Beyond the participant-researcher division: co-creating ethical relationships through care and rapport in studies of post-laryngectomy communication
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article presents the ethical implications for social science research emerging from our study on interpersonal communication after a laryngectomy. By tracing the evolution of our approach through specific research experiences and participant feedback, we provide empirical support for a flexible, multidimensional, and relational understanding of key ethical concepts, such as vulnerability and the researcher-participant relationship. Our approach has shifted from institutionally imposed rigid categorizations and somewhat stereotypical treatment of both the research group and the researcher-participant relationship to an emphasis on building relationships founded on mutual care and rapport. We argue that this revised perspective fosters ethical collaboration that is beneficial and secure for all parties involved, and we offer practical examples of its implementation in research practice.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
How to Cite
References
Ahmadi F., Kobayashi K., Toda T. (2019), “Development of a Real-Time Bionic Voice Generation System Based on Statistical Excitation Prediction,” [in:] Assets ’19. The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, J.P. Bigham (red.), Association for Computing Machinery, New York: 655–657.
Allen D. (2002), “Research Involving Vulnerable Young People: A Discussion of Ethical and Methodological Concerns,” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 9 (3): 275–283.
Biernacka-Gemel A. (2022), Życie po laryngektomii. Etnografia w szczelinach ciała, unpublished master thesis, University of Warsaw, Warsaw.
Biernacka-Gemel A., Zieliński K. (2022), „Ciało – obce, sprawcze, kreatywne. O doświadczeniu Laryngektomii,” Etnografia Polska 66 (1–2): 47–71.
Birch M., Miller T. (2000), “Inviting Intimacy: The Interview as Therapeutic Opportunity,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3 (3): 189–202.
Bonner A., Tolhurst G. (2002), “Insider-Outsider Perspectives of Participant Observation,” Nurse Researcher 9 (4): 7–19.
Bracken-Roche D., Bell E., Macdonald M.E., Racine E. (2017), “The Concept of ‘Vulnerability’ in Research Ethics: An In-Depth Analysis of Policies and Guidelines,” Health Research Policy and Systems 15 (1): 8.
Bradley B. (2021), “From Biosociality to Biosolidarity: The Looping Effects of Finding and Forming Social Networks for Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviours,” Anthropology & Medicine 28 (4): 543–557.
Burgess-Proctor A. (2015), “Methodological and Ethical Issues in Feminist Research with Abused Women: Reflections on Participants’ Vulnerability and Empowerment,” Women’s Studies International Forum 48: 124–134.
Cameron D., Frazer E., Harvey P., Rampton B., Richardson K. (1993), “Ethics, Advocacy and Empowerment: Issues of Method in Researching Language,” Language and Communication 13 (2): 81–94.
Campbell R., Wasco S.M. (2000), “Feminist Approaches to Social Science: Epistemological and Methodological Tenets,” American Journal of Community Psychology 28 (6): 773–791.
Ceachir O., Hainarosie R., Zainea V. (2014), “Total Laryngectomy – Past, Present, Future,” Maedica 9 (2): 210–216.
Davies C.A. (1999), Reflexive Ethnography: A Guide to Researching Selves and Others, Routledge, London.
De Jaegher H. (2021), “Loving and Knowing: Reflections for an Engaged Epistemology,” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 20: 847–870.
Flaskerud J.H., Winslow B.J. (1998), “Conceptualising Vulnerable Populations in Health-Related Research,” Nursing Research 47 (2): 69–78.
Frank A.W. (2004), “Asking the Right Question about Pain: Narrative and Phronesis,” Literature and Medicine 23 (2): 209–225.
Fuchs A.K., Hagmuller M., Kubin G. (2016), “The New Bionic Electro-Larynx Speech System,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 10 (5): 952–961.
Glesne C. (1989), “Rapport and Friendship in Ethnographic Research,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 2 (1): 45–54.
Gordon B.G. (2020), “Vulnerability in Research: Basic Ethical Concepts and General Approach to Review,” Ochsner Journal 20 (1): 34–38.
Hammersley M., Atkinson P. (2007), Ethnography, Principles in Practice, Routledge, London.
Iphofen R., Tolich M. (eds.) (2018), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics, SAGE, London.
Kipnis K. (2001), “Vulnerability in Research Subjects: A Bioethical Taxonomy,” URL = https://aapcho.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Kipnis-VulnerabilityinResearchSubjects.pdf [Accessed 4.03.2020].
Lange M.M., Rogers W.A., Dodds S. (2013), “Vulnerability in Research Ethics: a Way Forward,” Bioethics 27 (6): 333–340.
Levine C., Faden R., Grady Ch., Hammerschmidt D., Eckenwiler L., Sugarman J. (2004), “The Limitations Of ‘Vulnerability’ As A Protection For Human Research Participants,” The American Journal of Bioethics 4 (3): 44–49.
Luna F. (2009), “Elucidating the Concept of Vulnerability: Layers not Labels,” International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2 (1): 121–139.
Luna F. (2019), “Identifying and Evaluating Layers of Vulnerability – A Way Forward,” Developing World Bioethics 19 (2): 86–95.
Moore L.W., Miller M. (1999), “Initiating Research with Doubly Vulnerable Populations,” Journal of Advanced Nursing 30 (5): 1034–1040.
Noddings N. (2013), Caring. A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
Nyamathi A. (1998), “Vulnerable Populations: A Continuing Nursing Focus,” Nursing Research 47 (2): 65–66.
Pietrowiak K. (2021), „Relacja, zobowiązanie, współpraca. Założenia i wyzwania badań etnograficznych wśród osób niewidomych,” Etnografia. Praktyki, teorie, doświadczenia 7 (7): 99–110.
Pols J. (2015), “Towards an Empirical Ethics in Care: Relations With Technologies in Health Care,” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (1): 81–90.
Puig de la Bellacasa M. (2011), “Matters of Care in Technoscience: Assembling Neglected Things,” Social Studies of Science 41 (1): 85–106.
Racine E., Bracken-Roche D. (2019), “Enriching the Concept of Vulnerability in Research Ethics: An Integrative and Functional Account,” Bioethics 33 (1): 19–34.
Repova B., Zabrodsky M., Plzak J., Kalfert D., Matousek J., Betka J. (2021), “Text-to-Speech Synthesis as an Alternative Communication Means after Total Laryngectomy,” Biomedical Papers 165 (2): 192–197.
Shivayogi P. (2013), “Vulnerable Population and Methods for Their Safeguard,” Perspectives in Clinical Research 4 (1): 53–57.
Silva M.C. (1995), Ethical Guidelines in the Conduct, Dissemination, and Implementation of Nursing Research, American Nurses Publishing, Washington.
Spradley J.P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Surmiak A. (2022a), Etyka badań jakościowych w praktyce. Analiza doświadczeń badaczy z osobami podatnymi na zranienie, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa.
Surmiak A. (2022b), „Etyka naukowych badań społecznych. Pomiędzy kodyfikacją i instytucjonalizacją a praktyką badawczą,” Diametros 19 (74): 36–50.
Toy-Cronin B. (2018), “Ethical Issues in Insider-Outsider Research,” [in:] The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics, R. Iphofen, M. Tolich (eds.), SAGE, London: 455–468.
Van den Hoonaard W.C. (2018), “The Vulnerability of Vulnerability: Why Social Science Researchers Should Abandon The Doctrine of Vulnerability,” [in:] The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Ethics, R. Iphofen, M. Tolich (eds.), SAGE, London: 305–321.
Van Sluis K.E., Van der Molen L., Van Son R.J.J.H., Hilgers F.J.M., Bhairosing P.A., Van den Brekel M.W.M. (2018), “Objective and Subjective Voice Outcomes after Total Laryngectomy: A Systematic Review,” European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 275 (1): 11–26.
Walker S., Read S. (2011), “Accessing Vulnerable Research Populations: An Experience with Gatekeepers of Ethical Approval,” International Journal of Palliative Nursing 17 (1): 14–18.
World Medical Association (2013), “World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,” Journal of the American Medical Association 310 (20): 2191–2194.
Zieliński K., Biernacka-Gemel A., Wojdat A., Komorowska-Mach J., Rączaszek-Leonardi J. (2023), “Researching Communication in Context: Engaged Epistemology and Ethnographic Fieldwork Transforms Understanding of Interactions after Laryngectomy,” Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 45: 229–236.