T
he Internet is a comprehensive electronic database of material that rep- resents the opinions and concerns of those individuals who utilize this resource. Qualitative analysis of material communicated on the Internet can describe needs, values, concerns, and preference of consumers and profes- sionals relevant to health and health care. Although the Internet provides innovative access to human interactions, such research raises new issues in research ethics.Within the context of ethics and Internet research, questions emerge regarding what may be public versus private information, whether informed consent has been obtained, and the extent to which the subjects can be identified. Im and Chee (2002) discuss issues related to the protection of human subjects in Internet research that emerged in a study exploring gen- der and ethnic diversity in cancer pain experiences. Issues raised in their study include concerns regarding anonymity and confidentiality, security, full disclosure, and fair treatment. The authors focus on mechanisms em- ployed to address ethical concerns that emerged in the study. Similarly, Sixsmith, and Murray, 2001 discussed issues of consent, privacy anonymity and ownership as these concepts relate to internet posts and archives. As
more and more research is conducted through the Internet, ethical codes will need to be examined to ensure they address the issues that emerge in this type of research. Traditional tenets of informed consent and public and private information must be questioned when researchers use electronic databases for their research.
SUMMARY
A
lthough the ethical principles governing qualitative and quantitative re- search are similar, the complex, personal, and intense nature of quali- tative research requires a fresh perspective regarding the research process.The dynamic nature of qualitative methodologies presents unique concerns regarding informed consent. Treating consent as an ongoing process rather than an isolated event allows participants to re-evaluate their participation in a particular study should the focus change. Qualitative data collection strategies prevent participant anonymity. Maintaining the focus of the re- search and clarifying the purpose can prevent the development of close, in- timate relationships between participants and the researcher from turning into what may be interpreted as therapeutic encounters. Presentation of the findings with thick descriptions and slices of raw data may complicate is- sues of confidentiality. When writing the analysis, the researcher should take care to prevent the identity of participants from being revealed through the incorporation of examples of raw data. Internet research presents new and emerging concerns regarding anonymity and confidentiality. Additionally, researchers must consider and address the vulnerability of certain popula- tions. These issues are important in the ongoing development and use of qualitative research methods. Finally, it is important to remember that although established ethical guidelines may give some direction, the ethical and moral picture of qualitative research is much more complicated. Even though an ethical review board may have approved a research study, prob- lems may still arise. “We should not simply assume that because research has been accepted by a committee it is morally justifiable in its methods”
(Firby, 1995, p. 36). Ethical guidelines for qualitative research will continue to emerge, and researchers must consider those guidelines from a different perspective than those associated with quantitative designs.
References
Alty, A., & Rodham, K. (1998). The ouch! factor: Problems in conducting sensitive research. Qualitative Health Research,8(2), 275–282.
American Nurses Association. (2001). Code for nurses with interpretive statements.
Kansas City, MO: Author.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics(5th ed.).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Behi, R., & Nolan, M. (1995). Ethical issues in research. British Journal of Nursing, 4(12), 712–716.
Boman, J., & Jevne, R. (2000). Ethical evaluation in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research,10(4), 547–554.
Bulmer, M. (Ed.). (1982). Social research ethics. New York: Macmillan.
Clarke, L. (1996). Covert participant observation in a secure forensic unit. Nursing Times,92(48), 37–40.
Cowles, K. V. (1988). Issues in qualitative research on sensitive topics. Western Journal of Nursing Research,10(2), 163–179.
Cutliffe, J. R., & Ramcharan, P. (2002). Leveling the playing field? Exploring the mer- its of the ethics-as-process approach for judging qualitative research proposals.
Qualitative Health Research, 12(7), 1000–1010.
Davis, D. S. (1991). Rich cases: The ethics of thick description. Hastings Center Report, 21(4), 12–16.
Demi, A. S., & Warren, N. A. (1995). Issues in conducting research with vulnerable families. Western Journal of Nursing Research,17(2), 188–202.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E. L., Kippen, S., & Liamputtong, P. (2008). Risk to researchers in qualitative research on sensitive topics: Issues and strategies.
Qualitative Health Research, 18, 133–144.
Douglas, J. D. (1979). Living morality versus bureaucratic fiat. In C. B. Klockers &
F. W. O. Connor (Eds.), Deviance and decency: The ethics of research with human subjects(pp. 13–33). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Faux, S. A., Walsh, M., & Deatrick, J. A. (1988). Intensive interviewing with adoles- cents. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10(2), 180–194.
Firby, P. (1995). Critiquing the ethical aspects of a study. Nurse Researcher, 3(1), 35–41.
Forbat, L., & Henderson, J. (2003). “Stuck in the middle with you”: The ethics and process of qualitative research with two people in an intimate relationship.
Qualitative Health Research,13(10), 1453–1462.
Gans, H. J. (1962). The urban villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Haggerty, L. A., & Hawkins, J. (2000). Informed consent and the limits of confiden- tiality. Western Journal of Nursing Research,22(4), 508–515.
Haggman-Laitila, A. (1999). The authenticity and ethics of phenomenological research: How to overcome the researcher’s own views. Nursing Ethics,6(1), 12–22.
Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (1995). Ethical issues in qualitative nursing research.
Nursing Ethics,2(3), 223–232.
Im, E., & Chee, W. (2002). Issues in protection of human subjects in Internet research.
Nursing Research,51(4), 266–269.
James, T., & Platzer, H. (1999). Ethical considerations in qualitative research with vulnerable groups: Exploring lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of health care—
a personal perspective. Nursing Ethics,6(1), 73–81.
Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative re- search. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279–289.
Lawton, J. (2001). Gaining and maintaining consent: Ethical concerns raised in a study of dying patients. Qualitative Health Research,11(5), 693–705.
Levine, R. (Ed.). (1986). Ethics and regulation of clinical research(2nd ed.). Baltimore- Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1987). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. Review of Higher Education, 12, 221–240.
Llewellyn, G. (1995). Qualitative research with people with intellectual disability.
Occupational Therapy International,2, 108–127.
Mabunda, G. (2001). Ethical issues in HIV research in poor countries. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(2), 111–114.
Merrell, J., & Williams, A. (1994). Participant observation and informed consent:
Relationships and tactical decision-making in nursing research. Nursing Ethics, 1(3), 163–172.
Moore, L., & Savage, J. (2002). Participant observation, informed consent and ethi- cal approval. Nurse Researcher,9(4), 58–70.
Munhall, P. (1988). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. Western Journal of Nursing Research,10(2), 150–162.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,33(1), 93–98.
Platzer, H., & James, T. (1997). Methodological issues conducting sensitive research on lesbian and gay men’s experience of nursing care. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 626–633.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Punch, M. (1994). Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(pp. 86–97). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ramos, M. C. (1989). Some ethical implications of qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health,12, 57–63.
Raudonis, B. A. (1992). Ethical considerations in qualitative research with hospice patients. Qualitative Health Research,2(2), 238–249.
Richards, H. M., & Schwartz, L. J. (2002). Ethics of qualitative research: Are there spe- cial issues for health services research? Family Practice,19(2), 135–139.
Robley, L. R. (1995). The ethics of qualitative nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing,11(1), 45–48.
Savage, J. (2000). Participative observation: Standing in the shoes of others?
Qualitative Health Research,10(3), 324–339.
Silva, M. (1995). Ethical guidelines in the conduct, dissemination, and implementation of nursing research. Washington, DC: American Nurses Publishing.
Sixsmith, J., & Murray, C. D. (2001). Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of internet posts and archives. Qualitative Health Research, 11(3), 423–432.
Smith, B. A. (1999). Ethical and methodological benefits of using a reflexive journal in hermeneutic-phenomenologic research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31(4), 359–363.
Steinbrook, R. (2002). Protecting research subjects: The crisis at John Hopkins. New England Journal of Medicine,346, 716.
Phenomenology as Method
C H A P T E R
5
P
henomenology has been and continues to be an integral field of in- quiry that cuts across philosophic, sociologic, and psychological disciplines.This rigorous, critical, systematic method of investigation is a recognized qualitative research approach applicable to the study of phenomena impor- tant to the discipline of nursing. Phenomenological inquiry brings to lan- guage perceptions of human experience with all types of phenomena. As several authors have noted, phenomenology, both as philosophy and research approach, allows nursing to explore and describe phenomena important to the discipline (Arrigo & Cody, 2004; Beck, 1994; Caelli, 2000, 2001; McConnell-Henry, Chapman, & Francis, 2009; Ortiz, 2009; Todres &
Wheeler, 2001; Van der Zalm & Bergum, 2000). Because professional nurs- ing practice is enmeshed in people’s life experiences, phenomenology as a research approach is well suited to the investigation of phenomena impor- tant to nursing.
Phenomenological inquiry as a philosophy and developing science con- tinues to undergo interpretation and explication in terms of its pragmatic use as a nursing research method. This chapter addresses the variety of methodological interpretations detailed within the discipline of pheno - menological inquiry. Phenomenology as philosophy and as method is discussed, along with fundamental differences between descriptive and interpretive phenomenology. Highlights of specific elements and interpreta- tions of phenomenology as a research approach provide readers with a beginning understanding of common phenomenological language and themes. This chapter also addresses methodological concerns specific to conducting a phenomenological investigation.
Introductory concepts for researchers interested in conducting a phe- nomenological investigation are presented in the content that follows. The reader should keep in mind that there is no quick step-by-step method to
phenomenological inquiry. The methodology is philosophically complex, and the analytic processes required to participate in the method require sci- entific discipline. Researchers interested in conducting a phenomenological investigation must read original philosophically based work and identify a mentor with expertise in the discipline to acquire an in-depth understand- ing of phenomenology both as a philosophy and as a research approach.