Privacy, Acknowledgement and Accessibility

There was strong support in Ann Arbor for participants’ right to privacy and the need to anonymise findings wherever appropriate.

How is privacy interpreted and desired differently by different cultures, communities and individuals?

What minimum standards of data management need to be proposed to ensure effective protection of privacy?

How should we protect field notes, recordings, drawings, samples and other primary data? Should they be deleted after the end of the research project or archived?

Some participants may desire to be acknowledged by name for their creative inputs instead of appearing anonymously. How might we frame a “right to be acknowledged”?

How might participants be made aware of the risks and benefits of being named?

How can we ensure that the findings of our research can be accessed by income-poor groups?

Are there circumstances in which the principle of redacting for anonymity should be overridden for the sake of keeping documentation and furthering knowledge (e.g. anthropological interest; preservation of records)?

Data can be presented to different audiences. Are there circumstances under which some findings should be withheld from participants?  Is it ever possible and ethical to share less information about findings with research participants than with other audiences?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s