rana .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

Ali Farazmand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Rana, J., Dilshad, S., Ahsan, M.A. (2021). Ethical Issues in Research. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_462-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_462-1

Received : 01 February 2021

Accepted : 14 February 2021

Published : 05 March 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-31816-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-31816-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Economics and Finance Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 27 March 2024

Exploring health and disease concepts in healthcare practice: an empirical philosophy of medicine study

• Rik R. van der Linden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9642-3715 1 &
• Maartje H.N. Schermer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4283-9659 1  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  25 , Article number:  38 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

103 Accesses

Metrics details

In line with recent proposals for experimental philosophy and philosophy of science in practice, we propose that the philosophy of medicine could benefit from incorporating empirical research, just as bioethics has. In this paper, we therefore take first steps towards the development of an empirical philosophy of medicine, that includes investigating practical and moral dimensions. This qualitative study gives insight into the views and experiences of a group of various medical professionals and patient representatives regarding the conceptualization of health and disease concepts in practice and the possible problems that surround them. This includes clinical, epistemological, and ethical issues. We have conducted qualitative interviews with a broad range of participants ( n  = 17), working in various health-related disciplines, fields and organizations. From the interviews, we highlight several different practical functions of definitions of health and disease. Furthermore, we discuss 5 types of problematic situations that emerged from the interviews and analyze the underlying conceptual issues. By providing theoretical frameworks and conceptual tools, and by suggesting conceptual changes or adaptations, philosophers might be able to help solve some of these problems. This empirical-philosophical study contributes to a more pragmatic way of understanding the relevance of conceptualizing health and disease by connecting the participants’ views and experiences to the theoretical debate. Going back and forth between theory and practice will likely result in a more complex but hopefully also better and more fruitful understanding of health and disease concepts.

Peer Review reports

In the philosophy of medicine, scholars have primarily addressed ‘health’ and ‘disease’ as theoretical concepts without exploring their actual use in practice all too much. Yet, it has been argued that the way we conceptualize health and disease also affects the practical and moral dimension of medicine [ 1 , 2 ]. While many philosophers recognize the practical consequences of defining health and disease in certain ways, most still tend to depart from theory to determine how health and disease should be defined. In the traditional analytical debate, only limited attention has been paid to the ways in which these concepts are embedded in the various practices they are deployed in. In the medical-philosophical literature, the conceptual, epistemic and bioethical issues associated with proposed disease-definitions, such as medicalization and overdiagnosis, have been primarily addressed as theoretical problems, often lacking contextualization and empirical foundation. Consequently, it is often not clear to what extent such conceptual issues are in fact experienced as problematic in practice and for whom exactly this is a problem. While it is increasingly recognized that the traditional method of conceptual analysis is ill-equipped to answer the various normative, ontological and epistemological questions surrounding the conceptualization of health and disease [ 2 , 3 , 4 ], new philosophical perspectives and research methods have to yet to be explored.

In recent contributions to the debate, several promising proposals have been made for a new direction, in which health and disease are viewed as plural concepts that need to be specified [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Instead of formulating definitions on monistic grounds, it is proposed to continue the debate by philosophical explication [ 4 , 10 ], and by developing precising definitions [ 12 ]. This is important as concepts may serve various practical functions and are deployed in diverse contexts. As different practices may have different values, goals, and priorities, different types of definitions may be needed [ 7 ]. Moreover, we have recently suggested that we should assess the successfulness of concept definitions in relation to the function they serve in the context they are deployed in [ 5 ]. This shift towards a pragmatist stance requires scholars to look beyond theoretical arguments and to explore the various practical motivations of defining health and disease. Hence, when explicating concepts, it seems important to complement the theoretical debate by empirically studying the use of concepts in practice.

In contrast to the field of bioethics where empirical methods are commonly used to research attitudes, beliefs and perspectives of certain groups of people, empirical research is only seldomly conducted in philosophical studies on health, disease, and related concepts. Adding these methods to our philosophical toolbox enables us to investigate more closely how concepts of health and disease operate in medical practice and to explore what kind of problems occur in relation to them. We could use existing socio-empirical studies that, for example, investigate psychosocial and cultural aspects of certain diseases (e.g., see [ 13 ]), that review definitions and meanings of certain medical or bioethical concepts (e.g., see [ 14 , 15 ]), or that explore patients’ and professionals’ views towards certain research programs or medical developments (e.g., see [ 16 ]). Both quantative and qualitative methods can be useful, depending on the research question at stake. However, as we propose in this paper, besides making use of existing empirical literature, we can also conduct empirical philosophy of medicine studies that aim to explore philosophical questions head-on.

Referring to debates on empirical ethics, Seidlein & Salloch [ 17 ] recently argued that the reconciliation of perspectives in the philosophy of medicine and socio-empirical research will lead to a more nuanced discussion that includes experiences of patients. Drawing on Alexander Kon’s [ 18 ] pragmatic classification of empirical methods, they argue that this approach may be used to investigate current practices (‘Lay of the Land’), revealing differences between illness conceptions in different groups of people, or between notions of ‘disease’ and ‘illness’. Such studies may improve patient-centered and shared decision-making, as it becomes clearer ‘what’ should be treated (cf. [ 19 ]). In addition to this, we argue that studying the views, attitudes and beliefs of medical researchers, clinicians and other healthcare stakeholders, seems important for obtaining a better and wider understanding of how health and disease concepts are used in actual practice and why they are conceptualized in certain ways. This proposal for incorporating tools and methods of the social sciences in philosophical work on health and disease concepts resonates with calls for experimental philosophy of medicine Footnote 1 [ 20 , 21 ], and for more ‘philosophy of science in practice’ [ 22 , 23 ].

While there have not been many studies focused particularly on health and disease concepts in which empirical methods are used, some exceptions should be mentioned here. In Hofmann [ 24 ], physicians were presented a list of different conditions and were asked to classify them as disease or non-disease. Hofmann demonstrated that there are disparities between what physicians consider diseases. In Stronks et al. [ 25 ], lay people, randomly recruited on the streets, were asked to define what ‘health’ means to them. The study resulted in an extensive overview of different aspects of health and disease, categorized into multiple clusters, with interesting differences between socio-economic classes. In Kohne et al. [ 26 ], clinicians, patients, and clinicians who have been patients themselves, were interviewed to explore their ideas regarding the ontology of mental disorders. They observed that the ‘ontological palette’ is more diverse than is commonly perceived within the dominant scientific and educational discourse. In Van Heteren et al. [ 27 ], frontline professionals were interviewed to investigate their conceptions of health in clients with psychosocial problems. They observed that professionals define health in different ways but that they also accommodate for the views of their patients and to the broader context care is provided in.

As we understand health and disease concepts to be context-dependent, we believe it is important to investigate their function and problems arising in relation to them in various contexts. Regarding the methodology and the type of inquiry, our pragmatist approach encourages us to look for problematic situations . The term ‘problematic situations’ originates from the work of pragmatist John Dewey (see [ 28 ]), who argued that academic inquiry must always start with (solving) actual problems. Here, we will use the term problematic situation to describe as a situation in which current conceptions/definitions of health and disease are no longer sufficient for the continuation of a certain health care (related) practice, or the achievement of a goal of the specific practice that is at stake. Thus, besides mapping different health and disease conceptualizations, we primarily explore what kind of problematic situations are experienced in practice and investigate possible underlying conceptual issues. In doing so, we aim to further elucidate the philosophical debate on conceptualization of health and disease and give it more practical relevance. In this study we have therefore conducted qualitative interviews with a broad range of professionals and patient representatives, working in various health-related disciplines, fields and organizations. We chose qualitative methods because these are considered the most suitable for investigating new and underexplored areas.

Methodology

We have designed a qualitative interview study with professionals working in various fields and organizations. Interviews were conducted by RL. As the sample included a broad range of professionals and patient representatives, a one-size-fits-all approach was not considered to be useful. We used a semi-structured interview guide that could be adjusted and specified to each of the interviews. This structure allowed us to explore context specific problems in more detail and to respond more extensively to issues participants mentioned during the interviews. Examples of interview questions include (for the complete guide, see appendix): ‘How would you describe ‘health’ and ‘disease’ yourself?’; ‘Would colleagues in your field agree with your definitions?’; ‘Are there any specific problematic situations that you encounter in practice that are related to definitions of health and disease?’; ‘Do you see any solutions to such problematic situations or have there been solutions brought forward to solve these issues?’. From these broader, more abstract questions, the interview was subsequently narrowed down to more specific questions, in response to the answers given by the participants. The interviews were conducted digitally, via Microsoft Teams, and took 46 min on average (ranging from 37 to 57 min). Audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed verbatim.

Setting and recruitment

This study was conducted in The Netherlands. All participants were Dutch speaking and all were highly educated. All participants were selected following the principle of purposeful sampling. The reason for choosing for purposeful sampling was that we wanted to study definitions of disease and health in relation to actual problems arising in health-related practices. We recruited professionals who have spoken out in public or professionally about problems in relation to health and disease definitions and/or who work in fields/organizations that we considered to be interesting because we expected such issues to arise. Moreover, we aimed to cover a broad range of healthcare practices. The participants were recruited by e-mail.

Participants

The sample details a broad range of professionals ( n  = 17), including doctors, policy makers, representatives of patient organizations, humanities experts, and medical professionals working in various advisory boards and governmental organizations (see appendix for a specified overview of participants their expertise). All participants were Dutch speaking, highly educated and experienced professionals. The representatives of the patient organizations that we included were interviewed in their professional role and not as patients (if applicable). One of the interviews had to be excluded from analysis because the recording was unusable due to a technological error, bringing down the total number of transcripts from 17 to 16.

Data analysis

The data was analyzed using NVivo software (11th edition). The first interview reports and transcripts were discussed among RL and MS. Based on these discussions, RL made a first coding-scheme and discussed this with MS, which resulted in some adaptations. To reduce ‘tunnel vision’, transcripts were then analyzed and coded by RL and MS separately and compared afterwards. The interviews were analyzed in a way that may be best described as a method in between ‘grounded theory’ [ 29 ] and ‘directed content analysis’ [ 30 ]. That is, we did not build a conceptual scheme completely bottom-up as one would do with grounded theory. However, it was also not the case that we already had a solid theoretical framework at the start of the analysis which we would use to frame the issues discussed in the interviews, as is common in directed content analysis. We have taken the answers given by participants as a point of departure, exploring what their views are regarding the function of health and disease concepts, and exploring what kind of problematic situations they experience in practice. Sometimes, participants would already refer to specific theories, approaches or models themselves However, for other parts of the analysis, we have made use of distinctions and concepts from the academic literature to make sense of the many issues that were brought forward by participants. For instance, some issues mentioned by participants could be viewed as being practical examples of what is called a ‘line-drawing problem’ in the theoretical debate [ 10 , 31 ]. Such categories appeared useful for analyzing and interpreting the data but where not selected prior to the analysis.

Defining health and disease

In the interviews, respondents have pointed to various important practical functions of health and disease concepts. In some interviews the influence of certain definitions/approaches was explicitly articulated by participants. Participants talked about practical problems that they experienced and were often able to link these with how health and disease are conceptualized in their fields. For instance, some participants described specific models or definitions, such as the biopsychosocial model [ 32 , 33 , 34 ] and Positive Health [ 35 , 36 ] and talked about their significance for their professional fields. In other interviews, however, the link between conceptualizations of health and disease and practical issues was more implicit. Participants would, for example, speak more broadly about ‘biomedical’ and ‘holistic’ approaches, or discussed how thinking in terms of ‘evidence based medicine’ (EBM) could (negatively) affect clinical practice.

While some of the respondents mentioned that it would be convenient to have general, all-encompassing definitions, none of them thought it would be possible to formulate them in a way that they are exhaustive and practically useful at the same time. Instead, in some interviews, viewing health and disease as plural concepts was discussed as being a possible alternative. HD01, says in this regard:

I’m not saying that one type of concept is primary or more legitimate than the other. But if you are talking about a health concept for the use in scientific research, then I would argue for a concept that is more clearly defined. If you’re talking about how people experience things or use, for example laymen, you could be talking about a simpler concept. And I think those things can coexist just fine.

At the same time, other participants were more hesitant when discussing the possibility of having multiple definitions of health and disease. Concerns were raised that such a situation may lead to problems of communication between institutions, (medical) disciplines, but possibly also between doctor and patient. As defining health and disease was viewed by many to be important to facilitate communication, for some participants it also seemed to be problematic to have a plurality of definitions. Furthermore, some participants would also critically question the endeavor of defining health and disease, questioning the goal of defining concepts itself. In several interviews, defining health and disease is described as a continuous process of reflection and adjustment, rather than a pursuit of finding ultimate answers. One participant, HD02, describes that how we define our concepts always have an effect on practice:

I think that every description is functional, in the sense that it always has an effect. Words aren’t neutral so it’s not- I don’t believe in that correspondence theory of there being something in reality that you just have to put the right term on. A word always does something. And I think that’s what it’s more about, so when use a certain view of health, for example, the absence of diagnosis. Then it is important to see, what effect does that have? Who or what is excluded? Or who benefits from this? Who gets worse from this?

Health and disease concepts in practice

One of the key aims of this study was to explore how health and disease are conceptualized, defined or approached, in actual practice. In particular, we were interested what kind of practical functions health and disease concepts have in various contexts. In our analysis of the interviews, we observed that respondents discuss different types of health and disease concepts, working on different levels and as used for various kinds of purposes. If we look at the different type of functions and contexts the concepts are deployed in, and the levels on which they ‘operate’, an interesting picture emerges. We have categorized them broadly into three types of practical functions: (1) a ‘strategic, political and policy-making function’, (2) an ‘institutional and social function’, and (3), ‘guiding clinical practice and medical research’.

Strategic, political and policy-making function

In the context of strategic development, political debates and higher-order policy-making, definitions of health and disease can stay relatively broad and vague. Their function is not, for example, to give clinicians clear thresholds for line-drawing between the normal and pathological. Rather, their function is to steer public health policy, to change current practice within a healthcare organization, or to facilitate cooperation between organizations and institutions. Within this context, health and disease concepts do not need to have the analytical or explanatory power as may be needed in, for example, medical research or clinical practice. The definitions at stake may be demanding and idealistic, as they are used for questioning and/or changing the current state of affairs. Participant HD09 says in this regard:

If you want to explain to a politician why we are going to deploy all kinds of healthcare resources that are not directly focused physically, somatically, then you have to be able to explain it in clearly defined goals, objectives, and health definitions. And in that sense, it is of course also very important for the WHO to adjust such a definition. Because that changes your entire health policy worldwide. For example, it has an effect on what you use for prevention, but it also has an effect on what you use for treatment.

Embedded in these (inter)national discussions on definitions, goals and policies, we may find related discussions in the context of policy on local or organizational levels. Participant HD03 explains why defining health and disease concepts are considered to be important for organizational strategy and policy-making within healthcare organizations:

In the academic hospitals, we are primarily using a biomedical approach towards disease. At the same time, we have the ambition to expand to preventive medicine and to strive for positive health, public health, global health, that are all approaches of health. However, as an academic hospital you are only specialized in thinking about disease in biomedical terms.’’ … “So that’s the problem. If you make a strategy, what are you going to focus on? And so, what I say is, the wish is to focus on prevention, public health, global health and to look more broadly at health and disease.

Although broad and vague definitions may be used successfully for the purpose of guiding or changing policy, more concrete definitions may be needed in other contexts and for other purposes.

Institutional and social function

Another practical function that participants ascribed to the disease concept, and more concretely, to medical diagnosis, is a ‘gatekeeper function’ for issues regarding assessing eligibility for reimbursement of treatment and other healthcare arrangements. Examples mentioned by participants include debates on the legitimacy of viewing clinical conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and chronic pain disorders as ‘genuine diseases’. What we consider to be diseases may therefore also be viewed to be a social and political agreement, some argue. Participant HD05 explains why ‘disease’ could be viewed as an institutional concept:

Who will be reimbursed for their medical treatment? That is decided on a political level.’’ … ‘‘And you can say that, at some point you have to say that someone has a disease, within the framework of a certain law, because that is how it has been agreed upon. And that is an institutional fact, because that is what has been agreed upon by various authorities.

What our institutions acknowledge as ‘genuine diseases’ does not only have impact within the medical realm, but also plays an important role in societal and personal debates. What we define as disease has also a social function. It creates a situation in which others take care of you as a patient, but it can also excuse responsibility from social tasks and duties, for example. In this regard, HD09 says the following:

And no matter how you look at it, sickness creates privileges. Because if you’re sick, people will bring you breakfast in bed, or not if you’re vomiting. And then you get get-well cards, people send flowers and you get time off. Then you are very pathetic and that comes with all kinds of perks. And I’m not saying that people get sick on purpose because of the perks, but that is an automatic consequence. Because my demented patients don’t get get-well cards and flowers and breakfast in bed at all, they are looked at strangely in the supermarket. And patients with psychiatric disorders, well, let’s say… they are usually not the most popular. And that has to do with the fact that we, I think, as a society have determined that being sick has to do with physical ailments…. There’s a discrepancy there. Physically ill: pathetic, perks. Not visibly ill: poser, difficult, hassle, hassle, hassle. That stings.

Guiding clinical practice and medical research

In a clinical context, health and disease can be approached in different ways depending on the type and level of care that is provided. For example, in emergency situations a medical doctor needs to focus on the direct biological problem, but when the patient is in a recovery phase they may have to ‘switch’ and take psychological and social aspects more into account. When caring for a patient suffering from a chronic condition a medical doctor may want to focus on aspects such as resilience and adaptation, and supporting the patient in what they consider to be meaningful. By going through these levels of care, health and disease may be approached differently. Here, HD06 explains this process of ‘shifting’ between models:

Of course, healthcare is very broad. The trauma surgeon and the emergency room doctor who provide acute care for a trauma patient, they are mainly focused on the biomedical model, their A, B, C, D, E, breathing, blood pressure, circulation, you name it. But then you end up in a rehabilitation process in which the biopsychosocial model is used. And then you come to an occupational doctor and an insurance doctor where I think it is very important to also use that model of Positive Health. Because there- Well, we see that with trauma patients too. In our research, independent of the seriousness of the injury, impediments to the ability to function were actually caused by all sorts of personal factors. So, you have to support people in finding their own direction and adaptability.

While taking account for ‘personal’ factors such as adaptability (or resilience) and societal participation may be of relevance for the treatment and revalidation of patients, and thus could be considered as being part of ‘health’, in context of medical research such factors are usually separated from health and disease outcomes and viewed as determinants instead. This allows researchers to measure causal relations between factors such as societal participation and health in a better way. Taking all kinds of (intra)personal and societal factors as being part of the health concept may result in problems for causal explanations in scientific research. Participant HD01 says the following regarding this tension:

The moment you use a broad concept of health, in which all these things are lumped together, you risk that the causality is not actually clear. So, in that sense, I’d like to stick to defining health as biomedical and mental functioning. And I would like to keep those other factors in their own place. And then you can look much better at, what causes what? Or how are things connected?

Problematic situations in practice

A second key aim of this study was to ask participants if they did experience problematic situations in practice that are caused by or related to conceptual issues. In the interviews, a large variety of problematic situations were discussed, including various clinical, epistemological, and ethical issues. Some participants described more abstract problems such as ‘medicalization’ or ‘healthism’ in a broad sense, while others described more concrete issues, such as social or bureaucratic problems in case of patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). Because of the diversity of participants included in our study (i.e., people working in different fields and organizations), the answers to our questions were also diverse and related to their particular context. We have clustered the problematic situations which were brought up in the interviews into 5 types:

1) Illness without identifiable pathology

2) Biomedical versus holistic approaches

3) Line-drawing and threshold problems

4) Problems with translational medicine: from research to the clinic

5) Communication problems

Illness without identifiable pathology

One issue that was discussed in several interviews is the problem of patients suffering from illness without identifiable pathology (or, ‘disease’). This includes patients suffering from ME/CFS, functional neurological disorders, chronic pain disorders, and other conditions that are often described under the umbrella term ‘medically unexplained symptoms’ (MUS). As illness is often viewed to be secondary to disease, and as it is commonplace to think that in order to overcome the illness, one has to cure the underlying disease, it seems only logical to search for the causing pathology. However, in many cases this search does not lead to a clearcut answer. As a result of this, unfortunately, the suffering of the patient is sometimes not taken seriously by medical professionals.

Besides being taken serious by medical professionals and getting the care they need, patients suffering from illness without known pathology may also encounter other type of problems. For example, for patients who cannot work due to illness a medical diagnosis is a necessary criterium to be met for being excused from work and to gain access to certain social and financial resources Footnote 2 . HD07 explains the institutional aspect of medical diagnosis:

Well, in this sense, we are dealing with legal frameworks. The law prescribes that to be able to claim a sickness benefit, one must be diagnosed with a disease. If it stops there, then we do not need to test those other two criteria. And sometimes you will find yourself in a gray area. Because yes, for example, I am also thinking about an example that I have. Social problems can also often lead to dysfunction. In the case of a social problem, there is not by definition disease, but can become one. And we often have to deal with those kinds of dilemmas, that if you see someone with informal care, with a financial problem, just to name a few- Those people who are walking on eggshells at a given moment when they come to us. We establish that, legally, there is no disease. But it might turn into disease.

In line with the situation sketched by HD07, HD15 argues that this problem of not getting recognized by our institutions as having a genuine disease, is a terrible experience for patients. HD15 explains that this in matter of fact urges their organization, a patient organization, to ‘medicalize’ the condition:

Then it will get very bad for them. Because people have a disease on the one hand, on the other hand, they always have to prove that they have it, and then there is also a financial need. So, that’s really the crux of the story. And, of course, we try with our work to make it clear as much as possible, that it is a progressive, biological condition, biomedical condition and that just needs research.

On the other hand, negative aspects of medicalization were also mentioned throughout the interviews. Participant HD14 mentions that including a condition in the ICD should be done with precaution:

The bottom line is that I’m a huge proponent of including pain in the ICD-11, the way as it is now. But I also see that there, I also see that in that balance of those arguments, there are, well, let’s just call it dangers. And that is that you do indeed have things that are normal part of life, which we are going to call disease. And that medical procedures are set up by people, who say, ‘hey, come to me, because I can solve it’. And that is, we have to be very careful about that, in communication, on the one hand to recognize that pain that is there, et cetera, and to take it seriously and with all the benefits that entails. But at the same time to ensure that we do not make it too medical where it is not desired.

In the interviews, many participants argue that, in clinical practice, the illness-experience of the patient is most important and deserves recognition. HD08 argues:

I think a disease is largely about the experience of the patient. And again, of course there is a biological construct underneath, but not always, eh. There are also people with a disease without a biological construct. And just to say, those people are not sick, I think that is far too short-sighted.’’ …. ‘‘We relatively often see people with a functional disorder, something that used to be called conversion or functional neurological symptoms. Those people can suffer a lot from this, but there is no biologically identifiable cause. And I think you shouldn’t dismiss those people as posers or say, you have nothing. No, they do have something and they do suffer from it and that leads to hindrance in daily life. So, I think you can speak of disease.

Biomedical versus holistic approaches

A broader issue that came up in many of the interviews is one that may be best described as problems that are due to biomedical versus holistic approaches towards health and disease. Participants discussed that focusing treatment primarily on a biomedical parameter while paying less attention to the experience of the patient as a whole can be problematic for providing good clinical care. That is, patients may be treated for their medical condition without taking sufficient account of their personal circumstances and/or life goals. Participant HD11 said in this regard:

Of course, you can approach disease in many different ways. If you approach it cell-chemically, so to speak, disease is what damages, or attacks, or if you will, the biochemical integrity of your cell. But if you look from a patient’s perspective, or from a doctor’s perspective, then a disease is something that hurts, bothers, hinders that patient. And the perspective of the patient, but also the approach of society, of course, plays a very important role in this.

In some cases, the emphasis on the biomedical paradigm may even lead to instances of ‘treating’ biomarkers that may not have a clear clinical significance. HD11, discussing the implications of the new drug (aducanumab) for Alzheimer’s Disease, explains that:

The bottom line is, there is a new drug that, if you look at the cellular level, biochemical level, it absolutely does something. It does something to the proteins in your brain, period. However, if you look at the clinical effect on the patient, and what it can do for the patient, it does nothing. Patients don’t improve, we have no improvement, cognition does not improve, general daily activities neither, nothing. The FDA has approved it on the grounds that, despite the fact that it doesn’t do anything clinically, biochemically the evidence is so clear that it does something, it’s bound to do something clinically. While it just doesn’t.

Yet, also in cases where a biomedical treatment has proven to be clinically effective, it could be nevertheless problematic to forget about the patient’s personal circumstances. Sometimes it may be more important to help people with psychosocial issues, for example, than to direct attention to the medical problem. Participant HD10 discusses person-centered care for diabetes patients and argues that taking care of the patient - improving their health - includes more than treating the disease biomedically:

That also touches on the need for person-centered care, - that the care providers really can actually see from the patient’s eyes which approach they should take. Do they really have to focus on that disorder or do they indeed have to focus on the social realm?

Another related problem that was mentioned in the interviews is that of prioritizing biomedical diagnosis over other holistic aspects when assessing the prognosis. Although the diagnosis may give important information regarding the development of a disease and about chances for successful treatment, other non-medical factors may have an underestimated influence on the prognosis as well. In some instances, psychosocial aspects may even show a stronger correlation with prognosis and treatment than the medical diagnosis does, participant HD04 says in this regard:

The classic assumption is very much like, if you know a diagnosis, then you know the prognosis and then you know whether or not you need to do something to influence that prognosis. Whether or not you can do something to influence that prognosis. And what we are gradually noticing is that that prognosis may well be determined by many other factors and that the diagnosis is only a small part of it and therefore only partly determines what the prognosis is. The prognosis is also determined by all kinds of other factors. other variables, to put it in scientific terms.

According to HD04, it is common for medical professionals to focus too much on biomedical diagnosis and to underestimate the influence of ‘non-medical’ variables on the prognosis and the well-being of patients – which, she beliefs, should be the ultimate aim. This does not only go for patients with medical unexplained symptoms, for which finding the right diagnosis is considered to be very difficult. Also for diseases that can be diagnosed straightforwardly there seems to exist a disparity between a biomedical view of disease and more holistic ones. HD04 gives the following example:

Examples abound. People with rheumatoid arthritis, we can diagnose rheumatoid arthritis fairly well with lab tests, with clinical tests, with imaging tests. We have criteria, you can always argue about that, but we generally agree on that. And then we also have a measure of the disease activity. So, if you have a very high sedimentation rate, then you have a high disease activity, for example. And if you then look at the severity of the complaints and the disability that people have and relate that to disease activity, then that is not a nice linear relationship. So, then there are people with, if you would look at it as a rheumatologist, as a doctor, if you look at it as a doctor, then well, that disease is just well under control, hardly swollen joints, no increased sedimentation rate, goes well, but in fact people suffer very much.

Line-drawing and treatment threshold problems

In the interviews, problems with drawing the lines between states of health, disease, or ‘being at-risk’, and problems with determining the right thresholds for starting medical interventions, were considered important reasons for having clear definitions. Having clear cut-offs for diagnosing disease and for starting treatment is seen as convenient for clinical practice. Participants expressed a desire to have objective measures to decide whether we are talking about disease, and when to start treatment. Yet, they were also highly doubtful if such clear lines could be drawn. On the one hand, they said diagnostic tests are used to examine if a patient deviates from the (objective, biomedical) norm. On the other hand, participants also argued that patients’ symptoms should be viewed as central to drawing the line. This also seems to be problematic, however, as patients may sometimes deviate from the norm but do not experience symptoms, or vice versa, patients may experience symptoms but test results do not show significant abnormalities. HD08 talks about the challenges of the line-drawing problem for clinical-decision making:

Of course, it is difficult, because doctors like to work neatly, like to work according to scientific evidence, like to work according to guidelines. And a guideline only works well if you can make hard statements, otherwise you have a guideline that says about everything: you ‘may consider this’. And yes, that is how guidelines end relatively often, but then it is not very useful in practice, because you want such a guideline to guide you. And the surgeon, just to name one, who wants to determine whether he should operate. And it’s easy if that just has a cut-off point that says, you have to operate above 23 and not below, just to name something. So, whenever there’s a big gray area, it’s complicated and leads to subjectivity and also different doctors making different decisions.

This was also discussed in relation to prevention, when patients are ‘treated’ with medication to prevent future disease(s) while they do not experience symptoms at that point of time. In particular, participants pointed to the lowering of diagnostic and treatment standards for risk-factors such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol as examples in which it is difficult to draw the line. Participant HD09, who reflect on this problem, says the following:

But you can get quit some muscle cramps from cholesterol lowering drugs. Yes, so it may be that he has one in twenty, one in thirty less chance of that stroke, but in the meantime, he is no longer able to walk down the stairs and do his own shopping because of those muscle complaints and perhaps even take a fall. Well, and it’s not the case that everyone has muscle problems, so for the people who don’t get this it might be the best treatment. That is the way you have to look at it. And also evaluate, eh, and that’s about when you start something, you have to follow up what it does to someone, even if someone has been using it for some time, because that can change.

When participants were asked if they could identify reasons for this trend of lowering diagnostic and treatment thresholds, some suggest that cultural values and norms play an important role. Not only there is an increasing societal pressure on living a healthy life, health is also increasingly viewed as a moral good. It is this normative shift, in combination with ever growing technological possibilities, that is suggested to lead medicine to focusing on early detection and treatment of health risks more and more – even if chances of developing actual diseases are expected to be low. Patients may desire more diagnostic testing or more frequent health check-ups and medical professionals may feel obliged to grant their requests, since the technology is available. This is not without consequences, however. HD11, for example, explains that excessive diagnostic testing may lead to overdiagnosis. In particular, ‘incidental findings’ Footnote 3 are considered to be a problematic situation:

And that is, I think, also an ethical dilemma that doctors have, because then you find something and what do I do now? They have no complaints at the moment, so I don’t really have to do something with it now. But imagine that it is cancer, and in four months they will come in with metastatic disease, and then I could have prevented that. That’s difficult. And then the technology renders it unlikely that such a patient says, never mind, we’ll see how things will go. Because everyone says oh, yes, if something can be done about it, then let’s do that scan, then do that biopsy, then do that incredibly complicated procedure.

Incidental findings may be clear instances of pathology, and in these cases, it may be regarded as fortunate that the patient can be treated for a disease that may otherwise have gone undetected until it was too late. However, in other cases incidental findings may be benign deviations or anomalies and it is questionable if the patient will benefit from further diagnostic testing and/or medical intervening, as it is not clear if the anomaly will ever lead to clinical symptoms. Again, this begs the question where to draw the line between normal and abnormal, between health and disease.

Problems with translational medicine: from research to the clinic, and beyond

In the interviews, some participants also discussed problems regarding translating medical scientific findings from a research context into clinical practice. One approach that was mentioned by participants as particularly problematic was ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EMB) Footnote 4 . While medical professionals may be aware of the different aims and goals of medical research versus clinical medicine, and of the problems surrounding EBM, they may feel bounded by institutional agreements and regulations. For example, insurers may only reimburse treatments that are proven to be effective according to standards of EBM and therefore may not sufficiently allow for tailoring treatment to the personal needs of the patient. HD09 explains how the broad implementation of the EBM style of reasoning, from research to the clinic and beyond, to institutional arrangements, is not without danger:

Evidence-based medicine, with its mono-focus thinking, traditionally, it’s fortunately changing, can also bring real dangers, because what you see is that politics and insurers are very much steering policy and reimbursing on the basis of guideline indicators.

HD13 goes even a step further by provocatively referring to EBM as ‘pharmaceutical-based medicine’. He argues that medical professionals are restricted by the rules and regulations of the healthcare institutions such as the National Healthcare Institute (‘Zorginstituut’), which require treatments to be ‘evidence-based’ before they can be considered eligible for reimbursement. As a result, HD13 claims, we end up with suboptimal medical treatments:

The entire ‘pharmaceutical-based medicine’ is currently ‘the’ steering element of the National Healthcare Institute and of affordable care in the Netherlands, of reimbursed care. And it’s not the best treatment that gets reimbursed, but the treatment that has been the most researched; not the one with the best outcomes.

Another problem that was particularly mentioned in the interviews was that of generalizing medical knowledge from the research context to the clinical context. As diseases and their treatments are commonly researched in study populations that do not represent patient populations in clinical practice - e.g., age range between 18 and 50, mostly Western, male subjects, having only one disease instead of several - a rather homogenous picture of specific disease entities with specific treatments is generated that often does not match the heterogeneous reality in clinical practice. Moreover, while medical research is often focused on curing a disease, or at least reducing its symptoms, patients may in fact have different goals and wishes that need a different approach. Participant HD09 argues that the goals of medical research do not always match the goals of clinical medicine:

So, the average patient in a trial is a middle-aged man. The average user, who is treated according to the guideline based on those trials, is an old woman or one who has more medical conditions and uses several medications. And then it is also the case that those trials are aimed at preventing a new event or surviving. And, for example, not having a second heart attack, not having a stroke. Well, those may be things that are important to someone, but I just said that is often not the most important thing. Those people are not all at about living longer, they care about function preservation. And then it can still be important to prevent that stroke, but then you really have to look at it in a different way.

Especially in case of (chronic) multimorbidity, in which patients suffer from multiple diseases at the same time and also use multiple medications, it can become questionable what is treated, exactly. A set of separate diseases, or the combined physiological effects and symptoms of a multitude of underlying pathologies, or even of the medications used? As a consequence, ‘evidence-based’ treatment protocols could potentially harm patient populations that do not fit the assumptions on which the treatment is found to be efficacious. Furthermore, diseases and also the medications that are used may interact, resulting in a clinical picture that is very different from what is expected. We might describe this situation as one that is epistemologically opaque : it seems to get very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish cause and effect. HD09 explains:

And then the question is whether it will work the same way with that woman with all those old age conditions compared to what happened with that fifty-year-old man. So, it probably reacts differently as well. It reacts differently, because there are multiple diseases, interaction with disease. And it reacts differently because there are a whole lot more medications, interacting with medication. And it reacts differently because the body is different.

So, while medical research tries to reduce complexity and look into single homogenous diseases and patient groups, in clinical practice disease often manifests very differently.

Communication problems

While participants were generally doubtful about arriving at univocal and all-encompassing definitions of health and disease and favored the idea of conceptual pluralism, some participants also expressed concerns with regard to communication. If we all use different definitions or different health and disease concepts, how do we know we are still speaking of the same thing? As clear-cut definitions are often desired precisely for the purpose of solving ongoing problematic situations in medicine, it may seem paradoxical to accept conceptual pluralism. In practice, having multiple ways to understand a disease can lead to communication problems, participants fear. For example, when medical specialists’ views differ so significantly that they almost literally speak about different diseases, it is questionable if they are still able to sufficiently communicate with each other and their patients.

In an interview with HD08, opposing views on Alzheimer’s Disease among medical specialists were discussed. Alzheimer’s Disease was originally diagnosed on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms, but in recent years a part of the neurologist community has switched to prioritizing biomarker testing (i.e., primarily the presence of beta-amyloid) over clinical presentation. However, the problem is that the group of patients with positive biomarker tests do not completely match the group of patients who get symptoms. Therefore, changing the way of diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease in patients also seem to imply changing the definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Hence, it becomes unclear if medical specialists are still discussing the ‘same’ disease. HD08 says the following about the opposing views:

Well, I think there’s- You could almost say, it’s kind of a clash of civilizations. You have the people who just want a hardcore biological substrate and then have little regard for other aspects. And you have people who say yes, maybe it is not possible to classify it exactly into careful categories, let’s also take into account the less ‘hard’, less definable aspects that are important for the functioning of a patient.

While acknowledging the challenges and pitfalls that come with speaking different ‘medical languages’, at the same time, participants also see benefits of having different approaches towards health and disease. Some of them note that we already are using different languages, scientific explanations and medical classifications, and that this could be viewed as something valuable. In a combined interview with HD13 and HD14, HD14 discusses the different classification systems that are being used for chronic pain patients among different (para)medical professionals:

No, I think you should cherish that, because an anesthesiologist can do things that a rehabilitation doctor cannot do, and vice versa. So, you really have to use each other for that and that also applies to all those other medical specialists and paramedical specialists. So that in itself is not a big deal. What- Or rather, that’s very functional, that’s excellent. At the same time, we must speak each other’s language and that must be the same language with each other, but we must certainly not forget the patient. And, because the patient must also be at the center of our interprofessional communication. And, but also the wishes and needs of the patient. So, if HD13 says ‘I’m good at ICD’, and I’m good at ICF, to put it very bluntly, that’s not going to work. I need to know about ICD, enough to talk to HD13. And HD13 needs to know about ICF, enough to talk with me. But really, we should all be able to know enough to be able to talk to the patient properly.

Thus, interestingly, the suffering of one patient could be classified in several different ways, depending on the classification system that is used. While recognizing the challenges this brings for medical professionals, HD13 and HD14 also see the benefits of looking through different lenses – as long there is sufficient common ground to communicate with each other and the patient. So, concepts of health and disease seems to be approached differently at different levels of care (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary lines of healthcare) and between different types of (para)medical professionals. The situation as sketched by HD13 and HD14 seems evident for healthcare as arranged in The Netherlands, where various classification systems are indeed being used in different levels and types of healthcare practices Footnote 5 . Every classification system has its strengths and weaknesses. An ongoing challenge seems to lie in being able to sufficiently understand each other’s ‘medical language’.

Philosophers can contribute to medicine by exploring, analyzing and articulating conceptual issues. However, as we take health and disease concepts to be context-dependent, it is crucial to study their meaning in context. Building on recent proposals for a pragmatist understanding of health and disease that embraces conceptual pluralism, investigating different perspectives is very important. As Veit argues: “Questions such as how medical practitioners see, use, and evaluate concepts like health, pathology, and disease are important to the philosophy of medicine. Yet, these questions cannot be answered through introspection alone. They require investigative empirical methods” [ 21 ] (p.183). In similar vein, Seidlein & Salloch [ 17 ] argue that empirical methods can be used to gain better understanding of the complex relationship between illness and disease, by reflecting upon patient and professional perspectives. Including qualitative methods and other types of empirical research to our toolbox can bring theory and practice closer together and stimulate new medical-philosophical and bioethical explorations.

The current study differs from previous empirical studies [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ], in that it was specifically focused on exploring how health and disease concepts have a function in practice and how they may lead to problematic situations . The existing studies have already shown a palette of different conceptualizations, but did not interpret these in terms of their practical function and role in problematic situations. In our interviews, various important practical functions of health and disease concepts were discussed and our participants suggest that different contexts and purposes may require different types of definitions. We agree with Veit that finding such a lack of consensus and a pluralism of concepts and functions, strengthens the case against conceptual monism, and favors positions that “relativise the concept to human interests and cultural dynamics’’ [ 21 ] (p.178). Indeed, our study reveals that “the notion [of disease] serves a variety of purposes that perhaps cannot be accomplished using a single concept” [ 21 ] (p.180).

However, the plurality of functions and the definitions that are used to serve them, may not always be compatible with each other. A broad concept definition of health may work, for example, to steer healthcare policy in a certain direction on a political or organizational level, but may cause problems when it must be implemented in a research setting. Of course, different functions and definitions do not exist in a vacuum but also interact. Moreover, as is evident from the interviews, although the plurality of definitions may sometimes be problematic for reasons of communication, it is also a reality. Therefore, it may be more fruitful to acknowledge this and to elucidate and explain the differences; this may actually enhance communication and understanding across domains.

In this article, we have highlighted 5 types of problematic situations that were discussed in the interviews and that can be related to the conceptualization of health and disease. Some problems are already recognized in the medical-philosophical literature, such as problem of line-drawing. Others may offer new starting points for medical-philosophical and bioethical inquiry. Philosophy of medicine might help to analyze and elucidate the conceptual components of these problems and come up with suggestions of how conceptual work might help to find solutions. For example, the work that has already been done by Rogers and Walker [ 12 , 31 ] regarding the line-drawing problem might be useful for medical practitioners and medical guideline developers. They propose using context specific précising definitions that serve to prevent overdiagnosis; such an approach may also be useful to help solve the line-drawing and treatment threshold problems, and the risks of over or undertreatment, that we encountered in this study.

Furthermore, tensions between biomedical and holistic approaches of health and disease – that have led to major debates in the philosophy of medicine and has important ethical implications – were also described by participants as problematic in practice. However, there was also a hint of a solution in the interviews. As one participant explained, different contexts may benefit from different approaches. Strictly biomedical definitions may be more useful for the emergency care doctor while during rehabilitation a holistic normative biopsychosocial model is considered more helpful. Footnote 6 This idea is in line with the proposal by Haverkamp et al. [ 7 ], to consider using concepts that fit best with the purposes and values of a specific healthcare practice. Some of the problematic situations described in the interviews may also give new input for investigating these purposes and values in different contexts. For example, the changing conceptualization of Alzheimer’s disease and the use of biomarker diagnostic testing, that was mentioned in the interviews, is a current topic of medical-philosophical and bioethical debate (e.g., see [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]).

Another role for philosophy can be to help healthcare professionals and policy makers to better understand how some of their problematic situations arise. For example, some of the issues we identified could be understood in terms of a disconnect between the three spheres of the conceptual triad of ‘disease, illness and sickness’, as originally presented by Twaddle [ 46 ] and as later updated by Hofmann [ 47 ]. As Hofmann already noted, cases of non-health are generally considered to be less controversial when two or three of the spheres align. However, when only one or two of the are deemed applicable to a certain condition, it becomes epistemically and normatively challenging [ 47 ]. This conceptual triad may help patients, healthcare professionals and policymakers to better understand issues around the problem of medically unexplained symptoms, also in relation to the institutional and social function of the disease concept. At this point, it may also be significant to note that in the Dutch language, in which the interviews were conducted, the distinction between disease, illness and sickness is not available. A single word, ‘ziek’ or ziekte’, is used to cover all three notions, making the conceptual confusion perhaps even more salient than in the English-speaking community.

Some of the problematic situations that we have described may, at first glance, be viewed as practical problems with only little conceptual basis. For example, when discussing disease as an institutional and social concept, and describing problems that patients who suffer from medically unexplained symptoms may face (e.g., problems with accessing certain healthcare resources, or social and financial arrangements), one might question to what extent this is a problem with the conceptualization of disease.

One might argue, as Hesslow [ 48 ] did, that we have been misled by the idea that we need a concept of disease to make normative decisions on clinical, moral or socially important issues. However, from a pragmatist perspective, the theoretical, practical and normative dimensions of concepts are inherently related. As De Vreese argues: ‘‘it seems undeniable that the health/disease distinctions made on the basis of tacit understandings of the disease notion do play an important role in the background of health care-related research and decision-making processes (clinical, moral, legal, social, or otherwise), which might have important consequences in practice’’ [ 6 ] (p.429). Starting from this observation, we might consider adapting our concepts to better fit the social and institutional arrangements (cf. [ 49 , 50 ]). or we might propose better concepts or criteria to base these decisions on (e.g., see [ 51 ]). Both seem to be pre-eminently tasks for philosophers and ethicists to pursue. Additionally, empirical studies may help to further explore these ‘tacit understandings of the disease notion’ and investigate what these ‘important consequences in practice’ entail, as starting points for further philosophical and ethical reflection.

Limitations

As is common for qualitative research, results cannot be generalized and results may not represent the views, attitudes and beliefs of the whole community of medical professionals or patient organizations. As the sample of this study is relatively small and consisted of a broad range of professionals, the findings should be viewed as starting points for further investigation, not definitive answers. Moreover, as indicated in the methods section, the sample consisted of a group of highly educated and experienced professionals. Although there were good reasons to select them, it is important to remark that as a consequence, we did not study the views and experiences of other, more ‘ordinary’ healthcare workers and patients. Also, we did not include the views of different nationalities, cultures, and/or for example less educated or marginalized people. Indeed, we should ask: ‘who are the rightful owners of the concepts disease, illness and sickness’ [ 9 ]? If we view health and disease as plural concepts then an empirical philosophy of medicine should do justice to this plurality by including the views and experiences of these groups as well. Future studies may focus on investigating more specific groups (e.g., a specific medical specialist field or certain group of patients) and/or institutional contexts.

Furthermore, as we have learned from discussions on the empirical turn in medical ethics [ 52 ], one should be careful and considerate when making normative claims on basis of empirical data. However, given the explorative character of this study, this is not deemed a significant problem. Our aim was to explore the range of views regarding health and disease concepts, and the existence of problematic situations related to health and disease concepts, not to give an exhaustive or quantitative overview of such concepts and situations. Furthermore, in qualitative research, it is generally acknowledged that the researcher is not merely a ‘neutral observer’ but also an actor who actively engages with participants in the research process, and thus, is part of the data that is generated [ 53 ]. In this study in particular, with its aim of exploring how health and disease concepts function in practice and examining whether they could lead to problems, the interview guide was drafted from a specific theoretical angle. Moreover, the interviews were analyzed with existing theoretical discussions and frameworks in the back of our minds. By being open and reflexive about this process, and by making our interpretations as transparent as possible, we hope to have gained sufficient rigor.

The traditional debate on health and disease concepts commonly departs from theory rather than from practice. In line with recent calls for experimental philosophy of medicine and empirical philosophy of science, we suggest that theoretical work could benefit from incorporating empirical research. In this qualitative interview study, we have examined the relevance and significance of health and disease concepts, as experienced by participants in various healthcare practices. We found that there are three types of functions that health and disease concepts serve in practice: (1) ‘Strategic development, politics and policy-making’, (2) ‘Institutional and social function’, and (3), ‘Guiding clinical practice and medical research’. Being aware of these different purposes may prevent bluntly using concepts beyond their functional scope. We also explored what kind of difficulties participants experienced in relation to the conceptualization of health and disease in practice, and found five main types of problematic situations: (1) Illness without identifiable pathology, (2) Biomedical versus holistic approaches, (3) Line-drawing and treatment threshold problems, (4) Problems with translational medicine: from research to the clinic, and beyond, and (5), Communication problems.

This study demonstrates how concepts of health and disease can influence different aspects of healthcare and healthcare-related practices and may sometimes contribute to complex problematic situations. By analyzing these influences, by making underlying implicit assumptions explicit, giving further interpretation to the problems observed in practice, providing theoretical frameworks and conceptual tools, and by suggesting conceptual changes or adaptations, we might be able to help solve some of these problems. To do this in a proper way, we need both theoretical and empirical work. If we want our philosophical definitions to be a part of the solution for real-world problems, it is important to consider the intuitions and ideas of people working in different types of medical fields, patients, researchers, and all other stakeholders [ 20 ]. Paraphrasing Immanuel Kant, we may conclude that philosophy of medicine without empirical research risks being empty, while empirical research without philosophical theorizing will still leave us blind. Going back and forth between theory and practice will probably result in a more complex but hopefully also in a better and more fruitful understanding of concepts of health and disease.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Erasmus Medical Center but GDPR restrictions apply to the availability of these data and are therefore not publicly available.

The notion of experimental philosophy is relatively new and its definition is therefore not yet solidified. Sometimes it is used broadly, including various kinds of empirical research methods. In other instances, it refers specifically to philosophical studies with an experimental design, in which one variable is changed in isolation to measure changes in a philosophically relevant outcome (e.g., moral judgement). We believe that the latter, more narrow definition is useful to distinguish between experimental and other empirical studies. Therefore, in the title of our study, we explicitly use the term empirical philosophy instead of experimental philosophy.

This is, at least, how things are arranged in the Netherlands. Similar arrangements are in place in many other countries worldwide.

Incidental findings are anomalies that are detected in clinical tests that were in fact aimed on testing something else. As the clinical significance of these findings is often not clear, clinicians and/or clinical researchers are confronted with ethical dilemmas [ 37 , 38 , 39 ].

EBM can be described as an approach towards medicine that takes scientific evidence as a central point for guiding clinical decision-making. Typically, in EBM meta-analyses and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered to be the highest forms of scientific evidence. While these methods can indeed have strong benefits over other types of medical research, there is ample discussion about its down sides as well [ 40 , 41 , 42 ].

For instance, general physicians, who provide primary care, use a different classification system (International Classification of Primary Care; ICPC) than a medical specialist in a hospital (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems; ICD), who provides secondary and tertiary care, uses. Physiotherapists (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health; ICF), and psychologists (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; DSM), in turn, also use different types of classification systems.

Another way to frame this would be to say that in emergency care, only ‘disease’ may be relevant to provide proper medical care, whereas in a rehabilitation setting the whole triad of disease, illness and sickness is being addressed.

Hofmann B. Managing the moral expansion of medicine. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(97). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00836-2 .

Hofmann B. Does disease incite a stronger moral appeal than health? BMC Med. 2023;21(419). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03110-3 .

Lemoine M. Defining disease beyond conceptual analysis: an analysis of conceptual analysis in philosophy of medicine. Theor Med Bioeth. 2013;34:309–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-013-9261-5 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Schwartz PH. Decision and discovery in defining ‘disease’. In: Kincaid H, McKitrick J, editors. Establishing medical reality. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. pp. 47–63.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Van der Linden R, Schermer M. Health and disease as practical concepts: exploring function in context-specific definitions. Med Health Care Philos. 2022;25:131–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10058-9 .

De Vreese L. How to proceed in the disease concept debate? A pragmatic approach. J Med Philos. 2017;42(4):424–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhx011 .

Haverkamp B, Bovenkerk B, Verweij MA, Practice-Oriented. Review of Health concepts. J Med Philos. 2018;43(4):381–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy011 .

Nordby H. The analytic-synthetic distinction and conceptual analysis of basic health concepts. Med Health Care Philos. 2006;9(2):169–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-006-0002-7 .

Nordby H. Who are the rightful owners of the concepts disease, illness and sickness? A pluralistic analysis of basic health concepts. Open J Philos. 2019;9:470–92. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2019.94029 .

Schwartz PH. Progress in defining disease: improved approaches and increased impact. J Med Philos. 2017;42:485–502. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhx012 .

Walker MJ, Rogers WA. A new approach to defining disease. J Med Philos. 2018;43(4):402–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy014 .

Rogers WA, Walker MJ. Précising definitions as a way to combat overdiagnosis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24:1019–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12909 .

Schulz S, Harzheim L, Hübner C, Lorke M, Jünger S, Woopen C. Patient-centered empirical research on ethically relevant psychosocial and cultural aspects of cochlear, glaucoma and cardiovascular implants – a scoping review. BMC Med Ethics. 2023;24(68). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-023-00945-6 .

Sanchini V, Sala R, Gastmans C. The concept of vulnerability in aged care: a systematic review of argument-based ethics literature. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(84). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00819-3 .

Schleidgen S, Klingler C, Bertram T, Rogowski WH, Marckmann G. What is personalized medicine: sharpening a vague term based on a systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14(55). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-55 .

Erdmann A, Rehmann-Sutter C, Bozzaro C. Patients’ and professionals’ views related to ethical issues in precision medicine: a mixed research synthesis. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22:116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00682-8 .

Seidlein AH, Salloch S. Illness and disease: an empirical-ethical viewpoint. BMC Med Ethics. 2019;20(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0341-y .

Kon AA. The role of empirical research in bioethics. Am J Bioeth. 2009;9:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160902874320 .

Verberne WR, Stiggelbout AM, Bos WJW, van Delden JJM. Asking the right questions: towards a person-centered conception of shared decision-making regarding treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease in older patients. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23(47). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00784-x .

De Block A, Hens K. A plea for an experimental philosophy of medicine. Theor Med Bioeth. 2021;42:81–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-021-09551-2 .

Veit W. Experimental philosophy of medicine and the concepts of health and disease. Theor Med Bioeth. 2021;42:169–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-021-09550-3 .

Ankeny R, Chang H, Boumans M, Boon M. Introduction: philosophy of science in practice. Eur J Philos Sci. 2011;1:303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0036-4 .

Kampourakis K. Empirical philosophy of Science. Sci Educ. 2019;28:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00035-3 .

Hofmann B. Do health professionals have a prototype concept of disease? The answer is no. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2017;12(6):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-017-0047-7 .

Stronks K, Hoeymans N, Haverkamp B, den Hertog FRJ, van Bon-Martens MJH, Galenkamp H, Verweij M, van Oers HAM. Do conceptualisations of health differ across social strata? A concept mapping study among lay people. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e020210. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020210 .

Kohne ACJ, De Graauw LP, Leenhouts-van der Maas R, van Os J. Clinician and patient perspectives on the ontology of mental disorder: a qualitative study. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1081925. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1081925 .

Van Heteren F, Raaphorst N, Groeneveld S, Bussemaker J. Professionals’ health conceptions of clients with psychosocial problems: an analysis based on an empirical exploration of semi-structured interviews. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 2023;5:100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100120 .

Wright HG. John Dewey’s view of situations, problems, means and ends. In: Wright HG, editor. Means, ends and Medical Care. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007. p. 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5292-7_4 .

Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. California: Sage; 2008.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 .

Rogers WA, Walker MJ. The line-drawing problem in disease definition. J Med Philos. 2017;42(4):405–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhx010 .

Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–36. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460 .

Bolton D. Looking forward to a decade of the biopsychosocial model. BJPsych Bull. 2022;46(4):228–32. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2022.34 .

Bolton D, Gillett G. The Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disease: New Philosophical and Scientific developments. London: Palgrave Pivot Cham; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11899-0_1 .

Huber M, Knottnerus JA, Green L, van der Horst H, Jadad AR, Kromhout D, Leonard B, et al. How should we Define Health? BMJ. 2011;343(7817):235–37. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4163 .

Huber M, van Vliet M, Giezenberg M, Winkens B, Heerkens Y, Dagnelie PC, Knottnerus JA. Towards a ‘patient-centred’ operationalisation of the new dynamic concept of health: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010091 .

Bomhof C, van Bodegom L, Vernooij M, Pinxten W, de Beaufort I, Bunnik E. The impact of incidental findings detected during brain imaging on Research participants of the Rotterdam Study: an interview study. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2020;29(4):542–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000304 .

Wagner J, Aron DC. Incidentalomas – A ‘‘disease’’ of modern imaging technology. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;26(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2011.08.006 .

Wolf SM, Introduction. The challenge of incidental findings. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;26(2):216–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00265.x .

Bolt TC, Huisman F. Disease specificity and evidence-based medicine: a historical perspective. Eur J Person Cent Healthc. 2020;8:308–14. https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1795 .

Borck C. Negotiating Epistemic hierarchies in Biomedicine: the rise of evidence-based medicine. In: Epple M, Imhausen A, Müller F, editors. Weak knowledge: forms, functions, and Dynamics. Frankfurt: Campus; 2020. pp. 449–82.

Google Scholar  

Parker M. Whither our art? Clinical wisdom and evidence-based medicine. Med Health Care Philos. 2002;5:273–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021116516342 .

Alpinar-Sencan Z, Schicktanz S. Addressing ethical challenges of disclosure in dementia prediction: limitations of current guidelines and suggestions to proceed. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(33). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00476-4 .

Schermer MHN. Preclinical disease or risk factor? Alzheimer’s Disease as a case study of changing conceptualizations of Disease. J Med Philos. 2023;48(4):322–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad009 .

Tromp K, Smedinga M, Richard E, Perry M, Schermer M. Views on early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease among Dutch Physicians: a qualitative interview study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;79(2):917–27.

Twaddle A. ‘Disease, illness and sickness revisited’. In: Twaddle A, Nordenfelt L, editors. Disease, illness and sickness: three Central concepts in the theory of Health. Linköping: Linköping University; 1994. pp. 1–18.

Hofmann B. On the Triad Disease, illness and sickness. J Med Philos. 2002;27(6):651–73. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.27.6.651.13793 .

Hesslow G. Do we need a concept of disease? Theor Med. 1993;14:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993984 .

Kukla QR. What counts as disease, and why does it matter? J Philos Disabil. 2022;2:130–56. https://doi.org/10.5840/jpd20226613 .

Kukla R. Infertility, epistemic risk, and disease definitions. Synthese. 2019;196:4409–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s112 .

Htut Maung H. Is infertility a disease and does it matter? Bioethics. 2019;33:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12495 .

Davies R, Ives J, Dunn M. A systematic review of empirical bioethics methodologies. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(15). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0010-3 .

Ives J, Dunn M. Who’s arguing? A call for reflexivity in bioethics. Bioethics. 2010;24(5):256–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2010.01809.x .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the participants of the interview study for their input.

This research is funded by the Dutch Scientific Organization (NWO), Project Number 406.18.FT.002. The funding body played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy & History of Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Rik R. van der Linden & Maartje H.N. Schermer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RL and MS were both involved in conceptualizing and designing the qualitative study, and both wrote the main manuscript. RL conducted the interviews with the participants. Both authors analyzed and interpreted the qualitative data. MS has secured the funding. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rik R. van der Linden .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The research proposal was submitted for review by the research ethics review committee of the Erasmus Medical Center. A waiver was granted (MEC-2021-0584), as the study did not fall within the scope of the WMO (Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subject Act). This study was carried out in accordance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Privacy Regulation of Erasmus Medical Center. Written and oral informed consent was obtained before the start of the interviews.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

van der Linden, R.R., Schermer, M.H. Exploring health and disease concepts in healthcare practice: an empirical philosophy of medicine study. BMC Med Ethics 25 , 38 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01037-9

Download citation

Received : 12 December 2023

Accepted : 13 March 2024

Published : 27 March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01037-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Health and disease concepts
• Empirical philosophy
• Philosophy of medicine

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Ethical Issues In the Use of In-Depth Interviews: Literature Review and Discussion

2009, Research Ethics …

This paper reports a literature review on the topic of ethical issues in in-depth interviews. The review returned three types of article: general discussion, issues in particular studies, and studies of interview-based research ethics. Whilst many of the issues discussed in these articles are generic to research ethics, such as confidentiality, they often had particular manifestations in this type of research. For example, privacy was a significant problem as interviews sometimes probe unexpected areas. For similar reasons, it is difficult to give full information of the nature of a particular interview at the outset, hence informed consent is problematic. Where a pair is interviewed (such as carer and cared-for) there are major difficulties in maintaining confidentiality and protecting privacy. The potential for interviews to harm participants emotionally is noted in some papers, although this is often set against potential therapeutic benefit. As well as these generic issues, there are some ethical issues fairly specific to in-depth interviews. The problem of dual role is noted in many papers. It can take many forms: an interviewer might be nurse and researcher, scientist and counsellor, or reporter and evangelist. There are other specific issues such as taking sides in an interview, and protecting vulnerable groups. Little specific study of the ethics of in-depth interviews has taken place. However, that which has shows some important findings. For example, one study shows participants are not averse to discussing painful issues provided they feel the study is worthwhile. Some papers make recommendations for researchers. One such is that they should consider using a model of continuous (or process) consent rather than viewing consent as occurring once, at signature, prior to the interview. However, there is a need for further study of this area, both philosophical and empirical. [291 words]

Related Papers

Mark G Bound, Ph.D.

Dr. Jason J . Campbell

Josiane A Parrouty

Ciênc. saúde coletiva

Silvia Koller

Guus Timmerman

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Barry Schlenker

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

Alex J O H N London

psi konseling

Ricardo Costa

RELATED PAPERS

Abbas Y. Al-Bayati

Práce a štúdie - Vydanie 10

Kristína Šajbanová

Jupiis Jurnal Pendidikan Ilmu Ilmu Sosial

Anik Lestari

Charles Oyewole

rattana chanthao

Lara Rosenoff Gauvin

Craig Conner

ariel aybar

Antibiotics

Andrea Di Stefano

Creative Mathematics and Informatics

Anantachai Padcharoen

Journal of Power Sources

K. Aifantis

education policy analysis archives

Thiago Soares Nunes

Richard Stopford

Current Developments in Nutrition

elvino mendonça

Expert Review of Hematology

Medical physics

Mohamed Hegazy

jacques guyot

Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia

Adriano Gustavo Lopes Barbosa

Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography

Stephen Schmitz

Tạp chí Khoa học và Công nghệ biển

Phan Long Nhật Vy

Alejandro García

Journal of pediatric surgery

Liam McCarthy

Gianvito Scaringi

El Día (Santa Cruz de Tenerife)

Carlos Rodríguez Morales

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

More From Forbes

Scientists tend to inflate how ethical they are in doing their research.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

We have known for a long time that people tend to paint a rosy picture of how good they are. Now we know that scientists are no exception, at least when it comes to conducting their own research. This is especially surprising since scientists are regularly thought to be objective.

Research and Ethics - clinical trial law and rules, Medical compliance.

This new discovery emerged from a massive survey of 11,050 scientific researchers in Sweden, conducted by Amanda M. Lindkvist, Lina Koppel, and Gustav Tinghög at Linköping University and published in the journal Scientific Reports. The survey was very simple, with only two questions. Here was the first:

Question One : In your role as a researcher, to what extent do you perceive yourself as following good research practices—compared to other researchers in your field?

Rather than allowing the survey participants to each define what ‘good research practice’ is, the researchers gave them these criteria:

(1) Tell the truth about one’s research.

(2) Consciously review and report the basic premises of one’s studies.

(3) Openly account for one’s methods and results.

(4) Openly account for one’s commercial interests and other associations.

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

(5) Not make unauthorized use of the research results of others.

(6) Keep one’s research organized, for example through documentation and filing.

(7) Stive to conduct one’s research without doing harm to people, animals or the environment.

(8) Be fair in one’s judgement of others’ research.

Note that many of these criteria have to do with honesty, but there are also ones on conscientiousness, non-malevolence, and fairness.

What were the results? Participants used a scale to rate themselves from 1 to 7, with 1 = Much less than other researchers, 4 = As much as other researchers, and 7 = Much more than other researchers. This is what the responses revealed:

44% rated themselves as more ethical in their research practices than other researchers in their field.

55% rated themselves as the same as their peers.

Not even 1% rated themselves as less ethical than their peers.

Of course these results can’t reflect real life, since mathematically there have to be more than 1% of scientists who are less than average in this area of their lives.

The other question that Lindkvist and his colleagues asked these scientific researchers was this:

Question Two : To what extent do you perceive researchers within your field as following good research practices–compared to researchers within other fields?

Here too the results were very skewed. 29% said their field followed good research practices to a greater extent than did scientists in other fields. Only 8% said it was the other way around.

These results should surprise us for a couple of reasons. One is that they go against the popular narrative of scientists as objective and neutral. When it comes to their own ethical behavior in conducting their research, they appear as a whole to be biased and overconfident. Another reason these results are surprising is that many scientists are likely aware of the existence of scientific research on how people in general tend to have an inflated view of their own virtue . So you’d expect that they would be on guard against such a tendency in their own case.

There are dangers that come with scientists having an overly positive view of their own research ethics. Lindkvist helpfully explains one of them: it “may lead researchers to underestimate the ethical implications of the decisions they make and to sometimes be blind to their own ethical failures. For example, researchers may downplay their own questionable practices but exaggerate those of other researchers, perhaps especially researchers outside their field.” Another danger that Lindkvist notes is a greater tendency to ignore warnings and ethical safeguards, if they are dismissed by a scientist as applying to others but not to her since she thinks she is above average.

It would be interesting in future work to see if similar patterns emerge with researchers in other countries besides Sweden. It would also be interesting to look at researchers anonymously rating the research ethics of their colleagues in their own departments and schools.

If these results hold up, it will be important to find ways to encourage scientific researchers to correct their inflated perceptions. As Lindkvist urges, “To restore science’s credibility, we need to create incentive structures, institutions, and communities that foster ethical humility and encourage us to be our most ethical selves in an academic system that otherwise incentivizes us to be bad.”

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Scientist who gene-edited babies is back in lab and ‘proud’ of past work despite jailing

China’s He Jiankui, who used Crispr to edit genome, says he is working on genetic diseases and suggests human embryo gene editing will one day be accepted

A Chinese scientist who was imprisoned for his role in creating the world’s first genetically edited babies says he has returned to his laboratory to work on the treatment of Alzheimer’s and other genetic diseases.

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, He Jiankui said he had resumed research on human embryo genome editing, despite the controversy over the ethics of artificially rewriting genes, which some critics predicted would lead to demand for “designer babies”.

“We will use discarded human embryos and comply with both domestic and international rules,” He told the Mainichi Shimbun, adding that he had no plans to produce more genome-edited babies. Previously, He had used a tool known as Crispr-Cas9 to rewrite DNA in embryos.

In 2019 a court in China sentenced He to three years in prison for violating medical regulations after he claimed the previous year that he had created genetically modified twin sisters, Lulu and Nana, before birth.

His experiments sent shockwaves through the medical and scientific world. He was widely condemned for having gone ahead with the risky, ethically contentious and medically unjustified procedure with inadequate consent from the families involved.

The court found that He had forged documents from an ethics review panel that were used to recruit couples for his research.

He said he had used a gene-editing procedure known as Crispr-Cas9 to rewrite the DNA in the sisters’ embryos – modifications he claimed would make the children immune to HIV .

He has continued to defend his work, despite widespread criticism, saying he was “proud” of having created Lulu and Nana. A third girl was born in 2019 as a result of similar experiments.

He told the Mainichi that he hoped to use genome editing in human embryos to develop treatments for rare genetic diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and familial Alzheimer’s disease, at three laboratories he has opened since his release from prison in 2022.

He said the three genome-edited children were “perfectly healthy and have no problems with their growth”, according to the newspaper, adding that the twins, now aged 5, were attending kindergarten.

“The results of analysing [the children’s] entire gene sequences show that there were no modifications to the genes other than for the medical objective, providing evidence that genome editing was safe,” he told the Mainichi. “I’m proud to have helped families who wanted healthy children.”

He told the Guardian in 2023 that he had acted “too quickly” by pressing ahead with the procedure, but stopped short of voicing regret or apologising.

In his interview with the Mainichi, he said society would “eventually accept” human embryo gene editing in the quest to find treatments for genetic diseases.

Most viewed

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

People say they're leaving religion due to anti-LGBTQ teachings and sexual abuse

Jason DeRose

The PRRI poll found that the vast majority of those who are unaffiliated are content to stay that way. Just 9% of respondents say they're looking for a religion that would be right for them. Hanan Isachar/Getty Images hide caption

The PRRI poll found that the vast majority of those who are unaffiliated are content to stay that way. Just 9% of respondents say they're looking for a religion that would be right for them.

People in the U.S. are leaving and switching faith traditions in large numbers. The idea of "religious churning" is very common in America, according to a new survey from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).

It finds that around one-quarter (26%) of Americans now identify as religiously unaffiliated, a number that has risen over the last decade and is now the largest single religious group in the U.S. That's similar to what other surveys and polls have also found, including Pew Research .

PRRI found that the number of those who describe themselves as "nothing in particular" has held steady since 2013, but those who identify as atheists have doubled (from 2% to 4%) and those who say they're agnostic has more than doubled (from 2% to 5%).

This study looks at which faith traditions those unaffiliated people are coming from.

Despite church prohibitions, Catholics still choose IVF to have children

"Thirty-five percent were former Catholics, 35% were former mainline Protestants, only about 16% were former evangelicals," says Melissa Deckman, PRRI's chief executive officer. "And really not many of those Americans are, in fact, looking for an organized religion that would be right for them. We just found it was 9%."

That these people are not looking for a religion has, Deckman says, implications for how and even whether houses of worship should try to attract new people.

Among other findings: The Catholic Church is losing more members than it's gaining, though the numbers are slightly better for retention among Hispanic Catholics.

There is much lower religious churn among Black Protestants and among Jews who seem overall happy in their faith traditions and tend to stay there.

As for why people leave their religions, PRRI found that about two-thirds (67%) of people who leave a faith tradition say they did so because they simply stopped believing in that religion's teachings.

An Arizona church known for feeding migrants now says the city is blocking its work

And nearly half (47%) of respondents who left cited negative teaching about the treatment of LGBTQ people.

Those numbers were especially high with one group in particular.

"Religion's negative teaching about LGBTQ people are driving younger Americans to leave church," Deckman says. "We found that about 60% of Americans who are under the age of 30 who have left religion say they left because of their religious traditions teaching, which is a much higher rate than for older Americans."

Hispanic Americans are also more likely to say they've left a religion over LGBTQ issues. Other reasons cited for leaving: clergy sexual abuse and over-involvement in politics.

The new PRRI report is based on a survey of more than 5,600 adults late last year.

Purim — a festive Jewish holiday with an ending often ignored

About one-third of religiously unaffiliated Americans say they no longer identify with their childhood religion because the religion was bad for their mental health. That response was strongest among LGBTQ respondents.

The survey also asked about the prevalence of the so-called "prosperity Gospel." It found that 31% of respondents agreed with the statement "God always rewards those who have good faith with good health, financial success, and fulfilling personal relationships."

Black Americans tend to agree more with these theological beliefs than other racial or ethnic groups. And Republicans are more likely than independents and Democrats to hold such beliefs.

• losing faith
• sexual abuse

• Ethics & Leadership
• Fact-Checking
• Media Literacy
• The Craig Newmark Center
• Reporting & Editing
• Ethics & Trust
• Tech & Tools
• Business & Work
• Educators & Students
• Training Catalog
• Custom Teaching
• For ACES Members
• All Categories
• Broadcast & Visual Journalism
• Fact-Checking & Media Literacy
• In-newsroom
• Memphis, Tenn.
• Minneapolis, Minn.
• St. Petersburg, Fla.
• Washington, D.C.
• Poynter ACES Introductory Certificate in Editing
• Poynter ACES Intermediate Certificate in Editing
• Ethics & Trust Articles
• Get Ethics Advice
• Fact-Checking Articles
• International Fact-Checking Day
• Teen Fact-Checking Network
• International
• Media Literacy Training
• MediaWise Resources
• Ambassadors
• MediaWise in the News

Support responsible news and fact-based information today!

Baltimore’s mayor asked journalists to stop airing footage of the Key Bridge collapse. Should they?

What responsibilities do news organizations have when showing dramatic images of disasters.

The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed early Tuesday morning after it was struck by a cargo ship. As of Tuesday night, six construction workers who were working on the bridge at the time were still missing.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott appeared on CNN on Tuesday, and while being interviewed, CNN showed dramatic video of the bridge collapsing over and over.

During the interview, Scott said , “I’m going to be the first to ask that CNN and everyone else stop showing the video. No one needs to see … a possibility of their family member being severely injured or otherwise, over and over and over again because it’s just traumatizing our community.”

To be clear, CNN wasn’t the only news outlet showing video of the bridge being hit by the ship and then collapsing. In fact, as far as I could tell, every major news network showed the video. And it was on the homepages of The New York Times and The Washington Post for most of Tuesday.

Often, accidents and tragedies are caught on video, and so a question arises: What responsibility do news organizations have when showing these kinds of videos?

When it comes to the Key Bridge collapse, I asked my colleague Kelly McBride, Poynter’s senior vice president and chair of Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership, to share her thoughts.

More from Poynter: What those covering the Key Bridge collapse can learn from reports about the 1980 Skyway disaster

She told me, “The image of the bridge collapsing isn’t particularly traumatic to the audience viewing it. The camera is quite distant, and it wasn’t a targeted act of violence meant to terrorize, the way that 9/11 was or the many mass shootings that we’ve experienced. It was an accident, like a volcano erupting or an avalanche tumbling down.”

McBride added, “It is likely traumatic to the loved ones of the missing workers, as is all coverage of this news story, including images of the rescue operation and images of the bridge the moment before impact. For that reason, I could see some newsrooms electing to use a still image or limit the use of the video. But given the widespread distribution of the video, that won’t make much of a difference in the overall use of it. I don’t think using the video is particularly insensitive as long as the news coverage is advancing the story, by bringing in new perspectives and information.”

I also wanted to point you to a piece by Axios’ Zachary Basu and Sara Fischer: “Misinformation runs rampant after Baltimore bridge collapse.” They note how a bunch of conspiracy theories ran wild following the accident. Authorities were clear when they said there was no evidence that this was a terrorist attack.

Basu and Fischer wrote, “Rampant misinformation during mass casualty events is not a new phenomenon. But under Elon Musk’s ownership of X, the platform has evolved from an essential real-time news source to a breeding ground for conspiracy theories.”

This piece originally appeared in The Poynter Report, our daily newsletter for everyone who cares about the media. Subscribe to The Poynter Report here .

Opinion | Kim Mulkey, a tough coach, overreacts to a critical profile

Washington Post reporter Kent Babb’s hotly anticipated profile was full of standard, thorough reporting — hardly the ‘hit piece’ Mulkey had described

Opinion | Let’s say it plainly: Fact-checking is not censorship

Fact-checking adds to the public debate; it doesn’t suppress it

WATCH: What they don’t teach in J-school

Poynter convened a panel discussion with industry experts on the skills reporters learn on the job

Opinion | Journalism schools must move beyond reporting to prepare graduates for modern media roles

As journalism rapidly evolves, J-schools must think critically about curriculums and equip graduates with skills for emerging roles across media.

Do Jesse Watters’ claims about the federal budget, LGBTQ+ and DEI funding add up?

The Fox News host’s five-part claim about programs funded by the latest federal budget ranges from missing context to inaccurate

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Start your day informed and inspired.

Get the Poynter newsletter that's right for you.

• Colleges & Degrees
• Academic Calendar
• International Education
• Graduate Studies
• Accreditation
• Tuition and Fees
• Parking & Maps
• Careers with CSULB
• Alumni Home
• Alumni Volunteering
• Alumni Giving

Campus Life

• Centers & Organizations
• Commencement
• Student Life
• Office of the President
• Office of the Provost
• Administration & Finance
• Student Affairs
• University Relations & Development
• Information Technology
• Beach Shops
• Campus Directory
• Enrollment Services
• Financial Aid
• Schedule of Classes
• Student Records
• 49er Foundation
• Research Foundation

1250 BELLFLOWER BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90840 562.985.4111

2024 Faculty Stipend Recipients Announced

Ethics across the curriculum and ethics research stipend recipients announced.

To advance our vision of having an ethics module in every CSULB course, twenty-two $3,000 stipends are being granted to faculty for integrating 3-hour ethics modules into their courses.  The Ukleja Center for Ethical Leadership has awarded over $500,000 in  Ethics Across the Curriculum  stipends since the program was initiated in 2005.  The 2023-2024 proposal review committee, chaired by Danny Paskin (Journalism and Public Relations), selected the following faculty stipend recipients:

Ethics Across the Curriculum Stipends

• Sandra Arevalo  –  Ethics, Climate Change and Health  (Human Development)
• Jesus Ayala  –  Integrating Ethical Use of Video in Journalism Curriculum  (Journalism and Public Relations)
• John Becker  –  Religion and Nature: Framing Religious Ecologies of Justice  (Religious Studies)
• Shivani Bothra  – Ethical Foundations of South Asian Traditions: Exploring Values and Virtues of Living Traditions  (Religious Studies)
• Worapron Chanthapan  –  Ethics and Framing: The Responsibility of Public Relations Practitioners  (Journalism and Public Relations)
• Tyler Dilts  –  The Ethics of Representation for Fiction Writers  (English)
• Shirley Feldmann-Jensen  –  Ethical Challenges, Decision Making, and the Professional Code of Ethics for Emergency Management  (Criminology, Criminal Justice and Emergency Management)
• Casey Goeller  –  Ethical Considerations of using OpenAI (Chat GPT) in the Classroom  (Family and Consumer Sciences – Gerontology)
• Aiden Lee  – Integrating Ethical Considerations into Marketing and Analytics Education  (Marketing)
• Seungjoon Lee  –  Ethical Modeling and Communication in Data Science  (Mathematics and Statistics)
• Yuping Mao  –  Applying Various Ethical Perspectives to Understand and Resolve Intercultural Conflicts  (Communication Studies)
• Tina Matuchniak  –  Ethical Considerations When Using AI for College Writing (English)
• Rezenet Moges-Riedel  –  Ethical Reflectivity of each Positionality as an Able-Bodied and/or Hearing Person in a Disabled or Deaf Space  (American Sign Language, Linguistics, and Deaf Cultures)
• Nayawiyyah Muhammad  –  Faith and Race: Environmental and Social Justice across Communities  (Religious Studies)
• Jennifer Newton  –  Dark Public Relations Tactics in a Post-Truth Era: Navigating Ethical and Unethical Practices in Modern-Day Journalism and Public Relations  (Journalism and Public Relations)
• Teresa Puente  –  Applying Cultural Competence and Ethics in Journalistic Coverage of Latinx Communities  (Journalism and Public Relations)
• Wikrom Prombutr  –  Ethical Issues in Company Valuation: A Deep Dive into Controversial ESG Companies   (Finance)
• Loretta Ramirez  –  Hauntology as Homecoming: Cultural Rhetorics Ethics Module  (Chicano and Latino Studies)
• Itxaso Rodriguez  –  Ethically Assessing Bi/Multilingualism in Children  (Linguistics)
• Hojong Shin  –  Global Financial Crisis and Ethics  (Finance)
• Shams Tanvir  –  Ethical Issues in Transportation Engineering: A Vital Step Towards Sustainable Mobility  (Civil Engineering and Environmental Engineering Management)
• Tina Zhao  –  Ethical Issues in Government Budget Cycle  (Public Administration)

Faculty Ethics Research Stipends

To strengthen its research pillar, the Ukleja Center also offers $5,000  Faculty Ethics Research Stipends  to support original research and contribute to the body of knowledge in disciplinary and interdisciplinary ethics.  $110,000 has been awarded since this program began in 2013.  The review committee, chaired by Maria Carpiac (Family and Consumer Sciences – Gerontology), is pleased to announce the following 2023-2024 research stipend recipients:

• Shadnaz Asgari  –  Artificial Intelligence Fairness in Clinical Decision Support Systems  (Biomedical Engineering)
• Ezgi Yildiz  –  Compromising Under State Pressure: The European Court of Human Rights Walking Back on Rights of Refugees  (Political Science)

Congratulations to all our faculty stipend recipients and thank you for bringing our vision to life – enhancing the integration of ethics across the entire CSULB campus!