Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 293–303 | Cite as

Beyond Compliance Checking: A Situated Approach to Visual Research Ethics

  • Caroline LenetteEmail author
  • Jessica R. Botfield
  • Katherine Boydell
  • Bridget Haire
  • Christy E. Newman
  • Anthony B. Zwi
Original Research


Visual research methods like photography and digital storytelling are increasingly used in health and social sciences research as participatory approaches that benefit participants, researchers, and audiences. Visual methods involve a number of additional ethical considerations such as using identifiable content and ownership of creative outputs. As such, ethics committees should use different assessment frameworks to consider research protocols with visual methods. Here, we outline the limitations of ethics committees in assessing projects with a visual focus and highlight the sparse knowledge on how researchers respond when they encounter ethical challenges in the practice of visual research. We propose a situated approach in relation to visual methodologies that encompasses a negotiated, flexible approach, given that ethical issues usually emerge in relation to the specific contexts of individual research projects. Drawing on available literature and two case studies, we identify and reflect on nuanced ethical implications in visual research, like tensions between aesthetics and research validity. The case studies highlight strategies developed in-situ to address the challenges two researchers encountered when using visual research methods, illustrating that some practice implications are not necessarily addressed using established ethical clearance procedures. A situated approach can ensure that visual research remains ethical, engaging, and rigorous.


Visual-based research Ethical review Ethics in practice Reflexivity Australia 


  1. Allen, L. 2009. “Caught in the act”: Ethics committee review and researching the sexual culture of schools. Qualitative Research 9(4): 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belgrave, L.L., D. Zablotsky, and M.A. Guadagno. 2002. How do we talk to each other? Writing qualitative research for quantitative readers. Qualitative Health Research 12(10): 1427–1439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Boydell, K.M., C. Solimine, and S. Jackson. 2015. Visual embodiment of psychosis: Ethical concerns when performing difficult experiences. Visual Methodologies 3(2): 43–52.Google Scholar
  4. Boydell, K.M., T. Volpe, S. Cox, et al. 2012. Ethical challenges in arts-based health research. International Journal of the Creative Arts in Interprofessional Practice Spring Supplement (11): 1–17.Google Scholar
  5. Cox, S., and K.M. Boydell. 2016. Ethical issues in arts-based health research. In Creative arts in public health: International perspectives, edited by P. Camic and L. Wilson, 83–91. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, S., S. Drew, M. Guillemin, C. Howell, D. Warr, and J. Waycott. 2014. Guidelines for ethical visual research methods. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  7. Dickson-Swift, V., E.L. James, S. Kippen, and P. Liamputtong. 2009. Researching sensitive topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research 9(1): 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gubrium, A., A.L. Hill, and S. Flicker. 2014. A situated practice of ethics for participatory visual and digital methods in public health research and practice: A focus on digital storytelling. American Journal of Public Health 104(9): 1606–1614.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Guillemin, M., and L. Gillam. 2004. Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry 10(2): 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guta, A., S. Flicker, R. Travers, et al. 2014. HIV CBR Ethics fact sheet #4: Ethical issues in visual image-based research. Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  11. Haggerty, K.D. 2004. Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology 27(4): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hannes, K., and O. Parylo. 2014. Let’s play it safe: Ethical considerations from participants in a photovoice research project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 13(1): 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howell, C., S. Cox, S. Drew, M. Guillemin, D. Warr, and J. Waycott. 2015. Exploring ethical frontiers of visual methods. Research Ethics 10(4): 208–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuper, A., S. Reeves, and W. Levinson. 2008. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 337: 404–409.Google Scholar
  15. Lenette, C. 2017. Using digital storytelling in participatory research with refugee women. Research Methods Cases (SAGE online).Google Scholar
  16. Murray, L., and M. Nash. 2016. The challenges of participant photography: A critical reflection on methodology and ethics in two cultural contexts. Qualitative Health Research 27(6): 1–15.Google Scholar
  17. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, and Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee. 2007 (updated May 2015). National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (updated May 2015). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  18. Nunn, C. 2017. Translations–generations: Representing and producing migration generations through arts based research. Journal of Intercultural Studies 38(1) :1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Packard, J. 2008. “I’m gonna show you what it's really like out here”: The power and limitation of participatory visual methods. Visual Studies 23(1): 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pitt, P. 2014. “The project cannot be approved in its current form”: Feminist visual research meets the human research ethics committee. Australian Educational Researcher 41(3): 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wiles, R., A. Coffey, J. Robison, and J. Prosser. 2012. Ethical regulation and visual methods: Making visual research impossible or developing good practice? Sociological Research Online 17: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yassi, A., K. Lockhart, L. Fels, and K.M. Boydell. 2016. Ethics in community–university–artist partnered research: Tensions, contradictions and gaps identified mid-way in a 5-year multi-institutional “arts for social change” project. Journal of Academic Ethics 14(3): 199–220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Lenette
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jessica R. Botfield
    • 2
  • Katherine Boydell
    • 3
  • Bridget Haire
    • 4
  • Christy E. Newman
    • 5
  • Anthony B. Zwi
    • 2
  1. 1.Forced Migration Research Network (FMRN@UNSW), School of Social SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Health, Rights and Development (HEARD@UNSW), School of Social SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Black Dog InstituteSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.The Kirby InstituteSydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Centre for Social Research in HealthUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations