Anonymity, Confidentiality, Privacy, and Identity: The Ties That Bind and Break in Communication Research

Abstract

The adoption of the Belmont Report in 1979 and the implementation of Institutional Review Boards focused the need for anonymity as a means to the performance of ethics in human subject inquiry. Despite anonymity being the most frequent recommendation of Institutional Review Boards, the debate between anonymity and identifiability, and what is best for the research, the subject, and the researcher remains strong. This paper explores this debate and the implications that recommendations of anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, and identifiability have on the research process. Through examples of past research that have questioned and dealt with the ethical implications of these concepts, this paper fills a research gap that summarizes and characterizes the debate. This paper explores questions such as: What can anonymity, confidentiality, and privacy add to the research process? And how do they complicate it?

Keywords:

• Anonymity
• Confidentiality
• Privacy
• Identity
• Communication Research

Notes

[1] L. N. Reinsch, “Management Communication Ethics Research: Finding the Bull's-Eye”, Management Communication Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1996): 349–58.

[2] A. Kelley, A. Belcourt-Dittloff, C. Belcourt and G. Belcourt, “Research Ethics and Indigenous Communities”, American Journal of Public Health 103, no. 12 (2013): 2146–52.

[3] R. Beckett, “Communication Ethics: Principle and Practice”, Journal of Communication Mangement 8, no. 1 (2003): 41–52.

[4] J. M. Morse, “The Contracted Relationship: Ensuring Protection of Anonymity and Confidentiality”, Qualitative Health Research 8 (1998): 301–3.

[5] G. T. Marx, “What's in a Name? Some Reflections on the Sociology of Anonymity”, The Information Society 15, no. 2 (1999): 99–112.

[6] Marx, “What's in a Name?”, 100.

[7] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[8] Marx, “What's in a Name?”, 100.

[9] C. R. Scott, “Anonymity in Applied Communication Research: Tensions Between IRBs, Researchers and Human Subjects”, Journal of Applied Communication Research 33, no. 3 (2005): 242–57.

[10] Scott, “Anonymity in Applied Communication Research”.

[11] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[12] K. Yu, “Confidentiality Revisited”, Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2008): 161–72.

[13] K. Yu, “Confidentiality Revisited”, Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2008): 161–72

[14] K. Yu, “Confidentiality Revisited”, Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2008): 161–72

[15] K. Yu, “Confidentiality Revisited”, Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (2008): 161–72

[16] J. M. Morse, “The Contracted Relationship: Ensuring Protection of Anonymity and Confidentiality”, Qualitative Health Research 8 (1998): 301–3.

[17] Morse, “The Contracted Relationship”.

[18] Morse, “The Contracted Relationship”.

[19] Stein, A., “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape: Anonymity and the Ethics of Exposure in Public Ethnography”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 39, no. 5 (2010): 554–68.

[20] Stein, A., “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape: Anonymity and the Ethics of Exposure in Public Ethnography”, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 39, no. 5 (2010): 554–68.

[21] M. Swauger, “Afterward: The Ethics of Risk, Power, and Representation”, Qualitative Sociology 34 (2011): 497–502.

[22] M. Swauger, “Afterward: The Ethics of Risk, Power, and Representation”, Qualitative Sociology 34 (2011): p. 500.

[23] National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects Research (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).

[24] J. F. Childress, E. M. Meslin, and H. T. Shapiro, ed. Belmont Revisited: Ethical Principles for Research with Human Subjects (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005), 3.

[25] R. Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (New York, NY: Random House, 2010).

[26] Childress et al., Belmont Revisited, 4.

[27] Childress et al., Belmont Revisited, 5.

[28] Childress et al., Belmont Revisited, 4.

[29] Childress et al., Belmont Revisited, 5.

[30] Childress et al., Belmont Revisited, 5.

[31] Childress et al., Belmont Revisited, 5.

[32] P. Liamputtong, Researching the Vulnerable: A Guide to Sensitive Research Methods (London, U.K.: Sage, 2007).

[33] P. Liamputtong, Researching the Vulnerable: A Guide to Sensitive Research Methods (London, U.K.: Sage, 2007).

[34] National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report, 5.

[35] A. F. Koerner, “Communication Scholars' Communication and Relationship with Their IRBs”, Journal of Applied Communication Research 33, no. 3 (2005): 231–41.

[36] J. P. Callen and J. K. Robinson, “Assurance of Protection of Human Subjects' Safety and Privacy”, Archives of Dermatology, 145, no. 2 (2009): 193–4.

[37] Callen (2009).

[38] Anonymous. Protecting Human Beings: Institutional Review Boards and Social Science Research”, Academe, 87, no. 3 (2001): 55–67.

[39] Y. S. Lincoln and W. G. Tierney, “Qualitative Research and Institutional Review Boards”, Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2004): 219–34.

[40] National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report.

[41] Childress (2005).

[42] Childress (2005).

[43] Scott, “Anonymity in Applied Communication”, 244.

[44] Scott, “Anonymity in Applied Communication”.

[45] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[46] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[47] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[48] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[49] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[50] Scott, “Anonymity in Applied Communication”.

[51] Scott, “Anonymity in Applied Communication”.

[52] Marx, “What's in a Name?”, p. 107.

[53] Marx, “What's in a Name?”, p. 100.

[54] K. L. Fitch, “Difficult Interactions Between IRBs and Investigators: Applications and Solutions”, Journal of Applied Communication Research 33, no. 3 (2005): 269–67.

[55] Skloot (2010).

[56] Skloot (2010).

[57] Skloot (2010).

[58] Stein, “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape”.

[59] Stein, “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape”.

[60] Stein, “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape”.

[61] A. Robbins, The Overachievers: the Secret Life of Driven Kids (New York, NY: Hyperion, 2006).

[62] A. Robbins, The Geeks Shall Inherit the Earth: Popularity, Quirk Theory, and Why Outsiders Thrive After High School (New York, NY: Hyperion, 2011).

[63] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.

[64] Stein, “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape”.

[65] Stein, “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape”.

[66] C. L. Bosk and R. G. DeVries, “Bureaucracies of Mass Deception: Institutional Review Boards and Ethics of Ethnographic Research”, The Annals 595 (2004): 249–63.

[67] Stein, “Sex, Truths, and Audiotape”.

[68] N. Scheper-Hughes, “Ire in Ireland. Ethnography 1 (2000): 117–40.

[69] N. Scheper-Hughes, “Ire in Ireland. Ethnography 1 (2000): 117–40.

[70] N. Scheper-Hughes, “Ire in Ireland. Ethnography 1 (2000): 117–40.

[71] Hemmings, A., “Great Ethical Divides: Bridging the Gap Between Institutional Review Boards and Researchers”, Educational Researcher 35 (2006): 12–8.

[72] M. Librett and D. Perrone, “Apples and Oranges: Ethnography and the IRB”, Qualitative Research 10 (2010): 729–47.

[73] M. Librett and D. Perrone, “Apples and Oranges: Ethnography and the IRB”, Qualitative Research 10 (2010): 729–47.

[74] C. A. Heimer and J. Petty, “Bureaucratic Ethics: IRBs and the Legal Regulation of Human Subjects Research”, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6 (2010): 601–26.

[75] Heimer and Petty, “Bureaucratic Ethics”, 606.

[76] Heimer and Petty, “Bureaucratic Ethics”.

[77] S. N. Whitney, K. Alcser, C. E. Schneider, L. B. McCullough, A. L. McGuire, and R. J. Volk, “Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System”, International Journal of Medical Sciences 5, no. 2 (2008): 68–72.

[78] S. N. Whitney, K. Alcser, C. E. Schneider, L. B. McCullough, A. L. McGuire, and R. J. Volk, “Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System”, International Journal of Medical Sciences 5, no. 2 (2008): 68–72.

[79] A. J. Vidich and J. Bensman, “Small Town in Mass Society: Class, Power, and Religion in a Rural Community. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, revised edition, 2000.

[80] F. W. Young, “Small Town in Mass Society Revisited”, Rural Sociology 61, no. 4 (1996): 630–48.

[81] Swauger (2011, p. 499).

[82] Swauger (2011, p. 499).

[83] B. White, “The Vulnerable Population of Teacher-Researchers; or, Why I Can't Name My Co-Authors”, English Education 43, no. 4 (2011): 321–40.

[84] H. Kennedy, “Beyond Anonymity, or Future Directions for Internet Identity Research”, New Media Society 8 (2006): 859–76.

[85] R. J. P. Hauck, “Protecting Human Research Participants, IRBs, and Political Science Redux: Editor Edition”, Political Science and Politics 41, no. 3 (2008): 475–6.

[86] M. Librett and D. Perrone, “Apples and Oranges: Ethnography and the IRB”, Qualitative Research 10 (2010): 729–47.

[87] M. Marzano, “Informed Consent, Deception and Research Freedom in Qualitative Research: A Cross Cultural Comparison”, Qualitative Inquiry 13 (2007): 417–36.

[88] Marx, “What's in a Name?”.