Abstract
This research note explores a limit in the principle of confidentiality, demonstrating how informants' connected relationships can lead to impaired or diminished autonomy. Insiders may recognize what other insiders have said to a researcher in a private interview. Internal confidentiality is distinct from external confidentiality, which assures protection against identification by those who were not subjects of the research.
Similar content being viewed by others
references
Burgess, R. (1984). In the field: An introduction to field research. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Ellis, C. (1986). Fisher folk: Two communities on Chesapeake Bay. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.
Ellis, C. (1995). Emotional and ethical quagmires in returning to the field. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 24, 68-98.
Mercurio, J. A. (1972). Caning: Educational rite and tradition. Syracuse: Syracuse University Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
Opie, A. (1991). Caring alone: experiences of looking after the confused elderly at home. Wellington: Daphne Brasell Associates.
Tolich, M and C. Davidson (1999) Starting Fieldwork: an introduction to Qualitative Research in New Zealand Oxford University Press, Auckland.
Vidich, A., & Bensman, J. (1968). Small town in mass society: Class, power and religion in a rural community. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Whyte, W. F. (1981)[1943]. Street corner society: The social structure of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tolich, M. Internal Confidentiality: When Confidentiality Assurances Fail Relational Informants. Qualitative Sociology 27, 101–106 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000015546.20441.4a
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000015546.20441.4a