Conducting geographical research poses ethical considerations surrounding the processes within the methodology because geographical and social science research is largely concerned with personal and private information (Sieber, 2011). Ethical issues within research is concerned with the health and safety of all parties within the study as well as the safeguarding and wellbeing of a subject and their personal information. When conducting research three ethical principles should be applied; beneficence; respect and justice. In the UK researchers must follow the research governance framework which is then approved or amended by a research ethics committee (Shaw et al, 2005). A research ethics committee is established in every institution from university level and beyond. The role of the committee is to ensure everyone involved in the research is protected from risk whilst ensuring the quality of the research is maintained. This paper will focus on two main ethical issues when conducting geographical research which are confidentiality and anonymity. When focusing on confidentiality it is important to recognise the importance of consent, when to break confidentiality both deliberate and accidental disclosure as well as potential online threats. Furthermore, the focus of anonymity and how to remove identifiers. The paper will also touch the newly enforced GDPR law impacting research and the consequences when GDPR is breached.
Confidentiality refers to how data is handled and a subject should be made aware of how their information will be used, who has access and the extend of information needed for the research. When signing an informed consent form, which is an explicit agreement to participate, a subject should have the knowledge of what will become of their information. Clear communication from the researcher in the consent process, increases the trust of the subject thus improving participation and therefore the quality of the research (Sieber, 2011). Theoretically if the consent process is clear about how the data is handled and the researcher ensures to follow the correct guidelines there should be no ethical issues surrounding confidentiality. However, ethical issues arise at the potential breaches to confidentiality, as to avoid breaches at an absolute level would be to not conduct research at all (Ethicist, 2015) – which would hinder social science knowledge and development. Therefore, a research ethics committee must evaluate if the benefits outweigh the potential risks and the risks must be outlined in consent documents.
One of the main ethical issues with confidentiality is when should it be broken. For instance, deliberate disclosure may be committed by the research leader under the influence of the legal framework within society (Wiles et al, 2008) if a subject has admitted to a crime, about to commit a crime or equally been a victim of crime it must be reported. However, if this has not been established within the consent process as to when to break confidentiality, a researcher is liable from the participant for going against a legal document. Therefore, before conducting research the consent process is vital in distinguishing the rules and potential breaches of the process so the participant has an understanding. However, legal reasons to break confidentiality causes problems for criminal activity research and therefore in this instance confidentiality is ensured unless authorities request information (Wiles et al, 2008).
Moreover, deliberate disclosure can also come from a humanitarian, moral obligation rather than a legal obligation. For instance, in situations where vulnerable subjects such as, children, elderly and the mentally ill are being abused, this information needs to be reported to local authorities (Wiles et al, 2008). However, as this is a rarity it is not often written into consent agreements and therefore how does a researcher ensure confidentiality and privacy in cases of these sensitive situations. The rule to abide by would to gain permission from the subject before reporting the problem – although this leads to further ethical implications as to what happens if permission is not granted. The moral obligation remains, but a subject has denied permission therefore to then report the issue would to be going against confidentiality and privacy.
Deliberate disclosure is not the only breach to confidentiality that can occur, accidental disclosure can occur although this is frowned upon in the research society as bad practices. For example, researchers who research within emotionally challenging fields have admitted to needing to off load information to a third party (Wiles et al, 2008). This is a result of a researcher trying to maintain a healthy mental state and whilst it is unintentional, it is a breach of confidentiality. A debriefing research team or counsellor may be established at the beginning of the study to avoid this breach and reduce ethical issues arising later in the study (Wiles et al, 2008).
It is important to highlight that a breach in confidentiality is not entirely in the researchers control, computer hacking whilst a rarity is probable (O’Hara et al, 2002). There are ethical issues surrounding computer hacking, not only has confidentiality been violated but a hacker can use the personal information for their personal gain through processes such as blackmail (Sieber, 2011). To reduce the effectiveness of data obtained by hackers, when storing data keep files separate and encrypted. Furthermore, hacked information may be harmless for a subject as the aim may be as simple as publishing the data before the researcher has completed their work. In this instance, it raises more ethical issues as to whether other researchers should use the hacked data to assist their research or not (O’Hara et al, 2002).
The concept of anonymity is a communitive construct, engaging with another without identification. It is closely related to confidentiality and often intertwined in its definition as anonymity maintains confidentiality in research. To ensure anonymity in research identifiers, anything that can be used to individualise a person must be removed examples include; age; sex; gender; institution of work. Levels of anonymity effect participant behaviour, too little anonymity leads to limited compliance while full anonymity does the opposite – which comes at greater risk from breaches in the study (Novak, 2014). Therefore, the research ethics committee must find a middle ground to ensure validity of the study and safety of the participants.
A common use by researchers to conform with anonymity is to use pseudonyms, particularly when collecting qualitative data (Wiles et al, 2008). Other methods to ensure anonymity is the use of coding. However, this is not necessarily enough to protect identity as journalists leading investigations into research studies can out the sources of information to the public. Whilst this is not the researcher breaking the anonymity, the methods used to protect participants is sometimes not always enough and thus becoming an ethical issue regarding confidentiality and anonymity – as it is an invasion of privacy for the participants (Novak, 2014).
Furthermore, recent studies question whether the researcher themselves should establish a level of anonymity when publishing (Novak, 2014). Remembering that the research ethics committee’s role is to include the safeguarding of all parties, it needs to consider how the research may be perceived by the public. In cases of negative response to the study the researcher may have brought themselves into danger and anonymity would have given them protection. However, an academic cannot build a reputation without their name being published leaving scope for debate.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into enforcement in May 2018 and brings new implications to research. Most notably, it’s emphasis on greater concern for how data is handled, used and shared – particularly out of the EU to ensure an individuals’ rights are not lowered to that of the country receiving the data (Cornock, 2018). This act has been designed to ensure individuals more control over their information. Increasing their rights to request their data and for full erasure from the study in an attempt to reduce the ethical issues with past research with regards to data handling and protection. GDPR has put new limitations with regards to consent, for consent to be valid participants must obtain the knowledge of the full extent of the use of their data to minimise the effects of data misuse (Lloyd, 2018). Most well-known example of data misuse was Facebooks involvement with Cambridge Analytica for the US presidential and Brexit campaigns. Facebook has since been fined £500,000 (The Guardian, 2018) for failure to protect its users’ information.
In conclusion, ethical issues when conducting geographical research will always be prominent as human geographical research involves obtaining personal information from participants. In the case of breaking confidentiality through accidental disclosure as a result of emotional studies – more resources need to go into the funding for debrief research teams or counselling to ensure confidentiality. Encryptions and coding can increase the anonymity and protection of data thus reducing ethical boundaries of confidentiality being crossed. It is clear, that ethical issues can be minimised by following good practices set out by lawful obligations and frameworks provided by research ethics committees – important for researchers to follow these practices to ensure that quality research is performed and our understanding and knowledge can continue to grow.