Abstract
The intention of anonymity and by extension confidentiality within human research is to prevent any deleterious repercussions which may result from the participant’s personal disclosure. This is an appropriate ethical position to consider and decision to be made prior to the commencement of any research. The argument put forth here is that not all research warrants participant anonymisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bentz, V. M., & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
BERA. (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for educational research. Retrieved September, 2013, from http://www.bera.ac.uk
Bishop, L. (2005). Protecting respondents and enabling data sharing: Reply to Parry and Mauthner. Sociology, 39(2), 333–336.
Clark, A., Prosser, J., & Wiles, R. (2010). Ethical issues in image-based research. Arts & Health: An International Journal for Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 81–93.
Florida, R. E. (1998). The Lotus Sutra and health care ethics. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 5, 170–189.
Grinyer, A. (2002). The anonymity of research participants: Assumptions, ethics and practicalities. Sociology at Surrey, 36.
Goh, J. W. P., Lee, O. K., & Salleh, H. (2010). Self–rating and respondent anonymity. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 229–245.
James, N., & Busher, H. (2007). Ethical issues in online educational research: Protecting privacy, establishing authenticity in email interviewing. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30,(1), 101–113.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68.
Nespor, J. (2000). Anonymity and place in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 546–569.
Scott, C. R. (2005). Anonymity in applied communication research: Tensions between IRB’s, researchers, and human subjects. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(3), 242–257.
Walford, G. (2005). Research ethical guidelines and anonymity. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28(1), 83–93.
Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2007). The management ofconfidentiality and anonymity in social research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5), 417–428.
Wood, E. J. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 373–386.
Yu, K. (2008). Confidentiality revisited. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 161–172.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davies, A. (2014). Does Anonymising Steal the Voices of Researchers and Research Subjects?. In: Midgley, W., Davies, A., Oliver, M.E., Danaher, P.A. (eds) Echoes. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-491-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-491-8_3
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6209-491-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)