There has been a recent growth in claims that qualitative research proposals are not treated equitably by ethics committees. In response, recent arguments centered on establishing the ethics of qualitative research, in the eyes of ethics committees, have indicated the need for an “ethics-as-process” approach. Accordingly, in this article, the authors illustrate the merits of this approach and provide three examples from the field: the outcomes of participating in qualitative interviews, sensitive handling of ending in qualitative research relationships, and the ongoing establishment of informed consent. The authors hope to increase awareness of the potential benefits of this approach and contribute to the ensuing debate.
References
1.
Acker, J. , Barry, K., & Esseveld, J. (1983). Objectivity and truth: Problems in doing feminist research. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(4), 423-435.
2.
Bayley, M. (1997). Empowering and relationships. In P. Ramcharan, G. Roberts, G. Grant, & J. Borland (Eds.), Empowerment in everyday life: Learning disability (pp. 15-35). London: Jessica Kingsley.
3.
Beauchamp, T. L. , & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
Booth, W. (1998). Doing research with lonely people. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 132-134.
5.
Brigham, L. (1998). Representing the lives of women with learning difficulties: Ethical dilemmas in the research process. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 146-150.
6.
Brown, H. , & Thompson, D. (1997). The ethics of research with men who have learning disabilities and abusive sexual behaviour: A minefield in a vacuum. Disability and Society, 12(5), 695-707.
7.
Carpenter, D. (1999). Ethical requirements in qualitative research. In H. J. Streubert & D. R. Carpenter (Eds.), Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative (pp. 33-41). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
8.
Clear, M. , & Horsfall, D. (1997). Research and disability in a local community. Disability and Society, 12(1), 119-132.
9.
Cutcliffe, J. R. (in press). Ethics committees, vulnerable groups and paternalism: The case for considering the benefits of participating in qualitative research interviews. In J. Dooher & R. Byrt (Eds.), Empowerment and participation: Power, influence and control in health care. London: Quay Books.
10.
Cutcliffe, J. R. , & Goward, P. (2000). Mental health nurses and qualitative research methods: A mutual attraction?Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(3), 590-598.
11.
Cutcliffe, J. R. , & McKenna, H. P. (1999). Establishing the credibility of qualitative research findings: The plot thickens. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2), 374-380.
12.
Cutcliffe, J. R. , & McKenna, H. P. (in press). When do we know that we know? Considering the truth of research findings and the craft of qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Studies.
13.
Department of Health . (1991). Local Research Ethics Committees. London: Department of Health HMSO.
14.
Department of Health . (1994). Local Research Ethics Committees: A framework for ethical review. London: Department of Health HMSO.
15.
Egan, G. (1975). The skilled helper. Chicago: Aldine.
16.
Fontana, A. , & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361-376). London: Sage.
17.
Kent, G. (1996). Shared understandings for informed consent: The relevance of psychological research on the provision of information. Social Science & Medicine, 43(10), 1517-1523.
18.
Knox, M. , Mok, M., & Parmenter, T. R. (2000). Working with the experts: Collaborative research with people with intellectual disability. Disability and Society, 15(1), 49-61.
19.
Lendrum, S. , & Syme, G. (1992). Gift of tears: A practical approach to loss and bereavement counselling. London: Routledge.
20.
Lincoln, Y. S. , & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Lipson, J. G. (1994). Ethical issues in ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 333-355). London: Sage.
22.
Lloyd, M. , Preston-Shoot, M., Temple, B., & Wuu, R. (1996). Whose project is it anyway? Sharing and shaping the research and development agenda. Disability and Society, 11(3), 301-315.
23.
May, K. A. (1991). Interviewing techniques in qualitative research: Concerns and challenges. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 187-201). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
McCarthy, M. (1998). Interviewing people with learning disabilities about sensitive topics: A discussion of ethical issues. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 140-145.
25.
Morse, J. M. , & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research methods for healthcare professionals (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
26.
Munhall, P. L. (1991). Institutional review of qualitative research proposals: A task of no small consequence. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 258-271). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Norris, J. (1991). Mothers’ involvement in their adolescent daughters’ abortions. In J. M. Morse & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), The illness experience: Dimensions of suffering (pp. 201-236). London: Sage.
28.
Peplau, H. (1988). Interpersonal relations in nursing (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
29.
Polit, D. F. , & Hungler, B. P. (1997). Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal and utilization (4th ed.) Philadelphia: Lippincott.
30.
Ramcharan, P. , & Cutcliffe, J. R. (2001). Judging the ethics of qualitative research: The “ethics as process” model. Health and Social Care, 9(6), 358-367.
31.
Ramos, M. C. (1989). Some ethical implications of qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 12, 57-63.
32.
Raudonis, B. A. (1992). Ethical consideration in qualitative research with hospice patients. Qualitative Health Research, 2(2), 57-63.
33.
Robley, L. R. (1995). The ethics of qualitative nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(1), 45-48.
34.
Rodgers, J. (1999). Trying to get it right: Undertaking research involving people with learning difficulties. Disability and Society, 14(4), 421-433.
35.
Rogers, A. , Pilgrim, D., & Lacey, R. (1993). Experiencing psychiatry: Users’ views of services. London: Macmillan/MIND.
36.
Rogers, C. (1952). Client centred therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. London: Constable.
37.
Royal College of NursinG. . (1998). Research ethics: Guidance for nurses involved in research or any investigative project involving human subjects. London: RCN Publishing.
38.
Royal College of Physicians . (1996). Guidelines on the practice of ethics committees in medical research involving human subjects. London: The Royal College of Physicians.
39.
Seymour, J. E. , & Ingleton, C. (1999). Ethical issues in qualitative research at the end of life. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 5(2), 65-73.
40.
Stacey, T. (1999). Can there be a feminist ethnography?Women’s Studies International Forum, 11(1), 21-27.
41.
Stalker, K. (1998). Some ethical and methodological issues in research with people with learning disabilities. Disability and Society, 13(1), 5-19.
42.
Usher, K. , & Arthur, D. (1998). Process consent: A model for enhancing informed consent in mental health research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27, 692-697.
43.
Usher, K. , & Holmes, C. (1997). Ethical aspects of phenomenological research with mentally ill people. Nursing Ethics, 4(1), 49-56.
44.
Whittell, B. , & Ramcharan, P. (1998). Everyday lives. Bangor, UK: Centre for Social Policy Research and Development, University of Wales.
45.
Whittell, B. , & Ramcharan, P. (1999). The trouble with kids: An account of problems experienced with local children by people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(1), 21-24.
