Dear All,
Thanks for this discussion - I really enjoy these forum exchanges and find
them stimulating and challenging.
I have a few thoughts, rather than solutions I think. Firstly, it is really
important that we as qualitative researchers take the ethical in our work to
heart, as so many of our colleagues don't.

I think there are a few threads in the discussion below. One is the question
of 'respectful' consent, and what that means. This may mean the passing over
of a consent form, the acquisition of a signature and the legally informed
obligations and privileges that emerge from this. Another articulation of
this process would be outlining to people who participate in the process of
analysis - assuring anonymity is one thing, but on the basis of my
experience some people may be concerned about the interpretive process in
the analysis, the possibility that what we ultimately decide as the best
interpretation for a text, or a section of it, is not a reflection of their
'life world'. I recently had such an occasion when I was interviewing a
person, highly articulate and intelligent, and although the consent form was
signed without any hesitation, she quietly but firmly challenged the process
of the interview, the assumptions that narrative interviews give narrators
control over the interview and the generation of data, from the beginning to
the end. She didn't give a toss about my promises of anonymity. Rather we
had a lengthy discussion about how she could be reassured that what the
researchers did with her data did her justice, and for her it mattered
enormously. My offering to an agreeable understanding was that she could see
the script after it was transcribed, and she could withdraw her story at any
time. I suggested that if the group decided to do a detailed case structure
including told and lived story (according to BNIM) or case study of any
sort, where the where sections of the text where sunjected to hypothesising
and counter hypothesising, and very detailed analysis, that she could have
access to this process.

Some people would criticise me for this, and they would be justified because
it is not unproblematic.  What would have happened if I had taken any one of
alternative routes to mutual understanding, I wonder?  What are the
consequences of what I did?

During my doctoral work I used another type of narrative method, involving,
at one level, group analysis. Every person in the group (including me) was
both a part of the research group, and also a contributor to the collective
narratives (data). So my narrative was dissected in the group, along with
everyone elses, and yes, all sorts of hypothesisng and counter hypothesising
went on. It was challenging to say the least. What I learned form that was
that it is important to be respectful to people's narratives, and
consequently our group agreed rules of respectful, caring and dignified
conduct, but unfortunately not before a few distressing episodes where I saw
people really distressed.

So should narrators be given access to their analysed data? Does this go far
enough, and should they have the right to a 'metaanalysis'- and if so, this
of course is itself data, and so the whole process could go on until someone
dies.....There are clearly all sorts of ethical considerations, but also
methodological and philosophical ones too. Or should there be some kind of
standing agreement that researchers are entitled to privileged
interpretation, as ome kid of articulation of academic freedom and
recognition of expert training?.

I wonder if other people, other professions turn themselves inside out like
this - a doctor, nurse etc, social worker taking a patient history, other
less reflexive or rigorous qualitative researchers, quantitative researchers
etc....

Interested to hear what others think,
Debra

Dr Debra Hopkins
Research Fellow
Dept of Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social Science
Room S012 Adam Smith Building
University of Glasgow
Bute Gardens
Glasgow G128RT
Tel 0141 3304517




-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for those practising BNIM
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tom
Wengraf (Tom3)
Sent: 27 October 2005 17:51
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Discussion-one week later - ethical issues


I have found the debate launched in this new email list -- Performative
Social Science -- important and interesting (BNIM list people, see below,
from the bottom upwards).  My own interest is in biographic-narrative
interviewing and interpretation (BNIM) where a further question arises.

This is the 'interpretation process' consequent upon the production of a
verbatim transcript. After processing, in the BNIM procedure, chunks of
processed data are submitted to a small panel (3-6 people, say) and are
subject to very considerable speculation and hypothesising and
counter-hypothesising.

It is certain that the informant would be likely to be rendered quite
uncomfortable by at least some of the hypothesising that occurs during such
panel work.

Two points, therefore:

1) For completeness's sake, should not the process of 'interpreting the
material'  be also included in an ideal 'consent form', with the
confidentiality clause?

2) I have addressed some of the ethical issues involved in doing BNIM
interviews and interpretation in a 'Short Guide to BNIM' (especially in an
appendix). If anybody on the 'Performative Social Science' list would like
to have an electronic copy, please send me your email address.

Best wishes

Tom
--
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS <[log in to unmask]>.
THE OLD ONE NO LONGER WORKS

Tom Wengraf
24a Princes Avenue
Muswell Hill
London N10 3LR




on 27/10/05 10:33 am, Kip Jones at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Here is a (slightly) reworked section from a consent
> form:
>
> "I am promised that all data, information, and my
> identity will be kept confidential and held
> confidential in future reports, publications or
> presentations (including various media) resulting from
> this study. Plans for any potential future
> dissemination of the material from my interview have
> been described to me".
>
> Could we, as a group, start from here?  Perhaps you
> have some thoughts on reworking the statement?
>
> Cheers,
> Kip
>
>
>
> --- Marilyn Cash <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Marilyn
>> This something that I will be looking at as part of
>> my PhD so I would be interested to hear what other
>> people think about this.   My feeling is that we
>> have a responsibility to inform research
>> participants that data from their interviews may be
>> disseminated in this way and to gain permission from
>> them to do so.
>> Regards
>> Marilyn  C


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Performative Social Science
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Marilyn Mackay
>> Sent: 25 October 2005 21:04
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Discussion-one week later
>>
>>
>> Dear Kip,
>>
>> In response to your question - is there something
>> you would like to bring up for for discussion - I
>> have what feels like an 'ethical' (loosely defined)
>> issue following the masterclass work ... Les hinted
>> at 'ethical questions' he might have, but didn't
>> identify them ... Well mine is, whether its ok to
>> use/exploit/expand/express the narrative of others,
>> presumably the product of an interview between two
>> people?
>>
>> I just wondered how 'respectful' I was being to the
>> originator of the text I
>> was working with, for our performative purposes.
>> So its a question about
>> how data is subsequently used, when collected in a
>> 'confidential space'.
>>
>> Personally, I'm not sure if I'd like stuff I'd
>> shared being 'blown-up' into a group 'performance'.
>>
>> I know our intentions were 'good' and this is
>> exciting work, but I was very
>> conscious throughout of the woman whose words I was
>> working with.   Perhaps
>> we did her justice and she'd have been pleased we
>> carried 'her story'
>> forward.    But we didn't ask her and even if we did
>> she probably would have
>> felt obliged to allow this interpretative work to
>> happen.
>>
>> So perhaps we should perform this kind of work on
>> ourselves, to feel how it is .... To see ourselves
>> 'played out' by others who don't know us at all.
>>
>> Am  I alone in feeling this I wonder?   I enjoyed
>> the work we did at the
>> masterclass and it felt creative.   But we were
>> working with someone else's
>> material who had 'no voice' in what we did.
>>
>> I am wondering how others feel about this.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marilyn
>>
>