2. In this presentation you will find …
1- Our discussion on the argument for the statement.
2- Our discussion on the argument against the statement.
3- The conclusion.
FOR
AGAINST
3. FOR
1- “The Act addresses a number of issues relating to anonymity and says that
anonymisation should be carried out as far as possible to increase the security of data
processing”. By this way the researchers can ensure the best interests of the person
involved.
4. AGAINST
1- The real name necessary for the public safety “In cases of public safety,
research- ers might be expected to break the confidence of a participant if they
disclose having committed or being about to commit a crime (see Gregory, 2003,
p. 54).” So for the interest of the participant and others is to share with researcher
their real names to avoid these situations which might harm them and others.
2- Real names for participant helps to detect a crime that happens to them and
might safe their life “Researchers may feel a moral duty to disclose information if
a study participant reports being a victim of crime or if a study participant is
perceived as being at risk of harm.”
3- According to “Corden and Sainsbury (2005, p. 18) found that people had strong
views about the use of pseudo- nyms which was felt not only to be risky but also
dishonest.” The anonymity fraught with risks and with using pseudonyms in the
research the information will be dishonest for the reader.
(Wiles, Crow, Heath, & Charles, 2008)
5. Continue
4- “Anonymity is more complex and less predictable than it might at first appear
and may problematize some of the ethical and legal requirements for good
practice.”
5- According to (Grinyer 2002) “said that despite her request that we use
pseudonyms, when she had seen her words attributed to another's name, and
reference to her dead son also allocated a pseudonym, she realized she had
made a grave error. In her own words:” because by using pseudonyms the
research participants feels that they have lost ownership of their stories and
without their real names they didn't feel part of it.
6- By using pseudonyms for the participants it might be danger according (Grinyer,
2002)
“There is always the danger that allocating names to respondents will result in
them being called by a name that has bad associations or that they simply cannot
relate to.”
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, we cannot say for certain if the pseudonyms are better than real names
and vice versa for the participant in the research because its depend in the situation and
what is the best interests of the person involved. According to (I26, professional
researcher, childhood/youth) “It’s part of your responsibility as a researcher to watch
out for things that might be dangerous for the person who’s talking to you so that you
are able to make your own careful and ethical judgements about whether something
should be used because sometimes people given consent and really they shouldn’t
have.” Furthermore, we recommended all researchers to take permission before they list
their participant reals name or pseudonyms in order to keep the confodinty. Also, if the
researchers need to hide the participant identities they have to prevent 'loss of
ownership' of their participants. Additionally, “study indicated that while researchers felt
duty bound to break confidentiality where participants were at risk of harm, this did not
extend to a perceived duty to disclose information relating to involvement in crime or
other illegal activity.”
7. References
1- Grinyer, A. (2002). The Anonymity of Research Participants: Assumptions, Ethics and
Practicalities. Retrieved Dec 5, 2012, from Social Research Update:
http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU36.html
2- Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S., & Charles, V. (2008, Dec). The Management of
Confidentiality and Anonymity in Social Research. Retrieved Dec 2012, 5, from eprints:
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/651/1/The_Management_of_Confidentiality_and_Anonymity_
in_Social_Research.pdf
