Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 99–108 | Cite as

The Principle of Caveat Emptor: Confidentiality and Informed Consent as Endemic Ethical Dilemmas in Focus Group Research

  • Martin TolichEmail author
Article

Abstract

Informed consent and confidentiality supposedly minimize harm for research participants in all qualitative research methodologies, inclusive of one-on-one unstructured interviews and focus groups. This is not the case for the latter. Confidentiality and informed consent uniquely manifest themselves as endemic ethical dilemmas for focus group researchers. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) may be a more useful tool for those involved in focus group research: that is, let the researcher, the participants and the ethics committee beware that the only ethical assurance that can be given to focus group participants is that there are few ethical assurances. These ethical dilemmas are not sufficiently realized in the literature, and if they are discussed, they are often dealt with within the focus group moderator’s preamble to the group discussion. This paper encourages the mandatory use of a participant information sheet sufficiently detailed to engender the participant’s active consent. Sufficient here means the participant must be made adequately aware of these endemic ethical dilemmas in advance, to allow them to consent to share responsibility for any ensuing harm. The focus group moderator is not their sole protector.

Keywords

Focus groups Confidentiality Informed consent Ethics committees 

References

  1. Bauman, Z. 1993. Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, T., and J. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bosk, C., and R. De Vries. 2004. Bureaucracies of mass deception: Institutional review boards and the ethics of ethnographic research. American Academy of Political and Social Science 595, 249–263. doi: 10.1177/0002716204266913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey, M. 1994. The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing and interpreting focus group research. In Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, ed. J. Morse, 225–241. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule, Accessed 28/07/08Google Scholar
  5. Detardo-Bora, K. 2004. Action research in a world of positivist-oriented review. Action Research 2(3): 237–253. doi: 10.1177/1476750304045938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duggleby, W. 2005. What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research 15(6): 832–840. doi: 10.1177/1049732304273916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis, C. 1986. Fisher folk: Two communities on Chesapeake Bay. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ellis, C. 1995. Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24: 68–98. doi: 10.1177/089124195024001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farquhar, C. 1999. Are focus groups suitable for ‘sensitive’ topics? In Developing focus groups research: Politics, theory and practice, eds. R. S. Barbour, and Kitzinger, J. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Field, J. 2000. Researching lifelong learning through focus groups. Journal of Further and Higher Education 24(3): 323–335. doi: 10.1080/030987700750022262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. 1952. On cooling out the mark. Journal of Interpersonal Relations 15(4): 451–463.Google Scholar
  12. Green, J., and L. Hart. 1999. The impact of context on data? In Developing focus groups research: Politics, theory and practice, eds. Barbour, R. S. and Kitzinger, J. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Homan, R. 1991. The ethics of social research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Hyden, L., and P. Bulow. 2003. Who’s talking: drawing conclusions from focus groups: some methodological considerations. Social Research Methodology 6(4): 305–321. doi: 10.1080/13645570210124865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahan, J. 2001. Focus groups as a tool for policy analysis. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP) 1(1): 129–146. doi: 10.1111/1530-2415.00007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kitzinger, J. 1995. Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 311: 299–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kitzinger, J., and R. Barbour. 1999. Introduction: The challenge and promise of focus groups. In Developing focus groups research: Politics, theory and practice, eds. Barbour, R. S. and Kitzinger J. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Kitzinger, J., and C. Farquhar. 1999. The analytical potential of ‘sensitive moments’ in focus group discussions. In Developing focus groups research: Politics, theory and practice, eds. Barbour, R. S. and Kitzinger, J. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Knodel, J. 1994. Conducting comparative focus groups research. Health Transition Review 4(1): 99–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Krueger, R. 1997. Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Madriz, E. 2000. Focus groups in feminist research. In Handbook of qualitative research, eds. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Morgan, D. 1998. The focus group guidebook: Focus group kit, vol 1. Newbury Park: Sage, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, D. 1996. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22, 129–152. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan, D. 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Morgan, D. 1993. Future directions for focus groups. In Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, ed. D. Morgan. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, D. 1988. Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Myers, G., and P. Macnagthen. 1999. Can focus group be analysed as talk? In Developing focus groups research: Politics, theory and practice, eds. Barbour, R. S. and J. Kitzinger. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Rice, P., and D. Ezzy. 2002. Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, M. 1995. Ethics in focus groups: a few concerns. Qualitative Health Research 5: 478–486. doi: 10.1177/104973239500500408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tolich, M., and M. Fitzgerald. 2006. If ethics committees were designed for ethnography. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics; JERHRE 1: 2. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.2.71.Google Scholar
  32. Tolich, M. 2004. Internal confidentiality: when confidentiality assurances fail relational informants. Qualitative Sociology 27: 101–106. doi: 10.1023/B:QUAS.0000015546.20441.4a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van den Hoonaard, W. 2002. Some concluding thoughts. In Walking the tightrope: Ethical issues for qualitative researchers, ed. W. Van den Hoonaard. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  34. Whyte, W.F. 1981. [1943 printing]. Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wilkinson, S. 1998. Focus group methodology: our view. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. Theory into Practice 1: 181–204.Google Scholar
  36. Wilkinson, S. 1999. How useful are focus groups in feminist research? In Developing focus groups research: Politics, theory and practice, eds. Barbour, R. S. and J. Kitzinger. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Zeller, R. 1993. Focus group research on sensitive topics. In Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art, ed. D. Morgan, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology Programme Coordinator, Anthropology, Gender and SociologyOtago UniversityDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations