This paper explores the ethical considerations that arise in the conduct of Qualitative Longitudinal (QL) research, drawing on work undertaken as part of the ESRC Timescapes initiative. Adding time into the mix of a qualitative study heightens the need for ethical literacy. Well established ethical principles take on new meaning and need reworking when seen with a temporal gaze – for example, those relating to consent as an ongoing process; sustaining confidentiality when the risk of disclosure is magnified over time; and the ethical representation of lives in the construction, display and re-use of research data. The challenges are magnified in relation to the tenor, flux and recurrent nature of the research process. The elongated time frames for empirical research create long term, reciprocal research relationships that need careful consideration and nurturing over time.
More broadly, as QL research unfolds, a wider constituency of individuals and organisations become implicated in the process, necessitating new thinking about their varied needs and claims. QL researchers find themselves navigating through a broader ethical landscape, which this paper seeks to capture through the concept of ‘stakeholder’ ethics. A stakeholder approach allows for the varied needs of those implicated in the research to be recognised and reconciled, and for a greater appreciation of how research relationships intersect and impact on the research process as it unfolds. Adding time into the mix also enables a distinction to be drawn between pro-active and re-active ethical strategies, both of which are needed in the longer time frames of QL enquiry. The discussion focuses on the conduct of QL research, illustrating the practices of researchers in the field as a starting point for a productive iteration between ethical principles and practice. The paper concludes that time is a complicating factor but also an important resource in the ethical conduct of qualitative research.
AlldredP. (1998). ‘Ethnography and Discourse Analysis: Dilemmas in representing the voices of children’ in RibbensJane and EdwardsRosalind. (eds). Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research. London: Sage. 147–170
2.
BirchM. and MillerT. (2002). ‘Encouraging Participation: Ethics and responsibilities’ in MauthnerM.BirchM.JessopJ. and MillerT. (eds.). Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage
BishopL. and NealeB. (2010) ‘Sharing Qualitative and Qualitative Longitudinal Data in the UK: Archiving Strategies and Development’IASSIST Quarterly (IQ)34(3–4) and 35(1–2) 23–29.
5.
BornatJ. (2005) ‘Recycling the Evidence: Different approaches to the ReAnalysis of Gerontological Data’Forum Qualitative Social Research, January, 6 (1) art. 42.
BornatJ.RaghuramP. And HenryL. (2012) ‘Revisiting the Archives – Opportunities and Challenges: A case study from the history of Geriatric Medicine’, Sociological Research Online, 17(2) 11.
8.
CutcliffeJ. and RamcharanP. (2002) ‘Levelling the Playing Field? Exploring the Merits of the Ethics-as-Process approach for judging Qualitative Research Proposals’, Qualitative Health Research, 12, 1000–10.
9.
EdwardsR. and MauthnerM. (2002). ‘Ethics and Feminist Research: Theory and practice’. InMauthnerMelanieBirchMaxineJessopJulie and MillerTine. (eds.). Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
HadfieldL (2010) ‘Balancing on the Edge of the Archive: The researcher's role in collecting and preparing data for deposit’, in ShiraniF and WellerS (eds.) Conducting Qualitative Longitudinal Research: Fieldwork Experiences. Timescapes Working Papers: 2 60–73. http://www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/knowledgbank/workingpapers
13.
HammersleyM. and TraianouA. (2012). Ethics in Qualitative Research: Controversies and Contexts. London: Sage.
14.
HemmermanL. (2010). ‘Researching the Hard to Reach and the Hard to Keep: Notes from the field on Longitudinal Sample Maintenance’, in ShiraniFiona and WellerSusie. (eds.). Conducting Qualitative Longitudinal Research: Fieldwork Experiences. Timescapes Working Paper Series no.2. www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk
15.
HendersonS.HollandJ.McGrellisS.SharpeS. and ThomsonR. (2012). ‘Storying Qualitative Longitudinal Research: Sequence, voice and motif’, Qualitative Research, 12 (1) 16–34
16.
IrwinS.BornatJ. and WintertonM. (2012) ‘Timescapes Secondary Analysis: Comparison, context and working across datasets’, Qualitative Research, 12 (1) 66–80.
17.
IsraelM. and HayI. (2006). Research Ethics for Social Scientists. London: Sage.
18.
JohnsonJ.RolphS. and SmithR. (2010) Residential Care Transformed: Revisiting ‘The Last Refuge’. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
19.
KelderJ. (2005) ‘Using Someone Else's Data: Problems, Pragmatics and Provisions’, Forum Qualitative Social Research, 6 (1) Art. 39.
20.
KuulaA. (2010–11) ‘Methodological and Ethical Dilemmas of Archiving Qualitative Data’IASSIST Quarterly: Special issue: Qualitative and Qualitative Longitudinal Resources in Europe: Mapping the Field and Exploring Strategies for Development. (eds. NealeB and BishopL).
MauthnerM.BirchM.JessopJ. and MillerT. (2002). (eds.) Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
23.
MauthnerN. (2012) ‘Accounting for our part of the entangled webs we weave: Ethical and moral issues in digital data sharing’. in MillerT.BirchM.MauthnerM. and JessopJ. (eds) Ethics in Qualitative Research2nd edn.London: Sage.
24.
MauthnerN and ParryO. (2013 forthcoming). ‘Open Access Digital Data Sharing: Principles, policies and practices’, Social Epistemology
25.
MauthnerN. and EdwardsR. (2010) ‘Feminist Research Management in Higher Education in Britain: Possibilities and Practices’, Gender, Work & Organization. 17: 481–502
26.
MillerR. (2000). Researching Life Stories and Family Histories. London: Sage
27.
MillerT. and BellL. (2002). ‘Consenting to What? Issues of Access, Gate-Keeping and Informed Consent’, in MauthnerM.BirchM.JessopJ. and NillerT. (eds.). Ethics in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
28.
MillerT.BirchM.MauthnerM. and JessopJ. (2012) (eds) Ethics in Qualitative Research2nd edn. London: Sage.
29.
MorrowV. (2009). The Ethics of Social Research with Children and Families in Young Lives: Practical Experiences. Young Lives Working Paper Series: No 53.
30.
NealeB. and BishopL. (2012a) ‘The Timescapes Archive: A stakeholder approach to archiving qualitative longitudinal data’, Qualitative Research12 (1) 53–65.
31.
NealeB. and BishopL. (2012b) The Ethics of Archiving and Re-Using Qualitative Longitudinal Data: A stakeholder approach. Timescapes Methods Guides Series: 18 ISSN 2049-923 www.timescapes.leeds.ac.uk/knowledgebank/methodsguides.
32.
NealeB. and FlowerdewJ. (2004) Parent Problems! Looking back at our Parents' Divorce. East Molesey, Surrey: Young Voice.
NealeB.HenwoodK. and HollandJ. (2012). ‘Researching Lives through Time: The Timescapes Approach’, Qualitative Research, 12 (1) 1–15.
35.
PatrickR. (2012) Recruiting and Sustaining Population Samples over Time: Possibilities and Challenges. Timescapes Methods Guides Series 3. ISSN 2049-923 www.timescapes.ac.uk/knowledgebank/methodsguides
PiniM. and WalkerdineV. (2011). ‘Girls on Film: Video Diaries as Auto-Ethnographies’, in ReaveyPaula. (ed.). Visual Methods in Psychology: Using and Interpreting Images in Qualitative Research. London: Routledge.
WalkerdineV.LuceyH. and MelodyJ. (2001). Growing Up Girl: Psycho-social explorations of Gender and Class. London: Palgrave Macmillan
40.
WellerS. and EdwardsR. (2012). ‘The Death of a Participant: Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Longitudinal Research with Young People’, in te RieleK. and BrooksR. (eds.) Resolving Ethical Challenges in Youth Research. Abingdon: Routledge
41.
WilesR. (2012) Developing ethical literacy: An unnecessary burden or a benefit to researchers?NCRM Methods News Winter 2012: 7
42.
WilesR. (2013). What are Qualitative Research Ethics?London: Bloomsbury Academic.
43.
WilesR.HeathS.CrowG. And CharlesV. (2005) Informed Consent in Social Research: A literature review. National Centre for Researchhttp://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/85/.
44.
WilesR.ProsserJ.BagnoliA.ClarkADaviesK.HollandS and RenoldE (2008) Visual Ethics: Ethical Issues in Visual Research. National Centre for Research Methods. eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/85/1/methodsreviewpapers011