‘Why would I want to be anonymous?’ Questioning ethical principles of anonymity in cross-cultural feminist research

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on anonymity in research, considering it in relation to feminist values. There has been increasing debate in the feminist literature on the universality of ethics, including reflection on principles such as anonymity. However, there has been limited discussion of the specific challenge facing feminist researchers to amplify the voices of women participants, but also to respect their wishes regarding voice and agency. Assuring anonymity can be empowering for women and girls participating in research, allowing individuals to share their experiences freely without concerns about attribution and its consequences. On the other hand, if research ethics require anonymity, this can actually deny research respondents the right to be heard and operate as a form of silencing. This article focuses on research in Bihar, India, where many of the respondents rejected the idea of anonymity. Upholding a feminist ethics of care and delivering on a feminist commitment to giving voice to women requires a focus on women’s agency in the decision-making process around ethics.

Cet article porte sur l’anonymat dans la recherche, en l’examinant par rapport aux valeurs féministes. Le débat dans la littérature féministe s’est intensifié autour de l’universalité de l’éthique, y compris une réflexion sur des principes comme l’anonymat. En revanche, la discussion sur le défi précis à relever par les chercheurs féministes au moment d’amplifier les voix des participants, tout en représentant leurs souhaits en matière de voix et de libre-arbitre, a été limitée. Garantir l’anonymat peut avoir pour effet d’autonomiser les femmes et les filles qui prennent part aux recherches, car cela permet aux personnes de présenter librement leurs expériences sans craindre une quelconque attribution et ses conséquences. D’un autre côté, si l’éthique en matière de recherches requiert l’anonymat, cela peut en fait priver les personnes interrogées du droit à se faire entendre et les réduire en quelque sorte au silence. Cet article se concentre sur les recherches menées au Bihar, en Inde, où nombre des personnes interrogées ont rejeté l’idée de l’anonymat. Pour faire valoir une éthique féministe de prise en charge tout en s’acquittant d’un engagement féministe à conférer une voix aux femmes, il faut se concentrer sur le libre-arbitre des femmes dans le processus de prise de décisions autour de l’éthique.

El presente artículo aborda el tema del anonimato en la investigación, considerándolo en relación con los valores feministas. En la literatura feminista se constata un creciente debate sobre la universalidad de la ética, que incluye la reflexión sobre ciertos principios como el anonimato. Sin embargo, existe escasa discusión sobre el desafío específico que representa para las investigadoras feministas amplificar la voz de las mujeres participantes y a la vez respetar sus deseos respecto a la difusión de sus opiniones y su agencia. Por un lado, asegurar el anonimato puede brindar empoderamiento a las mujeres y las niñas participantes en la investigación, permitiéndoles compartir libremente sus vivencias sin tener que preocuparse por la atribución y sus consecuencias. Por otro lado, si la ética de la investigación requiere el anonimato, puede dificultar a las encuestadas el ejercicio de su derecho a ser escuchadas, pudiendo operar como una forma de silenciamiento. Este artículo se centra en una investigación efectuada en Bihar, India, en la que muchas de las encuestadas rechazaron la idea de permanecer en el anonimato. Mantener una ética feminista del cuidado y cumplir con el compromiso feminista de dar voz a las mujeres requiere un enfoque centrado en la agencia de las mujeres durante el proceso de toma de decisiones relativas a la ética.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethics
• anonymity
• feminist research
• voice

Acknowledgements

The purpose of my research and this article is to recognise voice and knowledge, and to pursue this in the most ethical way possible. Therefore, there are a number of acknowledgements I would like to make, for inspiring, assisting, and supporting with the development of this article. However, my reflections on my fieldwork are situated in a specific context, time, and space, brought together through my own reflective research journal, some interview transcripts, some conversations, memories, and recent reflections. Therefore, unless specified, the words and critiques are my own, as I do not wish to represent the ideas of anyone else inadequately. Particular thanks are due to Ajmeri Khatun, Amrita Kumari, Gyanti Devi, Kanti Devi, Kiran Devi, Nilam Devi (Pirhi), Nilam Devi (Alipur) Nirasha Devi, Nirmala Devi, Pratibha Kumari, Pratima Devi, Punam Devi, Rinku Devi, Rita Devi, Savitri Devi, Smida Khatun, Sudha Devi, Sunita Devi, Sunayana Devi, and Suraykanti Devi for questioning my assumptions about anonymity and for sharing their perspectives on what attaching their words to their name meant for them. Thanks also to those who were involved in the discussions which supported me in writing this article, researchers engaging in feminist, postcolonial, and critical scholarship: Aliya Khalid, Arathi Sriprakash, Lakshmi S. Bose, Breanna McDaniel, and Michelle Brear. To those who have provided practical support for my work in translation, in clarifications, and also in deeply questioning my drafts for a presentation on this issue as well as the paper: Geeta Alok, Sunil Choudhary, Sharon Walker, Asma Zubairi, Chelsea Ljutic, Garima Sahai, Jude Brady, Mansi Nanda, Ju Hayes, Seema Nath, Pia Kreijkes, Arif Naveed, Anna Lise, and Harriet Gordon. Thank you to Pauline Rose and Nidhi Singal for supporting me in re-navigating the ethical approval process in light of these issues that arose. To all the participants at the Gender & Development conference for their questions and comments and to the co-editors of this issue in believing in the importance of this article and giving me the opportunity to write it, and for their support during the editing process.

Notes on contributor

Rebecca Gordon is a PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge. Postal address: c/o The Editor, Gender & Development, Oxfam GB, John Smith Drive, Oxford OX4 2JY, UK. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 There has been comparatively little critique of anonymity in the literature in comparison with other contested ethical principles. That said, some scholars, including those involved in participatory action research have explored the contradictions between the politics of voice and the blanket necessity for anonymity (Yanar et al. 2016).

2 For more information, see https://rojiroti.org/index.php?section=1 (last checked 28 August 2019).

3 Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and other disadvantaged castes are officially designated groups of historically disadvantaged people in India.

4 Bonded labour refers to a system where a person is forced to work in order to pay off debts.

5 An informed consent procedure is ethically required for all research involving people. It was a required part of receiving ethical clearance from my university and is the process through which a participant is informed about all aspects of the research which will help them to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to participate.