Anonymity in Applied Communication Research: Tensions Between IRBs, Researchers, and Human Subjects

Abstract

This essay examines the rather complex role of anonymity in communication research as revealed in the narratives submitted to this special issue. First, narratives were examined quantitatively to assess the prevalence of issues related to anonymity, with terms such as “anonymous” and “confidential” emerging most often. Next, a thematic analysis of the narratives suggests five tensions discussed in some detail: anonymity or (not and) confidentiality, over-promising and under-delivering anonymity, to sign and record … or not, named vs. anonymous vs. pseudonymous, and whether institutional review boards (IRBs) should be anonymous. The essay concludes with several applied recommendations for IRBs, researchers, and participants as they confront these tensions linked to the role of anonymity in human subjects research.

Keywords:

• Anonymity
• Institutional Research Board
• Human Subjects Research

Notes

[1] Though I will distinguish terms such as anonymity and confidentiality, the notion of identity deserves comment. Although identity has received diverse treatment in many fields describing a rather complex view of the central and enduring characteristics of something, identity here is used simply to describe basic information (e.g., name, address, physical features) that distinguishes one person from another. It is this type of information that anonymity attempts to conceal when protecting one's identity. Thus, anything that identifies a person is conceptually in opposition to that which makes someone anonymous. Indeed, anonymity may be thought of as existing on a continuum from highly anonymous to highly identified.

[2] The use of the wildcard notation (*) indicates that several related words from the same base terms were included in that search. For example, anonym* included terms such as anonymous, anonymity, and anonymize; identi* included identity, identities, and identification.

[3] Certificates of confidentiality authorize some researchers to protect individual research subjects “by withholding from all persons not connected with the conduct of such research the names or other identifying characteristics of such individuals” (Marshall et al., 2003, p. 57). However, these certificates are imperfect because even though the researcher cannot be compelled to divulge the identity of the research subject, he or she may do so voluntarily (potentially making it more a protection for the researcher than the participant); furthermore, this protection does not seem to extend to participants in other types of communication research.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Craig R. Scott

Craig R. Scott (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at The University of Texas at Austin. Correspondence to: Department of Communication Studies, A1105, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Tel: [phone]; Email: [email protected]