Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-nzrtw Total loading time: 0.265 Render date: 2022-12-05T02:11:33.611Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2021

Abstract

The political science discipline has recently engaged in contentious debate about the value of “research transparency,” particularly for research with human participants. The discipline is also holding vital conversations about research ethics and is rekindling dialogue about different ways of knowing. We offer an integrated account of how the actions that scholars who conduct human participant research take to respect ethical principles (which vary by research substance and settings), and their epistemological commitments (which vary across researchers), influence openness, a broader concept than “transparency.” These principles and commitments shape scholars’ openness practices simultaneously—both independently and in concert—serving as a prism through which multiple features of a research project are refracted, and resulting in a scholar’s inclination and ability to pursue openness in different ways and to different degrees with the audiences of her work. We also show how ethical principles and epistemological commitments can not only constrain and prevent openness, but also animate and require it. We suggest that scholars pursuing openness ethically, and in ways that honor their epistemological commitments, represents good social science, and we offer strategies for doing so. To develop our argument, we focus primarily on two research methods, ethnography and interviews, and on openness toward two audiences, human participants and research communities. Our account illuminates how the heterogeneity of human participant research makes it inappropriate, indeed impossible, to develop blanket rules for pursuing openness. Throughout, we highlight the importance of reflexivity for the ethical conduct of, and for being ethically open about, political science research.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abers, Rebecca Neaera, and Keck, Margaret. 2013. Practical Authority: Agency and Institutional Change in Brazilian Water Politics. New York: Oxford Google Scholar
American Political Science Association. 2012. Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
American Political Science Association. 2020. Principles and Guidance for Human Subjects Research. Report. (https://connect.apsanet.org/hsr/principles-and-guidance/).Google Scholar
Bleich, Erik. 2018. “Historical Institutionalism and Judicial Decision-Making: Ideas, Institutions, and Actors in French High Court Hate Speech Rulings.” World Politics 70(1): 5385.Google Scholar
Bleich, Erik, and Pekkanen, Robert. 2013. “How to Report Interview Data.” In Interview Research in Political Science, ed. Mosley, Layna. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cramer, Katherine. 2015. “Transparent Explanations, Yes. Public Transcripts and Fieldnotes, No: Ethnographic Research on Public Opinion.” Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 13(1): 1720.Google Scholar
Cronin-Furman, Kate, and Lake, Milli. 2018. “Ethics Abroad: Fieldwork in Fragile and Violent Contexts.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51(3): 607-14.Google Scholar
Davis, Justine. 2020. “Manipulating Africa? Perspectives on the Experimental Method in the Study of African Politics.” African Affairs 119(476): 452-67.Google Scholar
Driscoll, Jesse, and Schuster, Caroline. 2018. “Spies Like Us.” Ethnography 19(3): 411–30.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha, and Charman, Andrew. 2020. “Reliability of Inference: Analogs of Replication in Qualitative Research.” In The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science, ed. Elman, Colin, Gerring, John, and Mahoney, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frazer, Michael L. 2020. “Respect for Subjects in the Ethics of Causal and Interpretive Social Explanations.” American Political Science Review 114(4). doi:10.1017/S0003055420000453 Google Scholar
Johnson, Fuji, Genevieve, Mary Burns, and Porth, Kerry. 2017. A Question of Respect: A Qualitative Text Analysis of the Canadian Parliamentary Committee Hearings on The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2012. “Research Ethics 101: Dilemmas and Responsibilities.” PS: Political Science & Politics 45(4): 717-23.Google Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2016. “The Dark Side of DA–RT.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26(1): 2527.Google Scholar
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2017. Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A. 2016. “Transparency, Research Integrity, and Multiple Methods.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26(1): 2831.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala. 2016. “DA–RT and the Social Conditions of Knowledge Production in Political Science.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26(1): 3236.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan. 2020. “Pre- Registration and Results- Free Review in Observational and Qualitative Research.” In The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science ed. Elman, Colin, Gerring, John, and Mahoney, James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan, and Büthe, Tim. 2021. “The Qualitative Transparency Deliberations: Insights and Implications.” Perspectives on Politics 19(1). doi: 10.1017/S1537592720001164 Google Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, and Karcher, Sebastian. 2021. “Transparency in Practice in Qualitative Research.” PS: Political Science and Politics. doi: 10.1017/S1049096520000955 Google Scholar
Kapiszewski, Diana, MacLean, Lauren, and Read, Ben. n.d. “Dynamic Research Design: Iteration in Field-Based Research.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Karcher, Sebastian, and Weber, Nicholas. 2019. “Annotation for Transparent Inquiry: Transparent Data and Analysis for Qualitative Research.” IASSIST Quarterly 43(2): 19. https://doi.org/10.29173/iq959 Google Scholar
Knott, Eleanor. 2019. “Beyond the Field: Ethics after Fieldwork in Politically Dynamic Contexts.” Perspectives on Politics 17(1): 140-53. doi:10.1017/S1537592718002116 Google Scholar
Lynch, Marc. 2016. “Area Studies and the Cost of Prematurely Implementing DA–RT”. Comparative Politics Newsletter 26(1): 3639.Google Scholar
Malejacq, Romain, and Mukhopadhyay, Dipali. 2016. “The ‘Tribal Politics’ of Field Research: A Reflection on Power and Partiality in 21st-Century Warzones.” Perspectives on Politics 14(4): 1011–28.Google Scholar
Martin, Mary Jo. 2013. “Crafting Interviews to Capture Cause and Effect”. In Interview Research in Political Science, ed. Mosley, Layna. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2018. “The Rush to Transparency: DA–RT and the Potential Dangers for Qualitative Research.” Perspectives on Politics 16(1): 141-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Andrew. 2020. “Transparency in Qualitative Research.” Sage Research Methods Foundations. doi: http://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenbesser, Lee, and Weiss, Meredith. 2018. “Survive and Thrive: Field Research in Authoritarian East Asia.” Asian Studies Review 42(3): 385403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pachirat, Timothy. 2015. “The Tyranny of Light.” Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 13(1): 2732.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Sarah Elizabeth. 2013. “Organizing Rebellion: Rethinking High-Risk Mobilization and Social Networks in War.” American Political Science Review 107(3): 418–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, Sarah Elizabeth, and Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2015. “Transparency in Intensive Research on Violence: Ethical Dilemmas and Unforeseen Consequences.” Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 13(1): 2227.Google Scholar
Program on Middle East Political Science Studies. 2014. The Ethics and Research in the Middle East, POMEPS Studies No. 8, July 2.Google Scholar
Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD) Working Group I.2 (MacLean, Lauren, Posner, Elliot, Thomson, Susan, and Wood, Elisabeth Jean). 2018. “Research Ethics and Human Subjects: A Reflexive Openness Approach.” https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD) Working Group II.2 (Arriola, Leonardo, Pollack, Mark, Shesterinina, Anastasia). 2018. “Evidence from Research with Human Participants.” http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164 Google Scholar
Qualitative Transparency Deliberations. Working Group III.3 (Smith, Nicholas Rush, Schwedler, Jillian, Simmons, Erica). 2018. “Ethnography and Participant Observation.” http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164 Google Scholar
Qualitative Transparency Deliberations. Working Group IV.1 (Bellin, Eva, Greitens, Sheena Chestnut, Herrera, Yoshiko, Singerman, Diane). 2018. “Research in Authoritarian and Repressive Contexts.” http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qualitative Transparency Deliberations. Working Group IV.1 (Bellin, Eva, Working Group IV.2 (Arjona, Ana, Mampilly, Zachariah, Pearlman, Wendy). 2018. “Research in Violent or Post-Conflict Political Settings.” http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qualitative Transparency Deliberations. Working Group IV.3 (Lake, Milli, Majic, Samantha, Maxwell, Rahsaan). 2018. “Research on Vulnerable and Marginalized Populations.” http://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001164 Google Scholar
Read, Benjamin L. 2018. “Serial Interviews: When and Why to Talk to Someone More than Once.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 17:110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schatz, Edward, ed. 2009. Political Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Yanow, Dvora. 2016. “Legitimizing Political Science or Splitting the Discipline? Reflections on DA–RT and the Policy-Making Role of a Professional Association.” Politics & Gender 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X16000428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shesterinina, Anastasia. 2016. “Collective Threat Framing and Mobilization in Civil War.” American Political Science Review 110(3): 411-27.Google Scholar
Shesterinina, Anastasia. 2019. “Ethics, Empathy, and Fear in Research on Violent Conflict.” Journal of Peace Research 56(2): 190202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Victor. 2015. “Research in Authoritarian Regimes: Transparency Tradeoffs and Solutions. Qualitative and Multi-Method Research 13(1): 2022.Google Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Castro, Guzmán, with Anna Calasanti. 2016. “Avant-Garde or Dogmatic? DA–RT in the Mirror of the Social Sciences.” Comparative Politics Newsletter 26(1): 4043.Google Scholar
Subotič, Jelena. 2020. “The Ethics of Archival Research on Political Violence.” Journal of Peace Research. doi:10.1177/0022343319898735 Google Scholar
Tansey, Oisín. 2007. “Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for Non-Probability Sampling.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40(4): 765-72.Google Scholar
Thaler, Kai M. 2019. “Reflexivity and Temporality in Researching Violent Settings: Problems with the Replicability and Transparency Regime.” Geopolitics. DOI: 10.1080/14650045.2019.1643721 Google Scholar
Tripp, Aili Mari. 2018. “Transparency and Integrity in Conducting Field Research on Politics in Challenging Contexts.” Perspectives on Politics 16(3): 728-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Federal Government. 2018. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Subtitle A, Subchapter A, Part 46.Google Scholar
Wedeen, Lisa. 2010. “Reflections on Ethnographic Work in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 13(1): 255-72.Google Scholar
Wood, Elisabeth Jean. 2006. “The Ethical Challenges of Field Research in Conflict Zones.” Qualitative Sociology 29(3): 307-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yom, Sean. 2014. “From Methodology to Practice: Inductive Iteration in Comparative Research.” Comparative Political Studies 48(5): 616–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Ethics, Epistemology, and Openness in Research with Human Participants
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *