Challenges in the current Ethical Consent Procedures for Qualitative Researchers

To ensure that ethical review processes accommodate all research paradigms fairly, we advocate for a more inclusive and flexible approach that recognizes the unique strengths of qualitative research.

Current ethical review procedures tend to apply a quantitative framework to assess research ethics. This creates several challenges for qualitative researchers that we discussed with the Faculty Ethical Review Board (FERB). In dialogue with the FERB we pursue more inclusive procedures, with a focus on the following main topics:

• Sensitivity of Topics: Qualitative researchers have expertise in handling sensitive topics (such as sexuality, political views, and addiction) responsibly. We discussed with the committee how the tools might acknowledge that clicking ‘yes’ on one of these topics does not mean you will not get approval, but that you need to reflect on how you will protect your participants from harm.
• Vulnerability: The same goes for vulnerable groups. We discussed how the tools might not give a researcher the impression that studying vulnerable groups (such as elderly participants, children or minoritized groups) will not get ethical approval.
• Quantitative Assumptions: Many ethical guidelines currently assume a deductive, hypothesis-driven approach, emphasizing statistical methods (such as hypotheses and power analysis). We discussed with the ethical committee how the tool might reflect the diversity of scientific inquiry better.
• Anonymity: While privacy is crucial, qualitative research often relies on context and personal narratives to address power dynamics and amplify marginalized voices. A rigid focus on decontextualization limits the depth and impact of such studies. We discussed how this perspective might be taken in consideration in the tools.
• Strengths of Qualitative Methods: We view the adaptive and iterative nature of qualitative research as a strong feature of our research. However, in the current procedures there is little room for unexpected outcomes and uncertainties about how the study might evolve. We discussed with the committee how this makes approval unnecessarily complex compared to quantitative studies.

For more information, you can contact:

Lotte Henrichs (l.f.henrichs@uu.nl)

Hidde Leplaa (h.j.leplaa@uu.nl)