NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-72NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-71.docx

NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-7 2
NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-7 1
Design a Qualitative Study
BUS-7380 Assignment # 7
Elton Norman
Dr. Vicki Lindsay
15 November 2019
Greetings Elton,
Within this signature assignment for assignment number seven,
you were to use 6-10 pages of text and 15-20 Scholarly peer-
reviewed sources and answer the following parts of your
assignment. These parts should be pieced from your feedback
from your past assignments within this course. The assignment
stated that you should have at least these following parts, within

the paper:
Statement of problem. Provide a clear justification with
evidence on why this study is relevant to your field and worthy
of doctoral-level study. Support your efforts using 3 scholarly
sources published within the past 5 years to ensure relevancy.
Remember, the problem statement should reflect your degree
type (applied or theory-based).
Purpose statement. Apply the script introduced in this course
and your instructor’s feedback to produce an accurate and
aligned problem statement.
Research question. The qualitative research query must be
framed to deeply probe and investigate a problem. How, why,
and what strategies are the best terms to include in your
research question.
Defend your choice to use the qualitative methodology to
research your identified problem. Synthesize 2 or 3 sources to
support your arguments.
Defend your choice to use a specific qualitative research design.
Synthesize 2 or 3 sources to support your arguments.
Explain how and why you will select participants from a
specific population. Include citations for the identified
population, the sampling method.
Identify and support with citations:
Data collection steps ≤==YOUR DATA COLLECTION
METHOD NEEDS MORE INFORMATION
Ethical protection of human subjects
Logically define the steps in data analysis
How the four elements of trustworthiness could be addressed.
Anything above that is highlighted needs more information. It
did not have sufficient information to pass that part of the
assignment. If you have any questions about this or anything
that is written in your feedback, please feel free to contact me.
***************
The feedback process consisted of a four-part summary (four-

parts listed below), a few short, location-specific balloon-
comments found within the margins of the text, and the
highlighting of grammar, punctuation, or APA styling errors
found within the text. Make sure that you view your document
with the track changes (review toolbar) set to ALL MARKUP to
be able to see all the comments.
The summary is split into four parts. These four parts consist
of grammar/punctuation, conformity with APA style citations,
conformity with APA style references, and content. The order of
the parts listed does not intend to emphasize the importance of
the parts as the content is always the most important part of the
assignment. Therefore, it is listed in the end because normal
memory concentrates on what was heard / read last.
What was found:
Grammar/ Punctuation
There are a lot of grammar and punctuation problems
throughout the assignment. Most of these problems deal with
punctuation errors. Most of these punctuation errors are
problems with comma placement. You have a run-on sentence
because your compound sentences are missing separators. There
are also problems with commas missing between introductory
phrases and phrases that begin with the word "which"
throughout your paper. This has been explained numerous times
within other submissions' feedbacks. The need for proofreading
is crucial. For more information on this problem, see the
document for the exact places where the errors occur.
This is the first time that this has occurred within your papers
that I remember. But, you do not have tabs for your paragraphs.
In an APA paper, you differentiate your paragraphs by using
five spaces for the first line. I believe that most of your other
papers held to this rule. For some reason, this paper strayed
from that important APA rule.
Do not used the first- or second-person viewpoint in your
writing of an APA style research paper for NCU other than
within the methodology section of your research paper.

APA style citations
The citations found in the text are mostly in APA format. Some
are incorrect.
Citations are needed throughout a large portion of this paper.
Citations are missing in many areas where ideas and facts are
not global knowledge. Note the large areas within your paper
where the citations are missing.
APA style references
The references are not formatted using APA. Your references
are not in alphabetical order. Most all of them are missing
where they were published if they were in books, the digital
object identifier if they were scholarly journal articles, and the
URL if they were websites. Where you have found the source is
extremely important. The format of your reference page is not
in APA style. You are missing many parts to your source, you
are not using hanging indentations, and there are no italics used.
Content
There is an introduction to your research paper. However, there
is no problem statement section to this paper. You do have a
section that is named research problem. If this is your idea of
the statement of the problem, you will need to make sure that
you use the correct terminology within your research paper. A
correct statement of the problem needs to have around 100 to
300 words within it to clearly explain what the problem is and
to explain why research is needed in that area. Within this
research problem, you are not explaining the same thing as a
statement of the problem. You have not explained why research
is needed within the area. You have explained that diversity
should exist at AT&T because it has a large majority of a
minority. This is not a correct problem statement.
Within your paper, you must pay attention to detail and have the
same detail throughout the entire paper. In the data collection
section, you state you will be using human resource officers
from many companies as your sample.you state that you will use
employees from the Pepsi Corporation. Which is it? If you place

your population and sample in one place and at the beginning of
your methodology, you will not have this problem. Note the
method that many of your research journal articles use. Notice
where they put who, what, when, and where they will conduct
their data. You should use the same method that APA style
sources use. You never state whom the population consists of
and how many the sample will consist of.
If you have any questions about any part of this, please feel free
to contact me via Skype or NCU email.
V. Lindsay, PhD 18.25 /25 11/21/19
Introduction
Diversity refers to all dimensions that can be used to bring out
difference between people and groups. The dimensions which
are involved in diversity can either be invisible or visible. The
presence of diversity in the workplace can be seen in the
workplace through the representation of all types of race,
ethnicity, age, and gender. The employees of a diverse business
are the ones who have distinct qualities and elements which are
different from one another (Buckingham, 2012). Workplace
diversity has also been defined as the broad range of differences
between people which influence the way people achieve
business results and interact with one another (Hazard, 2004).
The different elements of diversity include action, beliefs, ad
values which should vary in terms of age, physical abilities,
lifestyle, gender, and ethnicity. The management of these
elements can lead to problems in the workplace when using the
old elements of administration. There are many components of
workplace diversity which include the management of diversity,
the problems associated with diversity, and many more.
Diversity has been found to affect the job satisfaction of the
employees as well as the diversity awareness (Thurlow, Mills,
& Mills, 2018). In the past the supervisors and managers were
looking for a workplace that is homogenous but nowadays they
are looking to have a workplace that is different with a wide

range of individuals.
Managing diversity is based on the assumption that having
different types of employees leads to new methods of working
together which will enhance productivity and morale (Hieker &
Rushby, 2016). Each employee in a diverse workplace will look
at creating policies and building skills that will shape their
attitudes and workplace behaviors. There are several elements
required in workplace diversity but the major one is equal
employment opportunity. Equal employment opportunity
warrants treatment of employees in an impartial and fair
manner.
Research Problem
The core to social justice in the business is ensuring that it
remains a place of diversity that ensures the recognition of
liberties and basic rights at the same time promoting an
atmosphere of trust. Research has shown that more racial and
gender diversity leads to more customers and revenue an
example being AT&T where 42 percent of employees are people
of color (Parsi, 2019).
General Business Problem
Diversity is now a core part of every workplace but the majority
of business are not aware of the benefits or the methods that
they can use to promote diversity at the workplace.
Specific Business Problem
Businesses today need to understand how they can leverage on
diversity to increase productivity and workplace and employee
satisfaction.
Rationale
The qualitative research methodology is a critical market
research method as it focuses on getting data through some form
of conversational communication. The qualitative approach to
research focuses not only on what people think but why they
think so. An example of a method that is used in qualitative
research is in-depth interviews. The qualitative approach helps
in probing respondents and understanding their feelings and
motivation. The qualitative approach to research will help in

this case to dig deeper and understand the views of people when
it comes to diversity in the workplace.
Qualitative research methods were not common in research but
in social and behavioral sciences. The business world today is
more complicated and it is critical to make sure that we
understand all aspects of a concept and this can be best done
through a descriptive and communicative approach. There are
various methods that are used in qualitative research. There are
one-on-one interview, focus groups, ethnographic research, case
study research, record keeping and process of observation.
There are various reasons why the qualitative approach is the
best one when studying diversity in the workplace. The first one
is that it provides detail and depth on the matter being studied.
The qualitative approach will go deeper when looking at
diversity and analyze the feelings, behaviors, and attitudes of
the respondents regarding the issue of diversity. The qualitative
approach is also good in studying diversity because it creates a
sense of openness. It will encourage one to expand and open up
new topics that can be studied which might not have been
captured initially. Diversity is a human experience and a
qualitative approach will help in simulating individual
experiences regarding the topic. The actions will be understood
better when individual experiences are clearly presented. The
diversity in businesses can also be best studied by looking at it
using qualitative method because it avoids making
prejudgments. It helps understand why a certain response was
given.
The outcome of the study using qualitative methodology is to
come up with workplace diversity solutions. It is important for
the study to provide solutions to the problem of workplace
diversity. The diversity will be permanent in the workforce
because of globalization and it is up to companies to create
better action plans to accommodate the present business
environment. The workplace diversity is today very prominent
in the workplace. Creating a strong diversity plan needs to be
the first thing that any business should do prior to anything that

is related with a diverse workplace and workforce.
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Commas are needed on
each side of this clause. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: As
in prior feedback, I have stated that you need to add a comma
before any statement that starts with the word which. From now
forward, I will be highlighting these problem areas.
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: If there are more,
explain what they are. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: You
need to explain why diversity awareness is important.
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: The introductory clause
needs a comma to separate the introductory clause from the rest
of the sentence. If more of these are found, I will highlight them
to show the problem area. Comment by Vicki Lindsay,
PhD: This is a run-on sentence. Nowadays is a introductory
clause that needs a comma to separate it from the rest of the
sentence. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: This is a run-on
sentence. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Is this the problem
statement? Make sure that you use the correct terminology
within your research paper.The statement of the problem needs
to have around 100 to 300 words within it to clearly explain
what the problem is and to explain why research is needed in
that area. Within this research problem, you are not explaining
the same thing as a statement of the problem. You have not
explained why research is needed within the area. You have
explained that diversity should exist at AT&T because it has a
large majority of a minority. This is not a problem statement.
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Unclear what this
means. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Because you are
not using AT&T as your company, leave the example out of this
section. you can add it to your literature review if you are
including one. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation is
needed. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation is needed.
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation is needed.

Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the effect of
workplace diversity in the modern workplace and what
businesses can do to enjoy benefits of the diversity. A
qualitative study design will be used in which narrative data
will be collected and analyzed to show the effects of workplace
diversity on job satisfaction and diversity awareness. These data
will represent the benefits that can be accrued by businesses
when they explore diversity at the workplace. Qualitative data
will be gathered exploring workplace diversity from the
employees at Pepsi Company. The reasons for using this form of
data is to generate data, is to develop an in-depth understanding
of diversity in the workplace and how it will affect workplace
morale and productivity (Christian, Porter, & Moffitt, 2006).
Research Questions
1. How is diversity in the workplace characterized?
2. What is the effect of managing diversity in the workplace on
employee job satisfaction and diversity awareness? Comment by
Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Your purpose of the study does not match
your research questions. Think about how you will use your
purpose statement to make a question. You don't explain how
businesses enjoy the benefits of diversity. You don't use
businesses in your research questions. Think about how you can
change this. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Remember
that your research question should have the sample that you are
using included. For example, your first question should read,
"how do employees categorize diversity in the workplace?" or
"how do employees at the Pepsi company categorize diversity in
the workplace?". Do you see how this changes the question to
show exactly who you are obtaining the answer from? Your
second question explains more of a quantitative question instead
of a qualitative question. Is asking for what effect that one
variable has on two different variables. This would be a

quantitative statistical ANOVA for the answer. Remember the
class is qualitative and you will need to explain quality
questions such as the first one. If you are using a mixed-method
design, you could do this. However, you will need to have a
hypothesis and the null hypothesis for a research paper if this
second question is quantitative. To make this second question
qualitative in nature, you will need to create a more open-ended
question somewhat like your first one. Ask how do employees
believe that these are related or something to that effect. If you
ask how is this affecting something else, it turns into a
statistical question.
Conceptual Framework Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: This
was not asked for within the assignment. What follows is not a
correct conceptual framework.
Overview of Qualitative Research
Qualitative research is one of the methodologies that can be
used when studying the effects of diversity in the workplace.
The use of qualitative research is important because it is a good
way of managing and simplifying data without ruining the
context and the complexity (Atieno, 2009). The qualitative
methods are critical in areas where the preemptive cutting out
of data will prevent the full discovery of the intended topic. It
is important to use the qualitative approach when looking at
diversity in the workplace because it will help in discovering
more and doing justice to the topic and making more complex
interpretations of the same (Walliman, 2017). The qualitative
method is also important because it generates a new way of
interpreting the data that might already be there. Comment by
Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation is needed.
The use of the qualitative research in this case is also important
because it will help to understand the issue of diversity in the
workplace in deep detail. The phenomena of diversity in the
workplace is not widely researched and the use of the
qualitative research will help in understanding the core
concerns of the essence of having a diverse workplace

(Cameron, R., & Molina-Azorin, 2011). The use of qualitative
research requires one to have a clear topic as well as the
necessary concentration so as to deal with such matters. In
research it is important that the method fits the kind of data
which is to be collected. The qualitative research method is
appropriate for the use in the study on diversity in the
workplace. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation is
needed.
Potential of Using Mixed Methods
Mixed methods have been used in the social science research for
a long time but it is yet to be fully embraced in business
research. Mixed methods involves combining the elements of
both qualitative and quantitative research (Harrison III, 2013).
The use of mixed methods helps in increasing the depth of
understanding on a topic through the various approaches. I
believe that there is potential of using methods when it comes to
the study of diversity in the workplace. Qualitative data is made
up of words while the quantitative one is made up of numbers. I
believe using the both of them can be beneficial to the study.
The qualitative data that is obtained can the coded in a
quantitative manner. The numerical values can be used in
certain ways to further interpret the results of the study. The
values are also better when it comes to examining the
hypotheses that are presented (Harrison III, 2013). The use of
quantitative coding does not mean that the information is less
qualitative but what it does is open up the data to a wide range
of possibilities. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: ??
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: However, it must be
approached in a qualitative manner. Citation is needed.
The mixed methods approach can be used to study the diversity
in the workplace. The data obtained qualitatively can be coded
for further interpretation of the results. There is no method that
exists alone in a vacuum and this is why such an approach is
important. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation is
needed.

Degree Path Influence on Research Approach
The degree path that I am taking is of business administration.
Business research has been there for a long time and there are
various studies that have been done on various topics in the
area. It is important, however, to note that business is
continuously changing in response to the environment that it is
in. It is critical to make sure that there is up to date information
in business administration that can help guide the core decision
makers in the industry. There are limited studies that have been
done on the role of diversity in the workplace and whether it is
necessary. The issue of diversity has been for long been a
political issue but it is now important to look at it from a
practical business side. Is there are benefit to the business when
there is diversity? When such a question is properly answered
using data and statistics, the decision makers will make an
informed choice on the way ahead in the days ahead. Business
administrators will be able to make better choices when hiring
and other business decisions.
World View and Research
The world view that one has will have an effect on the research.
The thoughts on the business will be significant effect on the
outcome of the research. It is the significance of the research on
diversity that is influencing this research. The researcher is
keen to have data and statistics which either support the
diversity in the work place or the lack of it. The workplace
needs to be as diverse as the consumers which it serves and I
believe this research will act as a guide on this issue. Diversity
needs to go further from being a political issue to one which is
data driven with clear benefits of the same being discovered(De
Aquino & Robertson, 2018). Diversity has been a core issue in
workplaces and it is important to add onto the body of literature
that seeks to understand the role of diversity in multicultural
settings around the world. The conceptual framework is aligned
to ensure the results reflect the true state of diversity in the
workplace. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation is
needed.

Methodology and Design
The research design that I am going to use for this assignment is
the qualitative research design, as used in my assignment of
week 5. Qualitative research designs may take various forms as
I had illustrated, the first one being the grounded theory, which
is used as a different approach for the developing theories, as
arising from an established relationship after the process of data
collection and analysis. This theory arises after a systematic
gathering of data (Patten, 2017). The other form of qualitative
data is case studies. This design analyses a set of issues within
the limits of a given organization, situation, environment and so
on. A case study may take the form of explanatory, exploratory
or descriptive design.
Data Collection Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: When
explaining data collection or the first steps to any methodology,
you must explain who your population and sample are first.
That way, when you explain how do you get the data, you will
already have stated from where you will have received that data.
Therefore, the reader will not be confused as to who is doing
what to whom as here.
Data collection in grounded theory was based on observation
notes by the participant through getting engaged in people's
daily activities and the subjects in question. Data was also
collected through interviewing the subjects. The use of texts
and artifacts was as well used to gather data. In the case of
study, data was collected was on the description of a situation
by a subject, and answered the question of how and why. The
explanation was based on a real-life event, and as well used the
question who and what. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: In
this paper, everything should be in future tense because you
have not collected the data yet. Comment by Vicki Lindsay,
PhD: Is the participant observing something and taking notes on
it? This is what you explained within. Comment by Vicki
Lindsay, PhD: ?? Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: It is
unclear what this means.
The best method to use in the study of diversity in the

workplace when applying the grounded theory is interviewing.
Interviews will be conducted with Human Resources officers
from various companies studying the impact of diversity in the
workplace. The interviews will be formal and will be
accompanied by a questionnaire. The interviews will be
complimented by artifacts from reputable publications such as
the Washington Post, and the New Yorker. The sample for the
study will be purposive by taking 20 top companies in my area
and studying their workforce to see their levels of diversity.
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Within your paper, you
must pay attention to detail and have the same detail throughout
the entire paper. In this section, you state you will be using
human resource officers from 20 companies. Within the purpose
statement, you state that you will use employees from the Pepsi
Corporation. Which is it? If you place your population and
sample in one place and at the beginning of your methodology,
you will not have this problem. Note the method that many of
your research journal articles use. Notice where they put who,
what, when, and where they will conduct their data. You should
use the same method that APA style sources use. Comment by
Vicki Lindsay, PhD: How will this occur? you need more
information on the detail of what you will be doing.
There are four major ethical protection issues that must be
considered when doing the research. There must be informed
consent, beneficence, respect for confidentiality, and respect for
privacy. The first thing that will be done is have the participants
sign a consent form with the full information about the study
and how the results will be used. At the same time, the
researcher has to guarantee that the information that is provided
does not incriminate anyone and will be used for the sole
purpose of the research. At the same time, the details provided
in the interviews need to be kept away from unnecessary access.
Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: This is not what the
author was asking for when he asked for the four elements of
trustworthiness. Within this statement of four articles, you have
two principles of human subject research from the Belmont

report and two ethical ideas in research. These are not the four
elements of trustworthiness. Review your required reading.
Citation is needed. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD: Citation
is needed.
Data Analysis
Qualitative research comes up with a wide range of data that is
derived from various sources like interviews, observation notes,
questionnaires, and official documents. Due to a wide range of
respondents as well as the participants well as a variety of
researchers, it is important to classify and organize data to make
its understanding easier (Creswell, 2013). The following five
steps are the steps involved in organizing data.
1. Reviewing the whole set of data so to bring out themes or
patterns, which are then assigned symbols or numbers to make it
easier for the analysis.
2. Creating a table for the codes to ensure that there is
consistency in the codes and that such codes are accessible from
several researchers.
3. Classifying data into various groups according to various
codes, make easier for the analysis and discussion. This may
focus on themes that are independent as recorded in the data.
4. Organizing the data survey inform of a sub-topic or question
to analyses data easily. This organization may take the form of
question or subtopic
5. Coding the already transcribed data and labeling it to make
data readily evident. In this case, it would be easy for a
researcher to access information which has been analyzed,
grouped and transcribed. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD:
Citation is needed.
Coding and thematic development Comment by Vicki Lindsay,
PhD: This section and the following sections were not viewed
for extensive feedback or grade because these are sections that
belong in assignment 8. Make sure that read your required
reading for help with that assignment. Remember to proofread
your assignment prior to submitting it. There are multiple errors
within.

In qualitative research, coding refers to the main method that is
used in the development of themes or the patterns of meaning in
data classification (Saldana, 2015). Thematic development is
concerned with examining themes or general patterns within
data analysis. In this case, coding defines the data being
analyzed. Iterations process identifies a passage within a text or
any item of data like an image or a photograph, getting the
concepts and looking for the relationship that exists between
them. Coding is therefore seen as the process of linking data to
an idea. In my case, concept and data-driven codes are being
used to getting an idea from the research data. Thematic
development, on the other hand, enroots on identification and
interpretation of the pattern of meaning or themes used in the
research work (Ryan, 2016). In my case, this was done through
discourse analysis after the interviews and interpreting the
observational notes. coding and thematic development make it
easier to understand data.
Triangulation
This is the process of using a variety of data sources to make
data comprehension easier. Triangulation also has found to test
data validity through the convergence of given information from
many sources. In this case, many methods are used to collect
data to ensure data validity. Triangulation also increases a
reader's knowledge as information is availed from different
sources (Rothbauer, 2015). In my example, I have triangulated
my qualitative study in data collection, where I used ground
theory and the case study, to come up with more information on
the research. This has helped widen the scope of research.
Using software applications
It is important to use software for qualitative analysis of data.
This software system helps in processing discourse analysis,
content analysis, text interpretation coding of information and
interpreting information to enable a person to make informed
decisions. In this case, I will use the SPSS software program for
my qualitative research study. Comment by Vicki Lindsay,
PhD: Citation is needed. Comment by Vicki Lindsay, PhD:

SPSS is not the proper software for qualitative research. You
will need to use the proper software for qualitative research.
References
Harrison III, R. L. (2013). Using mixed methods designs in the
Journal of Business Research, 1990–2010. Journal of Business
Research, 66(11), 2153-2162.
Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation
of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of
Education in the 21st Century, 13(1), 13-38.
Cameron, R., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2011). The acceptance of
mixed methods in business and management
research. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 19(3), 256-271.
Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. Routledge.
De Aquino, C. T. E., & Robertson, R. W. (2018). Diversity and
Inclusion in the Global Workplace. Springer.
Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches. Health promotion
practice, 16(4), 473-475. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915580941.
Tetnowski, J. (2015). Qualitative case study research
design. Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders, 25(1),
39-45. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1044/ffd25.1.39
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and
research design: Choosing among five approaches. California,
CA: Sage publications.

Patten, M. L., & Newhart, M. (2017). Understanding research
methods: An overview of the essentials. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An
interactive approach (Vol. 41). California, CA: Sage
publications.
Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative
descriptive research: An acceptable design. Pacific Rim
International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-256.
Retrieved from https://www.tci-
thaijo.org/index.php/PRIJNR/article/view/5805
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An
introduction. Pearson. One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey 07458.
References
Parsi, N. (2019, August 16). Workplace Diversity and
Inclusion Gets Innovative. Retrieved
from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-
magazine/0217/pages/disrupting-diversity-in-the-
workplace.aspx
Christian, J., Porter, L. W., & Moffitt, G. (2006).
Workplace diversity and group relations: An overview. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 459-466.
Buckingham, D. E., (2009). A case study exploring the
impact of managing workplace diversity on diversity awareness
and employee job satisfaction.
Hieker, C., & Rushby, M. (2016). Diversity in the
Workplace. Gender and Diversity, 355-379. doi:10.4018/978-1-
5225-6912-1.ch018
Thurlow, A., Mills, A. J., & Mills, J. H. (2018).
Feminist Qualitative Research and Workplace Diversity.
Handbook of Workplace Diversity, 218-237.
doi:10.4135/9781848608092.n10 Comment by Vicki Lindsay,
PhD: Your references are not in alphabetical order. Most all of
them are missing where they were published if they were in
books, the digital object identifier if they were scholarly journal

articles, and the URL if they were websites. Where you have
found the source is extremely important. The format of your
reference page is not in APA style. You are missing many parts
to your source, you are not using hanging indentations, and
there are no italics used.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design:
Choosing Among the Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc., 78.
Patten, M. &. (2017). Understanding Research Methods: An
overview of the essentials. Routledge, 52.
Rothbauer, P. (2015). Triangulation: Qualitative Research
Methods. Sage Publications, 891.
Ryan, G. a. (2016). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field
Methods, 95.
Saldana, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative
Researchers (3rd edition). SAGE Publications Ltd.
2
Ethical Considerations
J
ust as ethics is an important part of our interactions with
consumers and
colleagues and in carrying out social work practice on a daily
basis, ethics is
also important when we are conducting research. Research, like
all parts of
the social work profession, has ethics at its core. This chapter

introduces you
to some ethical principles and applications used in research,
including the pro-
tection of the rights of research participants.
H I S T O R I C A L OV E R V I E W
Today, most countries have laws in effect that require human
subjects to be
treated with dignity and respect in the conduct of research. The
United States has
regulations in place providing guidance and structure for the
researcher. What
is the history behind these regulations? It may surprise you to
know that the im-
petus for these regulations and the implementation of oversight
committees was
research done during World War II.
In 1946, an American military tribunal opened a criminal trial
in Nuremberg,
Germany, against twenty- three Nazi physicians. These
physicians were accused
of conducting horrific medical experiments on prisoners at
various concentra-
tion camps. After 140 days of proceedings during which eighty-
five witnesses
testified and 1,500 documents were entered as evidence, sixteen
doctors were
found guilty, and seven were sentenced to death. From this trial
came the
Nuremberg Code, ten principles for permissible medical
experiments:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely
essential.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for
the good
of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study,
and not
random or unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the
results of
animal experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of
the
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.

Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io

n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl

e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed
on 11/11/2019 7:05 PM via NORTHCENTRAL UNIV
AN: 1854272 ; Faulkner, Samuel S., Faulkner, Cynthia A..;
Research Methods for Social Workers : A
Practice-Based Approach
Account: s1229530.main.eds
14 R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S F O R S O C I A L W O
R K E R S
disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results
will
justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all
unnecessary
physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori
reason
to believe that death or disabling injury will occur, except,
perhaps,
in those experiments where the experimental physicians also
serve as
subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that
determined
by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by
the
experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities
provided
to protect the experimental subjects against even remote
possibilities of
injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically
qualified
persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required
through
all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in
the
experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject
should be at
liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the
physical
or mental state where continuation of the experiment seemed to
him to
be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge
must be
prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage if he has
probable
cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill,
and
careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the

experiment
is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the
experimental
subject.
At this point you may be thinking, “How does this apply to
me?” In this chapter,
we will examine three ethical principles that social workers can
use to protect
human subjects in research.
Public Law 93- 348, called the National Research Act, was
signed into law on
July 12, 1974, and addresses the protection of human subjects in
research. It
recognizes that research and practice may occur together and
that any element
of research should undergo review for the protection of human
subjects. The
Belmont Report, published in 1979, summarizes the law as
proposing three basic
ethical principles: respect for individuals, beneficence, and
justice.
R E S P E C T F O R I N D I V I D U A L S
Respect for individuals involves acknowledging the autonomy
of individuals
and protecting those with diminished autonomy. Section 5.02(l)
of the Code of
Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999)
states that “Social
Co

py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e

re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai

r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.

Ethical Considerations 15
workers engaged in evaluation or research should ensure the
anonymity or con-
fidentiality of participants and of the data obtained from them.
Social workers
should inform participants of any limits of confidentiality.”
With this in mind,
we will first discuss the concepts of anonymity, confidentiality,
and informed
consent. We will then discuss how to protect those whose
capacity to make au-
tonomous decisions is limited.
(Note that we are using the current Code of Ethics from the
National
Association of Social Workers [1999 edition], but these are due
to be updated
and will change in 2018.)
A nony mity
Anonymity is often confused with confidentiality. In research,
anonymity
means that the researcher will not collect any identifying
information on the
subjects participating in the research study. For instance, you
design an explor-
atory study in which you will collect information on how
consumers feel about
the services in your agency. One way to do this is to have a
comment box in
the lobby or waiting room; consumers can write comments on a
blank piece of

paper and put them the box. This allows the individual to
remain anonymous.
However, you notice that only consumers with complaints are
making use of the
comment box. You then decide to do a descriptive study for
which you develop
a form that allows consumers to rate their satisfaction with
various services on
a scale from one to four. To maintain the anonymity of the
participants, you do
not ask for any information that can be used to identify them,
such as name,
age, or occupation. Everyone checking into your agency is
handed the form and
asked to complete it before they leave and place it in the
comment box. These are
examples of a study using both qualitative and quantitative
methods that protect
the anonymity of the participants.
Conf identia lity
Confidentiality is the assurance that a researcher provides to
subjects that all
information about them and all answers they provide will
remain in the hands
of the investigator and that no person outside the research
process will have
access to this information. Subjects have a basic right to know
that their infor-
mation is kept confidential; this also ensures that they feel
protected from poten-
tial repercussions for answering honestly. The researcher,
however, may have the
ability to identify the responses of a particular individual. You
may be asking,

“How, then, do researchers publish their findings if all
information remains con-
fidential?” The answer is that all information is reported in the
aggregate (i.e., the
findings are combined). The researcher compiles the data and
presents them in
such a way that no individual can be identified.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts

r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he

p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh

t
la
w.
R K E R S
Let’s say that you are conducting a six- week smoking cessation
workshop. You
want to follow up with your participants in six months to see
how many remain
free of cigarettes, how many times they relapsed, and how many
returned to
smoking on a regular basis. In addition to this descriptive
(quantitative) data,
you will ask them for written comments (qualitative data) on
what worked for
them, what did not work for them, what was helpful about the
workshop, and
what was not helpful. The quantitative and qualitative data you
collect will be in-
cluded in a grant proposal to fund additional workshops. In your
summary, you
would not state that John Smith relapsed twice and found that
cinnamon gum
helped curb cravings. But you might say, “One participant
relapsed twice and

found that cinnamon gum helped curb cravings.”
Confidentiality can also become an issue in more subtle ways,
especially in
small communities where the disclosure of too much
information can result in
the identification of an individual. For instance, you are
reporting treatment
outcomes of sex offenders to city council members. During your
presentation
you describe an offender by stating that “A recently released
male sex offender
with a history of child molestation has recently reoffended. He
has only been
in treatment for three months, and our statistics show that those
in treatment
over six months have a better chance of not reoffending.” The
audience may be
able to identify this individual through news articles and even
common knowl-
edge about his recent release or arrest. One way you could have
reported your
research findings anonymously would have been to report the
data in aggregate.
In this example, you could report percentages, such as “One
hundred percent
of participants in treatment less than six months have
reoffended, while only
54% of participants in treatment over six months have
reoffended.” The Code of
Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (1999)
states that “Social
workers who report evaluation and research results should
protect participants’
confidentiality by omitting identifying information unless
proper consent has

been obtained authorizing disclosure” (section 5.01m).
Informed Consent
Informed consent is the process of educating potential research
participants about
the basic purpose of the study, informing them that their
participation is volun-
tary, and obtaining their written consent to participate in the
study. Informed con-
sent involves the researcher helping potential participants to
understand exactly
what is being asked of them and what their participation will
entail. Ingelfinger
(1972) argues that informed consent can never be entirely
complete. On the other
hand, Gorovitz (1985) believes that the individual has dominion
over his or her
own body and is responsible for what happens to him or her. In
some ways, both
are correct. As a researcher, it is your responsibility to provide
as much informa-
tion as possible to potential participants so that they can decide
whether they wish
to participate. The ethical researcher will take care to sit down
with the participant
and explain in detail what will be required and what will happen
during the study.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20

19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed

i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er

mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
The practice of informed consent is an important part of any

study. One
small part of the informed consent process is asking a research
participant to
sign a statement that outlines the information provided in the
informed con-
sent process (see Example 2.1). It is important to note that
informed consent
must be obtained before any data are collected. In addition, if
you are offering
an incentive for participation (for example, a gift certificate at a
fast- food res-
taurant) in your study, then the subject will receive the
incentive regardless of
whether or not he or she completes the study. The Code of
Ethics of the National
Association of Social Workers (1999) states that “Informed
consent should in-
clude information about the nature, extent, and duration of the
participation
requested and disclosure of the risks and benefits of
participation in the re-
search” (section 5.01e). In addition, section 5.01(h) states that
“Social workers
should inform participants of their right to withdraw from
evaluation and re-
search at any time without penalty.” The informed consent form
must provide
the following information:
1. The researcher’s identity and the nature and aim of the
research
2. The subject’s role in the project and the expected duration of
the
subject’sparticipation
3. A description of experimental procedures and any possible

risks to the
subject’s physical, psychological, or emotional well- being
4. Any benefits to the subject that may reasonably be expected
from the
research
5. Contact information that subjects can use to obtain answers
to
questions about the research and research subjects’ rights and
information on whom to contact in the event of a research-
related
injury or if counseling is needed due to the sensitive nature of
the
questions
In addition, the informed consent form must
1. Explain to prospective subjects that they are free to refuse to
participate
or to refuse to answer any question or to withdraw from the
study at any
time and that refusal to participate or withdrawal from the
project will
involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which the subjects are
otherwise
entitled;
2. Describe how the confidentiality of the information will be
maintained
(e.g., surveys, audiotapes, or videotapes will be kept in a locked
filing
cabinet) and the anonymity of the participants will be protected;
3. Explain that participants must be eighteen years of age or

older, or
parental/ guardian consent must be obtained; and
4. Provide a verification statement and signature line for
participants (“By
signing below, I verify that I have been informed of and
understand the
nature and purpose of the project, freely consent to participate,
and am
at least eighteen years of age”).Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts

t
la
w.
Example 2.1
Informed Consent Form
Dear Participant:
My name is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . I am requesting your help
with a research project
I am conducting on the effects of challenge courses. Let me
emphasize that you
do not have to take part in anything that makes you
uncomfortable. If you do not
wish to take part in this project (or any of the exercises), you do
not have to par-
ticipate. This is true, also, for the attached questionnaire. You
are free to refuse
to answer any and all of the questions. The survey is voluntary
(up to you), and
you can withdraw from the study at any time.
If you agree to participate in the challenge course experience,
you will be asked
to participate in activities that require you to work with others

as a group to solve
problems and perform tasks. The facilitator/ trainer will explain
each activity be-
fore you begin.
Challenge courses are supervised by trained facilitators who are
experienced
and able to keep participants safe. The potential benefits for
those who partici-
pate in the challenge course are increased communication and
trust with group
members.
This study has been reviewed to determine that participants’
rights are
safeguarded, and there appears to be minimal risk or discomfort
associated
with completion of this study. The answers you provide on the
study will be kept
strictly confidential, and all your responses (completed surveys)
will be stored
in a locked file cabinet accessible only to the researcher. This
means that no one
will be able to find out how you answered any of the questions.
The results of
this study may be presented at a conference or published as a
research article in a
journal. These records will be kept in Jones Hall, 100
University Drive, Anytown,
Anystate, 10011. Please feel free to ask for help if something
does not make sense
to you or if you have any questions. If you experience any
discomfort, you may
contact Jane Smith, Caring Hands Help Agency, 101- 000-
1234.

If you decide to volunteer, please be sure to PRINT your name
on the form and
SIGN it to indicate your willingness to participate. That will
indicate that you
understand the purpose and elements of the study and that you
are willing to
participate.
Name (Print): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Date Signed: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.

Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss

io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca

bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
Social workers have a long- standing tradition of being the
voice (i.e., advo-
cate) of the person who has the least amount of power in a
situation. This should
be the guiding principle when you are designing your research
study with any
person who is considered to have diminished autonomy. These
populations in-
clude individuals who have diminished rights or capacities,
including minors;
individuals with diminished capacity due to illness or mental
disability; and
people with severely restricted liberties, such as individuals
who are incarcerated.
We will say more about these groups in a moment. An ongoing

argument is
whether or not children and prisoners can truly give their
informed consent (or
whether there is an element of coercion that is subtly implied).
And while no one
has the ultimate answer to this debate, it is important to keep
in mind.
The legal guardians of minors and individuals with diminished
capacity can
weigh the risks and benefits of the research and then decide
either with or for
them whether or not they will participate in a research study.
Section 5.02f of the
Code of Ethics states: “When evaluation or research participants
are incapable
of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an
appropriate expla-
nation to the participants, obtain the participants’ assent to the
extent they are
able, and obtain written consent from an appropriate proxy.” In
Example 2.2, the
signature lines were modified for the addition of consent of a
parent or guardian
(or power of attorney).
Informed consent is much more complicated for individuals
with restricted
liberties because the pressure to volunteer may come from the
authorities in
charge of their liberties. Volunteerism is an element of
informed consent that
requires the person to be free of coercion and undue influence.
On the other
hand, the individual may want to be involved in the research,
and denying that

opportunity can also be viewed as a restriction of his or her
rights. While there
is no easy answer to the dilemma posed by such situations, one
should examine
whether the benefits of participating outweigh the risks. For
instance, let’s say
Example 2.2
Modified Signature Lines for Consent of a Legal Guardian
If you decide to volunteer, please be sure to PRINT your name
on the form and
SIGN it to indicate your willingness to participate. That will be
indication that
you understand the purpose of the survey and that you are
willing to help.
Name (Print): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
Signature: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _
Name of Legal Guardian (Print): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Signature of Legal Guardian: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Date Signed: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Co
py
ri
gh

t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od

uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es

p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.

R K E R S
you are researching the effectiveness of a six- week anger
management group.
The possible benefits of participating in the treatment may
outweigh the risk that
the individual may feel obligated to participate. On the other
hand, if you are
researching homophobia among males, the risk of harm is much
greater and the
benefits nonexistent.
Several groups of people enjoy extra protection as potential
research subjects.
The federal government mandates that anyone who wishes to
conduct research
with one of these populations must ensure that their rights are
protected. These
protected classes of people are prisoners, pregnant women (and
their unborn chil-
dren); minor children; and anyone with diminished intellectual
capacity. If you
find yourself in a position where you will be conducting
research with one of
these groups, we strongly encourage you to seek out expert help
in negotiating
the myriad of regulations that are in place.
Informed Consent a nd A ssent
A word about the difference between consent and assent is
important. Informed
consent is the process of informing potential research subjects
about the research
study. It should provide someone considering participating as a
research subject

enough information to help them make a decision. They (the
potential subject)
should be able to state what the research study is about, how
long/ how much
time their participation will require, and any risks or potential
benefits that will
occur as a result of their involvement.
Assent, on the other hand, is for those individuals who do not
have the legal
authority to agree to participate. For example, a minor child
does not have the
right to sign for his consent to participate, but he must provide
his assent (his
agreement to be a research subject).
B E N E F I C E N C E
The term beneficence refers to being charitable or acting with
kindness. In re-
search, it is an obligation to do no harm and to maximize any
benefits (i.e., posi-
tive values related to health or well- being) while minimizing
possible harm. The
issue of beneficence relates to determining whether the benefits
(which can be
direct or indirect and can seem large or small to the participant)
outweigh the
risks for the participants of the study. To minimize harm, we
must identify the
risks of the research on human participants.
The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social
Workers (1999) states
that “Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should
protect participants

from unwarranted physical or mental distress, harm, danger, or
deprivation”
(section 5.02j). Participants need to be protected from the risks
of participating
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er

ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li

sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.

in research. Risk refers to the possibility that psychological,
physical, legal, social,
or economic harm may occur. Risk is sometimes expressed in
levels, such as, “no
risk,” “little risk,” “moderate risk,” and “high risk.”
One note about risk. Risks are rarely acceptable in research and
always highly
regulated. Today, medical research involves a degree of risk,
especially with drug
trials, but in social behavioral research, risks need to be
minimized and eliminated.
This has not always been the case, as we will see next.
Much has been learned from past research studies that have
involved a level
of risk to the individual participants. One of these has come to
be known as the
Tuskegee syphilis experiment (1932– 1972), a study conducted
by the US Public
Health Service on a group of mostly poor African- American
men with syphilis
living in the rural South. They were not told that they had
syphilis so that the

researchers could examine the etiology (progression) of the
disease (Jones, 1981).
Even after a cure in the form of penicillin became available,
they were not offered
treatment, which caused long- term health issues for the men
and their families.
This high level of physical risk would be considered
unethical today.
In 1961, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an infamous
study of how au-
thority figures could abuse their power. Milgram designed a
series of experiments
in which subjects were instructed to administer a series of
electric shocks to an-
other subject. Unknown to those administering the shocks, the
individuals who
were supposedly being shocked were actually working with the
researcher. A dis-
turbing number of subjects were willing to administer
dangerously high levels of
voltage even though the people they thought they were shocking
were pleading
with them to stop. Several subjects said they did not feel
comfortable continuing
with the experiment but continued, regardless, when told to do
so by the researcher
(Milgram, 1963). To some people, this research was a
worthwhile endeavor as it
provides evidence of the strong influence those in authority can
have over others.
One would only have to point to such tragedies as the atrocities
carried out under
the Nazis as justification for Milgram’s study. However, others
might argue that
the potential trauma this study could cause the participants

outweighs the benefit
of the information it could provide. (Accounts of follow- up
studies with research
participants in the study who said they were not permanently
harmed by the re-
search have been published.)
Another study that has become somewhat infamous in research
circles is a study
conducted by a professor of psychology at Stanford University.
Philip Zimbardo
converted part of a basement in one of the buildings at Stanford
into a makeshift
prison and recruited students for the study. The students were
randomly assigned
to be either prisoners or guards. Within a few days, the subjects
overidentified
with the roles they were playing. Subjects who had been
assigned the roles of
guards became sadistic and mistreated the individuals assigned
to be prisoners.
The subjects playing the roles of prisoners soon began to
identify as prisoners and
worked to plot against the guards (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo,
1973). The risk
for psychological, physical, and legal harm was so great that the
study, which was
originally intended to last two weeks, was abandoned after a
few days.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20

mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
R K E R S

A debate still rages today (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1998)
as to whether
the information that was gained from these studies (benefits)
outweighed the
potential harm (risks) to participants. Our point is not to enter
into this debate
but to illustrate that the regulations governing research were
established to en-
sure the safety and rights of those participating in research.
Today, the preceding
experiments would not be approved by the ethics boards that
oversee research
with human subjects. All of the preceding studies would be
labeled as “uneth-
ical” and would not be allowed to happen. By understanding the
mistakes that
have occurred in the past, we can avoid harm in the future.
Debriefing is the process of fully informing subjects of the
nature of the re-
search when some form of deception has been employed or
when some of the
information is not disclosed. Rarely is it necessary for a
researcher to deceive
subjects. However, there may be times when fully disclosing the
exact nature
of the research will cause the subjects to act in a way that will
skew (alter) the
results. For instance, in medication research, participants are
frequently placed
into three groups. One group gets the new drug, one group gets
a drug that is
already on the market, and one group gets a placebo. It is not
until after the
experiment has concluded that research participates are
debriefed as to which

group they participated in. The Code of Ethics of the National
Association of
Social Workers (1999) states that “Social workers should take
appropriate steps
to ensure that participants in evaluation and research have
access to appropriate
supportive services” (section 5.01i).
In debriefing participants, the researcher must describe the
nature and aim
of the project, explain why participants were misled or provide
the missing
information, and provide the name and phone number of the
person to con-
tact in case participants have questions regarding the project. In
addition, it is
strongly suggested that the researcher have subjects sign a
statement (or other
form of documentation) stating that the subjects have been
debriefed and that all
questions about the project have been answered.
J U S T I C E
The principle of justice finds its application in the moral
requirement that fair
procedures and outcomes be used in the selection of research
subjects. Justice
is the fairness of distribution of benefits and risks among all
individuals. This
principle can be formulated in four ways: to each person an
equal share, to each
person according to individual need, to each person according
to individual
effort, and to each person according to merit. Often in research,
vulnerable

populations such as the homeless, people of color,
institutionalized individuals,
and those living in poverty bear the burden of risky research
endeavors, whereas
those with more influence, wealth, and power are selected for
research that has
potential benefits.
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a good example of
researchers imposing
potential risks on an unknowing vulnerable population. In an
agency- based
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al

l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n

fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e

co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
setting, the convenience of already having a population to
research can create
opportunities for beneficial interventions, such as new
programs. For example,
an agency offering and using research to evaluate an evening
recovery program
for residents of a homeless shelter has benefits for participants.
When this re-
covery program is opened to the public, those benefits are
available to everyone.
This becomes problematic when the population is burdened with
risky
interventions, such as “holding” therapy techniques.
Therapeutic holding is a
commonly used intervention in residential facilities for the
containment of

aggressive behavior in children. Although often effective, the
intervention has
inherent physical and emotional safety risks.
O T H E R E T H I C A L C O N S I DE R AT IO N S
The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social
Workers (1999) states
that “Social workers should report evaluation and research
findings accurately.
They should not fabricate or falsify results and should take
steps to correct
any errors later found in published data using standard
publication methods”
(section 5.01n). This code addresses two ethical issues:
reporting findings ac-
curately and not falsifying data. In research, this is called
laundering data and
faking data.
Sometimes data from real- world sources are erroneous,
incomplete, or in-
consistent. For instance, on a survey, a research participant
might select “highly
unsatisfied,” thinking that he or she is selecting “highly
satisfied.” Data are in-
complete when one of the ten questions asked on a survey is left
unanswered.
Data are inconsistent when one out of one hundred surveys has
responses that
are so different from the others that the answers are considered
abnormal in the
findings. To deal with erroneous, incomplete, and inconsistent
data, researchers
sometimes clean up the data, which is called laundering.
Laundering data is a

way of statistically manipulating the data collected to reduce
errors and make
the findings more accurate. One way one can achieve this is by
removing the ab-
normal responses from the data. However, most applications for
laundering data
require more complicated statistical techniques, such as
grouping the data into
blocks, reorganizing the data into tables, then regrouping them
into blocks after
adjustments are made. The opportunity to manipulate the
statistics to support a
hypothesis or desired outcome can be tempting. The problem
arises in how the
manipulation is constructed; this can pose ethical problems if
the results do not
accurately reflect the findings.
Unfortunately, falsifying or faking data, while not often easily
identified, can
and does occur. Faking data is making up desired data or
eliminating unde-
sired data in research findings. One example of faking data
would be to duplicate
or multiply the answers collected in a research study in order to
increase the
number of responses. If only five people responded, the
researcher might repeat
their answers ten times and now have fifty responses. The
findings are more con-
vincing with a larger sample and can allow for more rigorous
statistical analyses
Co
py

ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re

pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r

us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.

R K E R S
(discussed in Chapters 10 and 11). Another example is to
simply not include
responses that do not support the hypothesis. For instance,
researchers have col-
lected data on how satisfied clients are with the services at their
agency. They
throw out some negative responses and keep all the positive
responses to in-
crease the percentage of clients reporting satisfaction. Perhaps
the most devious
type of faking is simply making up findings without conducting
the research.
This can occur when a person mimics another research study but
changes the
characteristics and findings.
There are as many reasons for faking data as there are
examples. For in-
stance: manipulating or changing findings to support a
hypothesis, changing
information so that it increases the chances of publication,
providing evidence
needed to apply for or continue a funded grant, or even meeting
requirements
of a class project are all examples of how data can be
manipulated to fit a desired
outcome. However, the ethical researcher needs to be on guard
against unethical
behavior.
One final ethical issue encountered in research that is often
overlooked (espe-

cially by students) is plagiarism. The Code of Ethics of the
National Association
of Social Workers states that “Social workers should take
responsibility and
credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have
actually performed
and to which they have contributed” and “Social workers should
honestly ac-
knowledge the work of and the contributions made by others”
(section 4.08).
Being ethical as a social worker means not only conducting
research in a humane
manner, but also giving credit to others’ work. The research
process depends on
an assumption that people are being honest and forthcoming
when they write
papers and report findings. If researchers, instructors, and
students fail to be
honest in their work, the entire process loses credibility and the
research pro-
cess becomes suspect. The issue of plagiarism has become an
increasing concern
among educators in the past few years. With the invention of
the Internet, it has
become increasingly easy for students to take advantage of
others’ work without
assigning proper credit to the true authors.
In its simplest form, plagiarism means taking credit for work
that is not one’s
own, either in whole or in part. This can take many forms,
including copying
or repeating research without giving proper credit. Individuals
who plagiarize
are not always intentionally being deceitful; many simply do not
understand

that when you use someone else’s ideas, words, or work you
need to give proper
credit. This means citing other people’s work in the body of
your paper and on
the reference page. The same is true when a person paraphrases
someone else’s
thoughts. The rule of thumb is that if you utilize another
person’s work, you
need to give him or her credit. If you quote that person, then his
or her words
are enclosed in quotation marks and proper citation is given. If
you utilize the
person’s thoughts or main ideas but paraphrase what he or she
wrote, then you
need to cite the person. Providing proper citations is more than
a matter of eth-
ical integrity in research— it is a form of courtesy shown to
other authors and
researchers.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it

y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut

p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or

a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee mandated
by the federal
government to oversee the protection of human and animal
subjects in research.
Any institution of higher learning that receives federal money
(including finan-
cial aid for students) has an IRB committee that oversees
research with human
subjects and animals and ensures that all research is conducted
in a safe, ethical,
and humane manner. Hospitals and other facilities that conduct

research with
humans or animals also have committees to ensure that research
is carried out in
a humane manner. A review board can be beneficial to
researchers by ensuring
compliance with ethical practices and standards that protect the
rights of research
participants. In fact, the Code of Ethics of the National
Association of Social
Workers (1999) states that “Social workers engaged in
evaluation or research
should carefully consider possible consequences and should
follow guidelines de-
veloped for the protection of evaluation and research
participants. Appropriate
institutional review boards should be consulted” (section
5.02d).
Federal regulations stipulate that research that is conducted for
the purposes of
publication or presentation or to contribute to knowledge must
gain IRB approval.
If you plan to present your research in a journal or at a
conference, plan to submit
your research to the IRB at your institution. In addition, some
universities require
students to submit a research protocol and meet the board’s
requirements when
conducting research as part of a class project. It is a good idea
to keep in mind
the principles established by these boards and to incorporate
them into your own
research. The first and foremost issue to consider is the safety
of your subjects. It
is imperative that, as a researcher, you always consider the
issue of what might

go wrong. It is a good idea to keep in mind Murphy’s Law (if
something can go
wrong, it probably will).
We recommend checking with your instructor and your own
university’s IRB
to determine the regulations in place that govern research at
your institution.
In some colleges and universities, the instructor is given
oversight of students
conducting research as part of a class and no formal approval
from the IRB is
needed. In other schools, all research (regardless of whether it
is conducted as part
of a class or not) is required to obtain IRB approval before
collecting data.
C A S E S C E N A R IO
You are a case manager working in a community mental health
facility. Part of
your duties is to provide group and individual counseling for
adult consumers
who have chronic and severe mental illnesses. Your supervisor
has instructed you
to ask your clients to complete a survey. The survey asks
several questions in-
cluding their use of illicit drugs (such as smoking marijuana)
and alcohol and to
name their mental health diagnosis. You are concerned that your
clients have not
been fully informed about their rights as research subjects.
When you approach
your supervisor about your concerns, her response is, “It’s
okay, I am not asking
anything that could identify them.”

Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n

ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce

pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.

R K E R S
C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G QU E S T IO N S
1. Based on the information in this chapter and what you have
learned so
far, do you believe that you are being asked to contribute to
unethical
behavior? Why or why not?
2. Do you agree with the supervisor’s statement that because no
specific
identifying information is collected, it is all right to ask these
questions?
Why or why not?
3. Given the information provided, what would you suggest as
the best
course of action for the case manager?
K E Y P O I N T S
• The three guiding principles for protecting human rights in
research are
respect for individuals, beneficence, and justice.
• Three methods for protecting human rights in research are
confidentiality, anonymity, and informed consent.
• Confidentiality is the assurance that a researcher provides to

subjects
that all information about them and all answers they provide
will
remain in the hands of the investigator and that no other person
outside
the research process will have access to this information.
• Anonymity is the practice of not collecting any information
that will
identify the subject.
• Informed consent is letting potential subjects know what the
basic
purpose of the study will be and that their participation is
voluntary
and obtaining their written permission to participate in
the study.
• Debriefing is the process of fully informing subjects of the
nature of the
research when some form of deception has been employed.
• Plagiarism is the unauthorized use of another person’s work
and failure
to give him or her credit.
• Institutional review boards oversee the rights of human
subjects
involved in research.
P R AC T I C E E X A M
Mu ltiple Choice
1. The Nuremberg Trials were
a. an investigation into Germany’s treatment of prisoners during

World
War II.
b. a study conducted on athletes during the 1936 Olympics in
Nuremberg,
Germany.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
Pr
es
s.
Al
l

ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p
er
mi
ss
io
n
fr

om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a
pp
li
ca
bl
e
co

py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
c. a jury trial that considered the legality of the Geneva
Convention.
d. none of the above.
2. Some people believe that one of the ethical issues with
conducting
research on children and prisoners is
a. they may not be reliable test subjects.
b. they may not be in a position to fully consent to being a
subject.
c. they may skew the results of the experiment.
d. all of the above.
e. none of the above; there are no ethical dilemmas with
conducting re-
search with children and prisoners.
True or Fa lse

3. Institutional Review Boards (known as IRBs) grew out of the
Nazis’
unethical experimentation on prisoners.
4. The NASW Code of Ethics does not specifically mention
ethics.
5. Plagiarism is considered unethical behavior.
6. Failing to acknowledge another person’s work is a form of
plagiarism.
7. Debriefing is the process of discussing with a subject what
they thought
about the experiment after it is over.
8. Governmental agencies are not immune from unethical
practices.
Co
py
ri
gh
t
20
19
.
Ox
fo
rd
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y

Pr
es
s.
Al
l
ri
gh
ts
r
es
er
ve
d.
M
ay
n
ot
b
e
re
pr
od
uc
ed
i
n
an
y
fo
rm
w
it
ho
ut
p

er
mi
ss
io
n
fr
om
t
he
p
ub
li
sh
er
,
ex
ce
pt
f
ai
r
us
es
p
er
mi
tt
ed
u
nd
er
U
.S
.
or
a

pp
li
ca
bl
e
co
py
ri
gh
t
la
w.
Current Perspectives on Research Ethics in Qualitative Research
Wolff-Michael Roth & Hella von Unger
Abstract: In this article, we provide a brief introduction to the
special issue on research ethics in
qualitative research. We describe the general context within
which our idea emerged to organize a
special issue and present its design and, for purposes of
transparency, some particulars with
respect to the selection and review process. We sketch some of
the common themes that are
shared across parts of the paper set, including critical analysis

of ethics codes and ethics reviews,
the intricacies of informed consent, confidentiality and
anonymity in qualitative research and
questions of vulnerability.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Design of Special Issue and Process of Selecting
Contributions
2.1 Design
2.2 Selecting contributions from submissions and editorial
process
3. Overview of the Special Issue
4. Coda
References
Authors
Citation
1. Introduction
The question of ethics has been a mainstay of philosophical
inquiry for millennia
—e.g., when the ancient Greek wondered about phronesis, that
is, the nature of
wisdom in practical action that inherently affects others
(RICŒUR, 1990). In
research involving human subjects, the phenomenon is much

more recent
(ROTH, 2004a). In the historical development of the debate,
medical research
ethics played a prominent role. For example, the Nuremberg
Code (1947)
constituted a key milestone. It was formulated in response to the
inhuman
medical experimentation practices under the Nationalist-
Socialist regime in
Germany and included principles such as voluntary participation
and informed
consent. Since then debates and ethics codes have evolved in
many fields and
disciplines throughout the world. Yet, during the 1950s and
1960s it was still
possible to expose human beings to extreme physical and mental
stress—such
as testing the chemical weapons Agent Orange and Agent Purple
on the
Canadian Forces Base Gagetown (New Brunswick) without 1.
informing nearby
communities, 2. the consent of the Canadian and U.S. military
personnel
stationed there or distributing the agents, and 3. providing
appropriate knowledge
concerning the consequences of exposure (AGENT ORANGE
ASSOCIATION
OF CANADA, 2009). Also in the 1960s, an American
psychologist conducted
experiments where subjects were led to extreme distress when
coaxed into
punishing others by means of electroshocks (MILGRAM,
1963)—a study that is
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social
Research (ISSN 1438-5627)
Volume 19, No. 3, Art. 33
September 2018
Key words:
anonymity;
confidentiality;
ethics codes;
ethics reviews;
informed consent;
knowledge/power;
vulnerability
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 19(3), Art. 33, Wolff-Michael Roth & Hella von Unger:
also discussed in this issue, albeit with a different focus
(YANOV & SCHWARTZ-
SHEA, 2018). These and other controversial research practices
triggered
outrage, public debate and political action resulting in the
creation of a new ethics
infrastructure. Human research ethics boards—called
institutional review boards
(IRB) in the US, research ethics boards (REB) in Canada,
research ethics
committees (REC) in the UK, as well as other names
elsewhere—were created
around the world to curtail such exposures. However, the
implementation of such

boards, which happened rather quickly in most Anglo-Saxon
countries (Australia,
Canada, New Zealand, UK, and US), has not occurred at the
same rate in other
parts of the world (e.g., Germany, see VON UNGER, DILGER
& SCHÖNHUTH,
2016)—and their role in fostering ethical research practices
remain unclear at
least. In fact, they have drawn extensive criticism, in particular
from qualitative
researchers in the social sciences (CANELLA & LINCOLN,
2011; ISRAEL, 2014;
VAN DEN HOONAARD, 2011). [1]
Yet, it is undisputed that the question of ethics also arises in
qualitative research
as "the emergent, dynamic and interactional nature of most
qualitative research"
involves complex ethical responsibilities (IPHOFEN &
TOLICH, 2018, p.1). Nearly
15 years ago, this has led the editors of this journal to create a
forum for debating
ethical issues. Our purpose at the time was to evolve a
community of ethical
research practitioners rather than merely talk about and theorize
ethics without
actually engaging with the issues of practical conduct in the
field and how
research affects all those involved (ROTH, 2005). We wanted
issues to be
discussed that might otherwise not have a forum to be aired. An
immediate
concern was the different ways in which experimental
psychologists and
participant or activist researchers engaged with participants,
how much input

participants should or could have in the design of specific
research projects.
There had been signs in experimental research on drugs
developed for AIDS that
the involvement of participants improved on the quality of the
(quantitative)
research rather than watering it down (EPSTEIN, 1995). Other
issues that arose
at the time concerned the involvement of research participants
as authors, and
the particular (audience-dependent) conditions where it made
sense to include
them and when it did not. [2]
Various conceptualizations of research ethics exist and the topic
has been at the
center of a lively and heated debate internationally
(HAMMERSLEY &
TRAIANOU, 2012; IPHOFEN & TOLICH, 2018; VAN DEN
HOONAARD, 2011;
VON UNGER et al., 2016). The current controversies mainly
revolve around the
institutional regulation of research ethics, i.e., what
GUILLEMIN and GILLAM
(2004) aptly termed "procedural ethics" (p.263). In some
national contexts,
institutional ethics reviews are obligatory not only for medical
research but also
for social science research including qualitative research. As
stated above, a
substantial critique has formed pointing to the shortcomings and
dangers of
institutional ethics reviews and codified ethical standards and
principles (e.g.,
HAMMERSLEY & TRAIANOU, 2012; ISRAEL, 2014; VAN
DEN HOONAARD,

2011; VON UNGER et al., 2016). Negative implications have
been described for
scientific quality and academic freedom in general and for
qualitative research in
particular (e.g., VAN DEN HOONAARD, 2011). The
institutionalized means for
FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/browseSearch/identifyTypes/view?id
entifyType=Debate%3A%20Ethics
http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/browseSearch/identifyTypes/view?id
entifyType=Debate%3A%20Ethics
assessing research protocols are based on the medical and
experimental
sciences; they imply research situations and processes that may
be inappropriate
for qualitative research. The regulatory enterprise has thus
drawn a lot of
criticism. In fact, the defense against regulation has dominated
much of the
debate on ethics. Creating very real problems for qualitative
researchers in many
places, procedural ethics thus effected a narrowing of the
debate. Some have
argued that ethical conduct should instead be more aptly
conceptualized as an
ongoing, critical and dialogical engagement with the moral and
political questions

of conducting research (CANELLA & LINCOLN, 2011). In this
spirit, qualitative
researchers have recently started to reframe the debate and
focus more on
ethical concepts and issues relevant in their research practice
(e.g., IPHOFEN &
TOLICH, 2018). [3]
Ethical reflexivity is a core feature of qualitative research
practice as ethical
questions may arise in every phase of the research process
(VON UNGER,
2016). For example, researchers ask themselves: will this
project be worthwhile?
Who will benefit from it? What are the potential risks for the
participants? What
are our roles and responsibilities as researchers? Who are we
accountable to
and what are we accountable for? Some of these questions have
already been
the focus of the FQS debate on ethics (see link above). These
questions do not
generally have easy answers, as ethics are intertwined with
(university, state,
field) politics in many ways (ROTH, 2004b) and remain open to
re-interpretation
and debate in fundamental ways. Such issues arise in the
contribution by
Caroline MEIER ZU BIESEN (2018), who discusses questions
about the ethical
positioning of the researcher in a field including Big Pharma.
Political
ramifications often exist as well, especially when indigenous
groups are involved;
and such ramifications were apparent in a recent study among
the Bajau people,

who exhibit exceptional diving skills. The investigators have
come under fire
because Indonesian officials claim that ethical protocols had not
been followed when
the researchers had taken DNA samples out of the country
(ROCHMYANINGSIH,
2018). There was a local Indonesian research involved, but,
according to other
scientists, this individual had not expertise in the relevant fields
(evolution,
genetics) and only provided logistical support. The lead
researcher, Eske
WILLERSLEV (University of Copenhagen), on the other hand
says that she has
done everything that the relevant ministries in the Indonesian
government had
required and she was unaware of any wrongdoing. There are
other mine fields as
well, such as when qualitative researchers also engage in sexual
relations with
their research participants and especially if the participant is
handicapped
(ROTH, 2004c) or when qualitative researchers do participant
observations at sex
parties (WEBBER & BRUNGER, 2018), to name just a few. [4]
We thus designed the special issue to address ethical conduct
and reflexivity as
genuine issues of concern to qualitative researchers while
scrutinizing and
celebrating the diversity of research contexts, research
approaches, and possible
ethical positions and argumentations. [5]

2. Design of Special Issue and Process of Selecting
Contributions
2.1 Design
The description for the contents of intended submission
deliberately was cast
wide: We hoped the special issue to reflect the diversity of the
field as much as
the diversity of issues that qualitative researchers associate with
research ethics.
Thus, we called for submissions addressing one of the following
areas of debate:
1. Reflections of ethical issues arising in qualitative research
practice, e.g., how
do qualitative researchers experience ethical questions and
challenges? How
do they define and manage their roles and responsibilities? How
do they
present and justify their research to (potential) participants?
How do they do
informed consent (e.g., as a dynamic, ongoing dialogical
process)? How do
they anonymize their data without diminishing its hermeneutical
value?
However, is anonymization a realistic and appropriate aim at
all? Do
confidentiality clauses solve some of the problems arising from
the threat to
the privacy of the participants? Under which circumstances may

pseudonymization be insufficient or inappropriate? These
examples of "ethics
in practice" (GUILLEMIN & GILLAM, 2004) discuss the
questions, problems
and solutions in the context of specific research studies.
2. Analysis and discussions of ethics codes, reviews and
regulation including
evaluations of experiences with undergoing or conducting
institutional review
(as a member of an ethics review board). What is the legal
framework and the
institutional setup of the respective review procedures? How
does the specific
context (e.g., region of the world, academic or community
setting, field of
study, etc.) affect the review process and the principles and
standards that
are applied? How are the laws and general guidelines
interpreted? What are
the implications? And also: how can qualitative research be
reviewed and
assessed appropriately?
3. Conceptualization of ethics relating to specific methods and
methodologies
(e.g., (auto-)/ethnographic research, biographical research,
participatory
research, research with indigenous peoples, etc.) and theoretical
discussions
of research ethics and ethical conduct in qualitative social
science research.
For example, how can critical or covert approaches be justified
in ethical
terms—in specific research situations? What are the ethical
strengths and

weaknesses of participatory research approaches?
4. How can research ethics and ethical reflexivity be fostered in
teaching and
methods training in undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate
study
contexts? What is the approach taken and how did it work out?
[6]
2.2 Selecting contributions from submissions and editorial
process
We received over 160 submissions in response to our call. The
sheer number
made our selection process difficult, as we could envision being
able to work
closely only with a more limited number of authors and author
teams. Both editors
of this special issue read all abstracts. We developed a simple,
five-point coding
scheme (-, -0, 0, 0+, +) whether to include or not include a
particular proposal.
For each proposal, we also wrote brief statements concerning
any strengths,
weaknesses, or other reasons for non/inclusion. All articles that
both of us felt
positive about (+, +) were selected. We then discussed those
submissions that
had received at least on plus (+) rating, which may or may not

have led to an
upgrading of the second rating. In this process, we ended up
with 29 articles,
twice as many as we originally thought to include. However,
feeling that some
withdrawals might occur we invited all 29. In the end, 7 of
these withdrew for a
variety of reason leaving us with the collection of studies that
appear here. In our
interactions with the invited authors, we encouraged authors to
familiarize
themselves with the debate concerning ethics in qualitative
research, including
the debate that already existed in the pages of FQS. [7]
The review process turned out to be extensive. All submitted
articles underwent
multiple review cycles until the papers were in their present
form. Each editor was
lead reviewer for one half of the submissions, but both editors
read each paper in
each cycle in its entirety. [8]
3. Overview of the Special Issue
Reading the manuscript set in its entirety, the task of trying to
make sense
emerged to be a daunting task. As journal conventions do not
include
subsections, as would be the case for books, which allow for
special introductions
to each of the sets of papers collected into a thematically
specific part of the
whole, the present contributions appear one after another,
whereby the order
does not reflect any hidden thoughts about quality. [9]

NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-72NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-71.docx

NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-72NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-71.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-72NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-71.docx

Similar to NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-72NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-71.docx (20)

More from vannagoforth

More from vannagoforth (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-72NORMAN, ELTON_BUS7380-8-71.docx