This week we were posed with three research scenarios, and had to pose an ethical or risk rating for the study. I take this a step further and pose some followup questions or direction.
Scenario 1
A researcher plans to interview eight artists / curators / designers for her thesis. She offers a letter of introduction about the project, gains written informed consent for the interview from each interviewee, later checks the contents of the transcription with each interviewee, allows the interviewee to withdraw comments / approve the interview record. The interviews will be used as attributed statements within the thesis. A recognised approach from oral history / social sciences / ethnography / art and design criticism and history is part of the methodology. The interviews will involve travel in the UK and abroad, the researcher has discussed her travel plans and personal safety with her supervisors.
Rating
This project has a few layers, in which some complexity is obscured. It is happening in person, with identifiable people which makes it medium risk. However, the author does not make it clear which methodology is being used, nor what subjects are being interviewed about. I would propose that the researcher include a list of questions being asked, or include the general direction or hypothesis for the research so as to ascertain the topic, as this could easily reclassify this as high risk. I would also be interested in how the artists, curators and designers were selected for this interview, as this may influence bias.
Scenario 2
A researcher plans to interview around 30 producers of legitimate graffiti at the Southbank Undercroft. Participants were to be interviewed about their opinions and ideas regarding activities and future possibilities for the Undercroft, and also where relevant, their own graffiti habits and key trends in graffiti practices.
Rating
Another example of a layered issue with potentially obscured complexity. While the original scope focuses on legitimate graffiti, there is a followup on key trends and the artist’s own graffiti habits, which may expose some illegal activity, which could move the classification of this project from medium to high.
Scenario 3
The research, for a practice-based PhD, involves engaging online presences in social networking sites under a pseudonym. It aims to explore the ways in which identity is constructed online. The research is such that it cannot be revealed in advance to those involved. The core of the research involves developing a community of online presences into a community of offline friends.
Rating
This one looks like a clear cut case of high risk. There is deception and there is no prior consent before being included in the study. The creation of accounts under a pseudonym may also be a violation of the terms of service of the system. The last segment indicates there may be some offline community elements involved, which given the deception should be very carefully evaluated.