A breakdown of micro-ethical concerns can be achieved by four main issues:
- Reducing risk of unanticipated harm[1]
- Protecting the interviewee's information
- Effectively informing interviewees about the nature of the study
- Reducing the risk of exploitation
When considering these four issues, it is important for interviewers to remember that while rapport is an integral aspect of interviewing, to allow for rich, detailed data from the participant, it is also essential to remember that as a researcher, one holds a position of power. As with quantitative studies, data must not be altered by manipulating the interview and that the participants autonomy and concerns must be upheld at all times.
These ethical issues meet concerns at the micro-level, in which the participant is shown ethical consideration and respect, but issues at the macro-level must be addressed as well. These concerns pertain to how research is used and applied to society. An example of how a qualitative interview can uphold micro-ethics (showing respect and confidentiality to participants) but fails to be ethically sound at the macro-ethics level, is consumer research. In this setting participants are shown respect, but are never-the-less used to construct data that will manipulate society by enticing them to buy a given product.[2]
The responsibility of the interviewer in qualitative interviewing is often up for debate. One view dictates that the interviewer should show unconditional positive regard to the interviewee which will allow them to explore themselves without fear of judgement. This view favors a more open report which allows the interviewee to stray from a set path.[3] This approach is often paired with a less structured interview script which allows for expounding on topics which the interviewee views as valuable.
While some agree that the rich detail that is valued in qualitative research is harvested from a give and take rapport between interviewer and interviewee, others side with a more stringent view of the relationship between interviewee and interviewer. This view views the interaction as a one-way dialogue in which the interviewer asks the interviewee question and a response is given. For an interviewee to break script is considered bad taste.[4] Often, an interviewer with this approach with use a strictly structured interview script which allows for little deviation from a planned course.
- ^ DiCicco-Bloom, Barbara (2006). "The qualitative research interview". Medical Education. 40 (4): 314–321. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x. PMID 16573666.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Brinkmann, Svend (2005). "Confronting the ethics of qualitative research". Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 18 (2): 157–181. doi:10.1080/10720530590914789.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Schamberger, Monika S. (1997). S. A. Archives Journal. 39: 25–35.
{{cite journal}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ Brinkmann, Svend (2005). "Confronting the ethics of qualitative research". Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 18 (2): 157–181. doi:10.1080/10720530590914789.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)