Skip to main content

Rapport and respect: negotiating ethical relations between researcher and participant

Abstract

Qualitative research is largely dependent on building good interpersonal relations between researcher and participant. This is necessary for generating rich data, while at the same time ensuring respect is maintained between researcher and participant. We argue for a better understanding of researcher–participant relations in research practice. Codes of ethics, although important, do not address these kinds of ethical challenges. Negotiating the ethical relations between researcher and participant is paramount in maintaining ethical rigour in qualitative research. In this paper we propose concepts that can assist in understanding how the ethics of research relations are negotiated in practice; the ‘zone of the untouchable’ from the Danish philosopher, Løgstrup, is combined with the notion of ‘ethical mindfulness’. We argue how and why these concepts in tandem can heighten awareness and offer ways to address the ethically important moments in research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, when preparing to interview a woman participant in a study on women and heart disease, Marilys asked what appeared to be an innocent demographic question: ‘How many children do you have?’ The participant hesitated, and tears welled up in her eyes as she replied that she found it difficult to answer the question; she had four children, but one child had gone missing a year ago, with no knowledge of whether the child was still alive. In qualitative research, there are no innocent questions; the questions we ask, or sometimes our very presence, has the potential to make the participant (and the researcher) vulnerable.

  2. 2.

    Although ethical reflection on research has a long history, a notable feature in the history of human research ethics was the Nürnberg trials following the abuses in medical research during World War 2. A significant outcome of these trials was the Nürnberg code, which stipulated voluntary participation and the responsibility of medical researchers to gain informed consent from those on whom they conducted research. Following the Nürnberg code was the international adoption of the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964, proposed by the World Medical Assembly. Although different countries revised and developed their own codes and guidelines of human research ethics, the principles and values espoused in the Declaration of Helsinki remain core. The release of the Belmont Report in 1979 by the United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research provided a significant contribution in its statement of ethical principles and guidelines for application to the conduct of human research. See http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/ (accessed 14 Jan 2008) for the United States Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) regulations for human research ethics arising from the Belmont Report.

References

  1. Brinkmann, S., and S. Kvale. 2005. Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 18: 157–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dickson-Swift, V., E.L. James, et al. 2006. Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics. Qualitative Health Research 166: 853–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dickson-Swift, V., E.L. James, et al. 2007. Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research 73: 327–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Duncombe, J., and J. Jessop. 2002. ‘Doing rapport’ and the ethics of ‘faking friendship’. In Ethics in qualitative research, ed. M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, and T. Miller, 107–122. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ellis, C. 2007. Telling secrets, revealing lies. Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry 131: 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Etherington, K. 2007. Ethical research in reflexive relationships. Qualitative Inquiry 135: 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fangen, K. 2004. Deltagende observasjon [Participant observation]. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.

  8. Finlay, L. 1998. Reflexivity: An essential component for all research? British Journal of Occupational Therapy 6110: 453–456.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fog, J. 2004. Med samtalen som udgangspunkt [With the conversation as basis]. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.

  10. Gordon, D.F. 2005. Getting close by staying distant: Fieldwork with proselytizing groups. In Ethics and politics in fieldwork, vol. III, ed. C. Pole, 326–345. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guillemin, M., and L. Gillam. 2004. Ethics, reflexivity and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. Qualitative Inquiry 102: 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guillemin, M., and L. Gillam. 2006. Telling moments: Everyday ethics in health care. Melbourne: IP Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography. Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hem, M.H., K. Heggen, et al. 2007. Questionable requirement for consent in observational research in psychiatry. Nursing Ethics: An International Journal for Health Care Professionals 141: 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koch, T., and A. Harrington. 1998. Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing 284: 882–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kvale, S. 2006. Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry 123: 480–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Løgstrup, K. E. 1956/1999. Den etiske fordring [The ethical challenge]. Oslo: J W Cappelens Forlag a.s.

  18. Løgstrup, K.E. 1997. System og symbol. Essays system and symbol. Essays. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mason, J. 1996. Qualitative researching. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  20. McGraw, L., A. Zvonkovic, et al. 2000. Studying postmodern families: A feminist analysis of ethical tensions in work and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family 621: 68–77.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Riessman, C.K. 2005. Exporting ethics: A narrative about narrative research in South India. Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 94: 473–490.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Warr, D. 2004. Stories in the flesh and voices in the head: Reflections on the context and impact of research with disadvantaged populations. Qualitative Health Research 144: 578–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Whyte, W.F. 1984. Learning from the field. A guide from experience. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Lynn Gillam for her close reading of the paper and her insightful comments. We are also grateful for the helpful comments of the two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marilys Guillemin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guillemin, M., Heggen, K. Rapport and respect: negotiating ethical relations between researcher and participant. Med Health Care and Philos 12, 291–299 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-008-9165-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ethics in qualitative research
  • Rapport
  • Respect in research