Ethics or access? Balancing informed consent against the application of institutional, economic or emotional pressures in recruiting respondents for research

Abstract

In this article, I will show how groups with low human and social capital are less likely to volunteer to participate in research, if participation entails no direct personal benefits for respondents. Consequently, if our research was to be based solely on volunteers, our knowledge of social practices would be biased. This bias would often be in favour of groups with high human and social capital, who are also more likely to have their voices heard in other arenas; while more marginalised groups remain unheard. In order to get access to all respondent groups, various forms and degrees of institutional, economic and emotional pressure are widely used to recruit respondents for interviews. Although such practices are common, it is still taboo in many research communities to acknowledge that pressure is applied. I argue that it can be defended to apply pressure in some instances, even if this reduces the respondents’ opportunity to freely consent. However, if pressure is applied, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that respondents are not put at any risk of harm. To facilitate research that is ethically sound, research communities could benefit from widening their focus, from one strongly focussed on informed consent to a wider awareness of factors that can entail risk of harm for participants.

Keywords:

• Risk of harm
• informed consent
• gatekeepers
• trust
• economic incentives

Notes

1. For an excellent discussion on incentives as a form of power, see Grant (2006).

2. It could be argued that unintentional pressure is outside the control of the interviewer, and should not be his/her responsibility. However, it is my belief that much unethical research stems from lack of awareness or reflection on the part of the interviewer or research team. The interviewer’s ignorance does not make the situation in any way less problematic from an ethical point of view.

3. In this perspective, I will also include network recruitment as a subcategory of recruitment via gatekeeper, as they both function as agents who, if they can be persuaded to cooperate, can recruit respondents for research.

4. The opposite can also be the case; if interviewers cooperate with gatekeepers that the respondents themselves do not trust, gatekeeper recruitment can make it more difficult to gain respondents’ trust.