Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Qualitative Research: Ethical Considerations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Application of Content Analysis in Nursing Science Research

Abstract

Ethical aspects include perspectives of subject protection and conducting research based on ethical standards. This chapter aims to highlight the ethical aspects of qualitative research, with particular emphasis on content analysis. The chapter begins by presenting four ethical principles—autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice—that were first brought to attention by Beauchamp and Childress (Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, 2013). These principles form the basis for the protection of the subject in qualitative research. Next, Shamoon and Resnik’s (Responsible conduct of research. Oxford University Press, New York, 2015) principles for responsible research conduct are described. The ethical framework presented by Emanuel et al. (J Infect Dis 189:930–937, 2000; JAMA 283:2701–2711, 2004), which includes eight ethical requirements, is then introduced, and later used to explore the ethical aspects of content analysis based on an example of qualitative research. The chapter concludes by discussing several challenges that researchers may face when applying content analysis to qualitative research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Shamoo AE, Resnik D. Responsible conduct of research. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mustajoki H, Mustajoki AS. A new approach to research ethics: using grounded dialogue to strengthen research communities. New York: Routledge; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Øye C, Sørensen NØ, Glasdam S. Qualitative research ethics on the spot. Nurs Ethics. 2016;23:455–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Launis V. Ihminen kliinisen lääketieteellisen tutkimuksen kohteena. In: Keränen T, Pasternack A, editors. Kliinisen tutkimuksen etiikka. Helsinki: Kustannus oy Duodecim; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Heale R, Shorten A. Ethical context of nursing research. Evid Based Nurs. 2017;20:7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D. An ethical framework for biomedical research. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D, editors. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford university press; 2008. p. 123–35.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. Responsible conduct on research and procedures for handling allegiations of misconduct in Finland. Helsinki. 2012. http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2018.

  9. Townsend A, Cox SM, Li LC. Qualitative research ethics: enhancing evidence-based practice in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2010;90:615–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fallon RH. Two senses of autonomy. Stanford Law Rev. 1994;46:875–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Secker B. The appearance of kant’s deontology in contemporary kantianism: concepts of patient autonomy in bioethics. J Med Philos. 1999;24:43–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Halkoaho A, Pietilä A-M, Ebbesen M, et al. Cultural aspects related to informed consent in health research. Nurs Ethics. 2016;23:698–712.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brock DW. Philosophical justifications of informed consent in research. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA, Lie RK, Miller FG, Wendler D, editors. The oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 606–12.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jefford M, Moore R. Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:485–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Biggs JS, Marchesi A. Information for consent: too long and too hard to read. Res Ethics. 2015;11:133–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ennis L, Wykes T. Sense and readability: participant information sheets for research studies. Br J Psychiatry J Ment Sci. 2016;208:189–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith CA, Fogarty S. A survey of study participants’ understanding of informed consent to participate in a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2015;16:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-015-0975-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tam NT, Huy NT, Thoa LTB, et al. Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:186–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, et al. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009;198:420–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paris A, Deygas B, Cornu C, et al. Improved informed consent documents for biomedical research do not increase patients’ understanding but reduce enrolment: a study in real settings. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80:1010–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Nishimura A, Carey J, Erwin PJ, et al. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Halkoaho A, Vähäkangas K, Häggman-Laitila A, et al. Views of midwives about ethical aspects of participation in placental perfusion studies. Midwifery. 2012;28:131–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nurmi S-M, Kangasniemi M, Halkoaho A, et al. What enables ethically conducted clinical research in hospitals? Views of the administrative staff. Clin Ethics. 2016;11:166–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Leino-Kilpi H, Välimäki M, Dassen T, et al. Privacy: a review of the literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2001;38:663–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaye J. The tension between data sharing and the protection of privacy in genomics research. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2012;13:415–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Elliot M, Mackey E, O’Hara K, et al. The Anonymisation decision-making framework. Manchester: UKAN; 2016. http://ukanon.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/The-Anonymisation-Decision-making-Framework.pdf. Accessed 24 Apr 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nurmi S-M, Kangasniemi M, Halkoaho A, et al. Privacy of clinical research subjects: an integrative literature review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019;14:33–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ministry of Education and Culture. Open science and research leads to surprising discoveries and creative insights. 2014. http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/75210/okm21.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 3 Dec 2017.

  29. Rumbold JMM, Pierscionek BK. A critique of the regulation of data science in healthcare research in the European Union. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0184-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. The European Parliamanet and European Council. General Data Protection Regulation. 2016. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/reform/files/regulation_oj_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec 2017.

  31. WMA. Declaration of Helsinki. 2013. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Accessed 3 Dec 2017.

  32. Decker SE, Naugle AE, Carter-Visscher R, et al. Ethical issues in research on sensitive topics: participants’ experiences of distress and benefit. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6:55–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tilburt J, Ford JG, Howerton MW, et al. Applying justice in clinical trials for diverse populations. Clin Trials. 2007;4:264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rogers J, Kelly UA. Feminist intersectionality: bringing social justice to health disparities research. Nurs Ethics. 2011;18:397–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shaw D, Satalkar P. Researchers’ interpretations of research integrity: a qualitative study. Account Res. 2018;25:79–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nurmi S-M, Halkoaho A, Kangasniemi M, et al. Collaborative partnership and the social value of clinical research: a qualitative secondary analysis. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;18:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0217-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Nurmi S-M, Pietilä A-M, Kangasniemi M, et al. Nurse leaders’ perceptions of the ethical recruitment of study subjects in clinical research. J Nurs Manag. 2015;23:1020–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Resnik DB. The ethics of science: an introduction. London: Routledge; 2005. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203979068.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Resnik DB. Scientific research and the public trust. Sci Eng Ethics. 2011;17:399–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, et al. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:930–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C, et al. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tsoka-Gwegweni JM, Wassenaar DR. Using the Emanuel et al. Framework to assess ethical issues raised by a biomedical research ethics Committee in South Africa. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014;9:36–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Heaton J. Reworking qualitative data. London: SAGE; 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Heimer CA, Petty J. Bureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of human subjects research. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2010;6:601–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pollock K. Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13:25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Löfström E. Students’ ethical awareness and conceptions of research ethics. Ethics Behav. 2012;22:349–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McCormack WT, Garvan CW. Team-based learning instruction for responsible conduct of research positively impacts ethical decision-making. Account Res. 2014;21:34–49.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Todd EM, Torrence BS, Watts LL, et al. Effective practices in the delivery of research ethics education: a qualitative review of instructional methods. Account Res. 2017;24:297–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chen DT, Jones L, Gelberg L. Ethics of clinical research within a community-academic partnered participatory framework. Ethn Dis. 2006;16:118–35.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Kaiser K. Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2009;19:1632–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Sanjari M, Bahramnezhad F, Fomani FK, et al. Ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: the necessity to develop a specific guideline. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2014;7:14.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Saunders B, Kitzinger J, Kitzinger C. Anonymising interview data: challenges and compromise in practice. Qual Res. 2015;15:616–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Burles MC, Bally JMG. Ethical, practical, and methodological considerations for unobtrusive qualitative research about personal narratives shared on the internet. Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17:160940691878820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Anuradha RB. Securing privacy for confidential databases using anonymization. Middle-East J Sci Res. 2012;12:1792–5.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Coppieters Y, Levêque A. Ethics, privacy and the legal framework governing medical data: opportunities or threats for biomedical and public health research? Arch Public Heal. 2013;71:1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. De Lusignan S, Liyanage H, Di Iorio CT, et al. Using routinely collected health data for surveillance, quality improvement and research: framework and key questions to assess ethics, privacy and data access. J Innov Health Inform. 2016;22:426–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Porsdam Mann S, Savulescu J, Sahakian BJ. Facilitating the ethical use of health data for the benefit of society: electronic health records, consent and the duty of easy rescue. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2016;374:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Frizzo-Barker J, Chow-White PA, Charters A, et al. Genomic big data and privacy: challenges and opportunities for precision medicine. Comput Support Coop Work. 2016;25:115–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Tucker K, Branson J, Dilleen M, et al. Protecting patient privacy when sharing patient-level data from clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Rho MJ, Jang KS, Chung K-Y, et al. Comparison of knowledge, attitudes, and trust for the use of personal health information in clinical research. Multimed Tools Appl. 2015;74:2391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Grande D, Asch DA, Wan F, et al. Are patients with cancer less willing to share their health information? Privacy, sensitivity, and social purpose. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11:378–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Aitken M, de St Jorre J, Pagliari C, et al. Public responses to the sharing and linkage of health data for research purposes: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0153-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Riordan F, Papoutsi C, Reed JE, et al. Patient and public attitudes towards informed consent models and levels of awareness of electronic health records in the UK. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84:237–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Mulligan DK, Koopman C, Doty N. Privacy is an essentially contested concept: a multi-dimensional analytic for mapping privacy. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2016;374(2083):20160118. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

    Anna-Maija Pietilä, Sanna-Maria Nurmi & Arja Halkoaho

  2. Tampere University of Applied Sciences, Tampere, Finland

    Arja Halkoaho

  3. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland

    Helvi Kyngäs

Authors
  1. Anna-Maija Pietilä
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanna-Maria Nurmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arja Halkoaho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helvi Kyngäs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Maija Pietilä .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Helvi Kyngäs

  2. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Kristina Mikkonen

  3. Research Unit of Nursing Science and Health Management, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Maria Kääriäinen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pietilä, AM., Nurmi, SM., Halkoaho, A., Kyngäs, H. (2020). Qualitative Research: Ethical Considerations. In: Kyngäs, H., Mikkonen, K., Kääriäinen, M. (eds) The Application of Content Analysis in Nursing Science Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30198-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30199-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation