The principle of caveat emptor: Confidentiality and informed consent as endemic ethical dilemmas in focus group research [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):99-108 (2009)
Informed consent and confidentiality supposedly minimize harm for research participants in all qualitative research methodologies, inclusive of one-on-one unstructured interviews and focus groups. This is not the case for the latter. Confidentiality and informed consent uniquely manifest themselves as endemic ethical dilemmas for focus group researchers. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) may be a more useful tool for those involved in focus group research: that is, let the researcher, the participants and the ethics committee beware that the only ethical assurance that can be given to focus group participants is that there are few ethical assurances. These ethical dilemmas are not sufficiently realized in the literature, and if they are discussed, they are often dealt with within the focus group moderator’s preamble to the group discussion. This paper encourages the mandatory use of a participant information sheet sufficiently detailed to engender the participant’s active consent. Sufficient here means the participant must be made adequately aware of these endemic ethical dilemmas in advance, to allow them to consent to share responsibility for any ensuing harm. The focus group moderator is not their sole protector.
|Keywords||Focus groups Confidentiality Informed consent Ethics committees|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Tom L. Beauchamp (2009). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Zygmunt Bauman (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Blackwell.
William F. Whyte (1958). Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Science and Society 22 (3):286-287.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
K. S. Steinsbekk & B. Solberg (2011). Biobanks--When is Re-Consent Necessary? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):236-250.
Janet L. Brody, John P. Cluck & Alfredo S. Aragon (1997). Participants' Understanding of the Process of Psychological Research: Informed Consent. Ethics and Behavior 7 (4):285 – 298.
Michelle H. Biros (2007). Research Without Consent: Exception From and Waiver of Informed Consent in Resuscitation Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):361-369.
Lisa Aronson Fontes (2004). Articles: Ethics in Violence Against Women Research: The Sensitive, the Dangerous, and the Overlooked. Ethics and Behavior 14 (2):141 – 174.
Deborah Bowman (2011). Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
A. T. Nuyen (2007). Knowing the Unknown and Informed Consent. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 21 (2):213-223.
Gordon R. Mitchell (2001). Defining the Subject of Consent in DNA Research. Journal of Medical Humanities 22 (1):41-53.
Deborah Yeager-Woodhouse & John Sivell (2006). Prepackaged Tour Versus Personal Journey: The Meaning of Informed Consent in the Context of the Teacher-Study Group. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 4 (1-4):189-203.
Atsushi Asai, Motoki Ohnishi, Etsuyo Nishigaki, Miho Sekimoto, Shunichi Fukuhara & Tsuguya Fukui (2002). Attitudes of the Japanese Public and Doctors Towards Use of Archived Information and Samples Without Informed Consent: Preliminary Findings Based on Focus Group Interviews. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 3 (1):1-10.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #105,892 of 1,780,587 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #166,011 of 1,780,587 )
How can I increase my downloads?