Invited Peer Commentary: Research Site Anonymity in Context.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Shenuka Singh, Penelope Engel-Hills
{"title":"Invited Peer Commentary: Research Site Anonymity in Context.","authors":"Shenuka Singh, Penelope Engel-Hills","doi":"10.1177/19401612221138478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors of the paper, Research site anonymity in context (Nduna et al., 2022) set out to utilize critical theory “to interrogate and problematize the practice of anonymizing research sites as an ethical imperative”. They emphasized that as black African scholars, engaged in diverse research within the domain of the social sciences, they identify closely with the communities where they conduct their research. The focus of the paper is the authors’ challenge to the ethical standard of anonymity that they suggest is imposed by the research ethics committees (RECs/IRBs) they apply to for ethical review and clearance. With regard to anonymity (or confidentiality) being an important ethical standard that should be negotiable in some contexts, we concur with the authors but believe there are lessons to be gained from a deeper interrogation of this topic than is presented in the paper. Hence, in order to unpack key elements of the paper and extend these to create the space for academic debate, we applied critical reflection as a process for making meaning. In this process, we start this commentary by first addressing definitions of confidentiality and anonymity as generally accepted ethical standards for research with human participants. Confidentiality in research is described as measures put in place by the researcher to prevent disclosure of the participants’ identity during and after the study has been completed while anonymity is used as a standard declaring that neither the researcher nor any other person will know the identity of the research participant/s (DoH, 2015). For the purpose of this commentary, we will accept the authors’ discussion point of anonymizing research sites which would have the standard of confidentiality imposed and not necessarily anonymity. This is because these sites would be known to the researchers if the argument is that they should be able to be identified. It is the outcome of this global standard of confidentiality or anonymity that RECs are expected to uphold and this can be perceived as the RECs imposing the need for anonymity on all research participants and sites. From there we will consider motivations for why and how anonymity as a standard in all research involving humans is challenged by the authors as being inappropriate in community-based research. We will then focus our attention on deepening the discussion of whether to maintain anonymity (or not) in research involving our South African communities as research sites. This discussion will draw from the issues as they are raised in the paper but will broaden the arguments presented by providing evidence from our own experiences, in the communities we research, to substantiate our position.","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"17 5","pages":"565-572"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221138478","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The authors of the paper, Research site anonymity in context (Nduna et al., 2022) set out to utilize critical theory “to interrogate and problematize the practice of anonymizing research sites as an ethical imperative”. They emphasized that as black African scholars, engaged in diverse research within the domain of the social sciences, they identify closely with the communities where they conduct their research. The focus of the paper is the authors’ challenge to the ethical standard of anonymity that they suggest is imposed by the research ethics committees (RECs/IRBs) they apply to for ethical review and clearance. With regard to anonymity (or confidentiality) being an important ethical standard that should be negotiable in some contexts, we concur with the authors but believe there are lessons to be gained from a deeper interrogation of this topic than is presented in the paper. Hence, in order to unpack key elements of the paper and extend these to create the space for academic debate, we applied critical reflection as a process for making meaning. In this process, we start this commentary by first addressing definitions of confidentiality and anonymity as generally accepted ethical standards for research with human participants. Confidentiality in research is described as measures put in place by the researcher to prevent disclosure of the participants’ identity during and after the study has been completed while anonymity is used as a standard declaring that neither the researcher nor any other person will know the identity of the research participant/s (DoH, 2015). For the purpose of this commentary, we will accept the authors’ discussion point of anonymizing research sites which would have the standard of confidentiality imposed and not necessarily anonymity. This is because these sites would be known to the researchers if the argument is that they should be able to be identified. It is the outcome of this global standard of confidentiality or anonymity that RECs are expected to uphold and this can be perceived as the RECs imposing the need for anonymity on all research participants and sites. From there we will consider motivations for why and how anonymity as a standard in all research involving humans is challenged by the authors as being inappropriate in community-based research. We will then focus our attention on deepening the discussion of whether to maintain anonymity (or not) in research involving our South African communities as research sites. This discussion will draw from the issues as they are raised in the paper but will broaden the arguments presented by providing evidence from our own experiences, in the communities we research, to substantiate our position.
邀请同行评论:研究地点匿名的背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信