Abstract
Gaining ethical approval for qualitative health research and implementing all the planned research processes in a proposed study are not straightforward endeavours. The situation becomes more complex when qualitative research is conducted in a cross-national healthcare and academic context. Also, it is even exhausting when the study is student-based, as student researchers may be considered novices and inexperienced researchers, especially for field-based research. Our aim in this reflective paper is to present, reflect, and discuss the experiences of a doctoral researcher in dealing with two independent institutional review boards in Canada and Ghana during an interdisciplinary Ph.D. project and the ethical dilemmas encountered while collecting data in Ghana. Based on the researcher’s experiences, it became apparent that consent and its documentation can have cultural implications in different settings; hence, institutional review boards must exercise reflexivity in their protocol review practice. Also, sharing research data with participants and institutional leaders while maintaining participant confidentiality and privacy in institutional ethnographic research requires sensitivity to bi-lateral ethical values. With the experiences shared in this paper, we advocate for a dialogic ethical review process in qualitative research where researchers and research ethics boards engage in ongoing dialogue rather than the usual prescriptive format research ethics reviews often assume.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data used in this article are part of an ongoing doctoral research project and can be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Adu-Gyamfi, J. (2015). Ethical challenges in cross-cultural field research: A comparative study of UK and Ghana. African Social Science Review: Article 3, 7(1), 44–53. http://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/assr/vol7/iss1/3.
Allen, R. E. S., & Wiles, J. L. (2016). A rose by any other name: Participants choosing research pseudonyms. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1133746.
Appiah, R. (2020). Community-based participatory research in rural african contexts: Ethico-cultural considerations and lessons from Ghana. Public Health Review, 41(27), https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00145-2.
Boateng, E. G. (2019). Assessment of the standard operating procedures of selected research ethics committees in Ghana [Master’s Thesis, University of Ghana].
Chimentao, L. K., & Reis, S. (2019). Beyond bureaucratic ethics in qualitative research involving human beings. Alfa São Paulo, 63(3), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1911-9.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360.
Helgesson, G. (2015). Informants a potential threat to confidentiality in small studies. Medical Health Care and Philosophy, 18, 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9579-4.
Howe, N., Giles, E., Newbury-Birch, D., & McColl, E. (2018). Systematic review of participants’ attitudes towards data sharing: A thematic synthesis. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 32(2), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819617751555.
Kaplan, L., Kuhnt, J., Picot, L. E., & Grasham, C. F. (2022). Safeguarding research staff “in the field”: A blind spot in ethics guidelines. Research Ethics, 19(1), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221131494.
Kearney, G. P., Corman, M. K., Hart, N. D., Johnston, J. L., & Gormley, G. J. (2019). Why institutional ethnography? Why now? Institutional ethnography in health professions education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0499-0.
Knight, J. (2019). The need for improved ethics guidelines in a changing research landscape. South African Journal of Science, 115(11/12), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2019/6349.
Laar, A. K., Redman, B. K., Ferguson, K., & Caplan, A. (2020). Institutional approaches to research integrity in Ghana. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 3037–3052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00257-7.
Lahman, M. K. (2018). Ethics in social science research: Becoming culturally responsive. Sage.
Leinius, J. (2020). Postcolonial feminist ethics and the politics of research collaborations across north-south divides. In D. Bendix, F. Muller, & A. Ziari (Eds.), Beyond the master’s tools. Decolonizing knowledge orders, research methodology, and teaching, pp. 71–92.
Meyer, M. N. (2018). Practical tips for ethical data sharing. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917747656.
Mfoafo-M’Carthy, M., & Grischow, J. (2022). Hierarchy and inequality in research: Navigating the challenges of research in Ghana. Qualitative Research, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221098927.
Miles, S. H., & Laar, A. K. (2018). Bioethics north and south: Creating a common ground. Ethics Medicine and Public Health, 4, 59–64.
Millora, C., Maimunah, S., & Still, E. (2020). Reflecting on the ethics of PhD research in the Global South: Reciprocity, reflexivity and situatedness. Acta Academica, 52(1), 10–30. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150479/aa52i1/SP2.
Montero-Sieburth, M. (2020). Ethical dilemmas and challenges in ethnographic migration research. Qualitative Research Journal, 20(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2019-0100.
Morina, A. (2021). When people matter: The ethics of qualitative research in the health and social sciences. Health and Social Care in the Community, 29, 1559–1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13221.
Mwakikagile, G. (2017). The people of Ghana: Ethnic diversity and national unity. New Africa Press.
Nortje, N., Hoffmann, W. A., & de Jongh, J. C. (2018). Development of bioethics and professionalism in the healthcare context. African perspectives on ethics for healthcare professional (pp. 11–24). Springer.
Owusu, S. A., Addison, G., Redman, B., Kearns, L., Amuna, P., & Laar, A. (2022). Assessment of the operational characteristics of research ethics committees in Ghana. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 17(1–2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264621103B589.
Paradis, E., & Varpio, L. (2018). Difficult but important questions about the ethics of qualitative. Perspectives in Medical Education: Commentary, 7, 65–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0414-0.
Parboteeah, K. P., Seriki, H. T., & Hoegl, M. (2014). Ethic diversity, corruption and ethical climates in sub-Saharan Africa: Recognizing the significance of human resource management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(7), 979–1001https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.815251
Peled-Raz, M., Tzafrir, S. S., Enosh, G., Efron, Y., & Doron, I. (2021). Ethics review boards for research with human participants: Past, present, and future. Qualitative Health Research, 31(3), 590–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732320972333.
Rankin, J. (2017). Conducting analysis in institutional ethnography: Analytical work prior to commencing data collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917734484.
Reid, A. M., Brown, J. M., Smith, J. M., Cope, A. C., & Jamieson, S. (2018). Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research. Perspectives on Medical Education, 7, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0412-2.
Roth, W-M. (2018). A transactional approach to research ethics. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(3 (Art 1)), https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-19.3.3061.
Roth, W. M., & von Unger, H. (2018). Current perspectives on research ethics in qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(3 (Art 33)).
Rowland, E., Manogaran, M., & Bourgeault, I. L. (2019). Institutional ethnography as a unique tool for improving health systems. Healthcare Management Forum, 32(3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0840470418823220.
Seddoh, A., Nazzar, A., Batse, Z. K., Tetteh, E., & Adjei, S. (2015). Mapping of health research institutions in Ghana: Landscaping and comparative analysis. Ghana: Centre for Health and Social Services (CHeSS).
Shah, N., CoathuP, V., Teare, H., Forgie, I., Giordano, G. N., Hansen, T. H., Groeneveld, L., Hudson, M., Pearson, E., Ruetten, H., & Kaye, J. (2019). Motivations for data sharing—views of research participants from four european countries: A DIRECT study. European Journal of Human Genetics, 721–729. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0344-2.
Smith, J. A. (2017). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Getting at lived experience. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 303–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262622.
Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., & Osborn, M. (1999). Doing interpretive phenomenological analysis. Qualitative health psychology (pp. 218–240). Sage.
Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS2). (2014). Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Government of Canada.
Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2019). Ethics in qualitative research: A practical guide. International Forum, 22(2), 116–132.
Wilkins, C. H., Mapes, B. M., Jerome, R. N., Villalta-Gil, V., Pulley, J. M., & Harris, P. A. (2019). Understanding what information is valued by research participants, and why. Health Affairs, 38(3), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05046.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, R. W. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory, and methodology. In Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–33).
Wodak, R., & Savski, K. (2018). Critical discourse–Ethnographic approaches to language policy. In &. M.-M. W. Tollefson, The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.4
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all our research participants and the leadership of the Yendi Municipal Hospital for their support during the fieldwork of this research project.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AK conceived the topic and drafted the manuscript. PMP edited and reviewed the article for intellectual content. AK and PMP read and approved the final version of the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kwame, A., Petrucka, P.M. Ethical Dilemmas in Cross-national Qualitative Research: A Reflection on Personal Experiences of Ethics from a Doctoral Research Project. J Acad Ethics (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09484-6
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09484-6