🔥🔥🔥 Safeguard Confidentiality In Research

Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:54:31 PM

Safeguard Confidentiality In Research

Edit this Safeguard Confidentiality In Research. By continuing to use Safeguard Confidentiality In Research site, you agree to our Safeguard Confidentiality In Research policy. As a nurse, midwife or nursing associate, you owe a duty of confidentiality Joe Clark Lean On Me Analysis all those who Safeguard Confidentiality In Research receiving care. It might in cases also endanger the safety of Safeguard Confidentiality In Research researcher. What Ewick And Silbey: Film Analysis confidentiality in nursing practice? Safeguard Confidentiality In Research Davis June 1,


There are limited exceptions to this, including disclosures to state health officials and court orders requiring medical records to be produced. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Skip to content Home What is confidentiality in qualitative research? Ben Davis June 1, What is confidentiality in qualitative research? Why is confidentiality important in qualitative research? How do you protect confidentiality in qualitative research? How do you maintain privacy and confidentiality? Why is privacy and confidentiality important? What is patient confidentiality? How do you ensure privacy in research? What is the difference between privacy and confidentiality? What is privacy and confidentiality? What is privacy and confidentiality in healthcare?

How important is confidentiality in healthcare? Why is it important to maintain confidentiality in healthcare? Are nurses bound by confidentiality? Why is patient confidentiality an ethical issue? Devices that were used for University-related purposes or that were otherwise used to store sensitive information should be destroyed or securely erased to ensure that their previous contents cannot be recovered and misused. Paper documents containing sensitive information should be shredded rather than dumped into trash or recycling bins. Manage data acquisition. When collecting sensitive data, be conscious of how much data is actually needed and carefully consider privacy and confidentiality in the acquisition process. Avoid acquiring sensitive data unless absolutely necessary; one of the best ways to reduce confidentiality risk is to reduce the amount of sensitive data being collected in the first place.

Manage data utilization. Confidentiality risk can be further reduced by using sensitive data only as approved and as necessary. Misusing sensitive data violates the privacy and confidentiality of that data and of the individuals or groups the data represents. Manage devices. Computer management is a broad topic that includes many essential security practices. By protecting devices, you can also protect the data they contain. Moreover, the feeling of being a guest i. My interviewees attached the greatest importance to the consequences that a breach of confidentiality would bring to the participants of their research.

They decided to maintain confidentiality because they believed that, on balance, it would have a better effect on the informants than breaking confidentiality. For example, aforementioned Bartek, who learnt that staff at an aid institution were using serious violence against its residents, was afraid that passing this information to the police would result in the closure of the institution. According to him, the victims of violence could be worse off than in the current situation, as they would not have any support or place to live. This example raises the question of whether an action taken with a positive intention is morally justified, even if it is expected to have a negative effect.

On the grounds of deontological ethics, that is, ethics based on principles and values to be observed even if they have negative effects, this question can be answered in the affirmative see Saja However, Bartek thought in a consequentialist manner: he believed that the potential negative effects of a breach of confidentiality outweighed the positives, and so determined that confidentiality should be maintained in this case. Some researchers explained that they had kept confidentiality because they were unsure of the reliability of the information regarding the crime or harm.

They also believed that it would be difficult to prove that a crime of which they had been informed had been committed owing to a lack of evidence. In such cases, the researchers recognized that the negative consequences of a breach of confidentiality outweighed the positives. For example, some ethnographers researching highly internally conflicted groups, like Edek, suspected that information shared with them about violence e. As they suggested, the informants could talk about alleged crimes in order to harm their opponents. Several participants in my research indicated that a breach of confidentiality could have negative consequences for themselves and for peer researchers as well.

Breaking confidentiality could result in a requirement to interrupt their research. It might in cases also endanger the safety of the researcher. For example, in studies of criminals the reporting of a crime to the police could expose the researcher to the risk of retaliation. Breaking confidentiality might also have negative connotations for peer researchers, as it could render it more difficult or impossible to conduct future research in a given environment. However, the evaluation of some actions based on the calculation of positive and negative effects has its drawbacks. For example, it is not possible to predict all of the consequences of potential decisions direct and indirect , and they are difficult to weigh and compare see Saja Some researchers did not find this problematic, perhaps because they did not believe in the positive effects of their possible intervention.

However, aside from their views regarding the role of the researcher and the calculation of profits and losses, an equally important reason why researchers maintained confidentiality was their personal values. I discuss this issue in the following section. Some researchers justified the maintenance of confidentiality with reference to personal values. Among them were researchers who referred to the Weberian post-positivist paradigm, as well as those who identified themselves with various critical approaches. Following Weber , they believed that the researcher should avoid value-judgments. My interviewees who conducted research in criminal environments treated their choice of research topic as a kind of moral declaration; they were able to accept certain illegal and extra-legal activities and maintain confidentiality.

They also did not believe in the worldview of researcher neutrality. For example, Jaga did not inform the police that the participants of her research possessed marijuana, because in her personal opinion this should be legalized. Moreover, due to their left-wing views, some researchers criticized the economic and political system as a well as an institutional way of treating refugees, undocumented immigrants or the unemployed. As a result, they perceived the participants in their research as being victims of structural violence and they tolerated their actions even if the system defined them as illegal, e.

Furthermore, as noted, some anthropologists not only kept confidentiality in such situations, but also personally engaged in illegal activities with their participants, such as afromentioned squatting. Like participants in Wiles et al. However, this sense of moral duty, as I have already noted, did not always result in the breaking of confidentiality.

Therefore, the question arises: Why did some researchers decide to break confidentiality? From the aforementioned statements of Jarek, who wanted to inform prison staff about the harassment of a fellow prisoner, it appears that he made this decision because he considered human health and life to be of paramount importance. His value system did not seem to differ from the researchers who did not violate confidentiality even where they learned of a serious crime. It is worth noting, however, that Jarek witnessed violence, the context and meaning of which he understood very well, because he himself was a member of the prison community.

For this reason, I think that it would be difficult for him to distance himself from this situation by referring to the categories used by other researchers in the case of knowledge of violence, such as the notion that the researcher has guest status. Moreover, it is possible that the fact that Jarek carried out covert observation was of some importance. Consequently, unlike in the case of overt research, his violation of confidentiality did not directly jeopardize the success of his research or future studies in the prison environment.

Researchers who took a caring approach, that is, they broke confidentiality because they believed that their informants were threatened with harm, were also convinced that the welfare of their informants was more important than maintaining confidentiality. When making their decisions, they were guided by the obligations arising from their relationships with their research participants, and not by the principles of code ethics. Perhaps also, although it did not appear in their narratives, they perceived the possible negative consequences of breaking confidentiality — both for the informants, the research, as well as for themselves — as relatively insignificant.

I think that researchers were more likely to break confidentiality and to take the balancing approach in the case of knowledge of minor harm than in the case of serious crime, because they considered the possible negative consequences of such actions for various individuals e. Thanks to the reflexivity and self-awareness of my interviewees, their statements provide a clear insight into the complexities of their choices regarding confidentiality in the context of knowledge of violations of law or harm.

The results of my research, as well as that of Wiles et al. In both studies, interviewees declared that they were only willing to break confidentiality if they learned about physical or sexual harm, especially when it affected children. However, my analysis shows that in research practice, even in such cases, researchers tended to opt to protect confidentiality. My analyses show that the researchers justified their breach of confidentiality primarily in terms of their personal values and their willingness to protect their research participants. Contrary to the participants in Wiles et al. These differences in approach to law may reflect the distinctive social research culture of Poland relative to Anglophone countries. In addition, most of the participants in my research did not comply with the legal regulations on breach of confidentiality, unlike some of the participants in Wiles et al.

Thus, the question returns of whether my research participants were in favour of the ethics-first approach, i. Some researchers explicitly objected to the sharing of confidential research material with law enforcement authorities, and one interviewee refused to disclose it. Moreover, the majority of the researchers maintained confidentiality, despite the fact that according to the law they should have notified law enforcement authorities of a crime. In my opinion, however, the aforementioned question is flawed, because researchers generally did not choose between the confidentiality principle and the law that ordered the breaking of confidentiality.

Indeed, their reasoning was more complex. They did not comply with the directive of absolute respect for the guarantee of confidentiality contained, for example, in the code of ethics of the Polish Sociological Association or the requirement of unconditional assurances of confidentiality imposed by some research ethics committees Downes et al. Nor did they comply with the directive requiring researchers to assure confidentiality to the extent permitted by the law Palys and Lowman My research reveals a disjuncture between procedural or codified ethics and ethics in practice Guillemin and Gillam On the one hand, any ethical or legal codification does not and should not exempt researchers from making their own decisions Taylor Alternatively, they may too hastily decide to break confidentiality, which can also bring negative results, for example, it may worsen the situation of the people it was supposed to protect.

Certainly, any serious unethical behaviour on the part of the researcher e. Although such control is a standard in many English-speaking countries, it receives a lot of criticism from qualitative researchers, among others, for its ineffectiveness and restriction of academic freedom e. Dingwall ; Hammersley While a certain amount of institutional control is unavoidable, we should also develop and deepen the ethical imagination of researchers. In other words, ethical decisions are a complex sphere, full of nuance and ambiguous situations that cannot be predicted and regulated once and for all. We need series of loose guidelines and sensitizing frameworks about how to deal with complexities and moral shading of the dilemmas between keeping and breaking confidentiality in research practice.

Squatting is generally a crime in Poland. Polish authorities evict squatters under the Polish Criminal Code article , , which penalises by up to one year in prison trespassing see also Polanska and Piotrowski American Anthropological Association. Statement on ethics: Principles of professional responsibilities. Accessed 17 January American Sociological Association. Code of ethics. Baez, B. Confidentiality in qualitative research: Reflections on secrets, power and agency. Qualitative Research, 2 1 , 35— Article Google Scholar. Becker, H. Whose side are we on? Social Problems, 14 3 , — Brajuha, M. Legal intrusion and the politics of fieldwork. The impact of the Brajuha case.

Urban Life, 14 4 , — British Sociological Association. Statement of ethical practice. Accessed 17January Brown, P. Ethical challenges to research in the criminal justice system. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 28 , 5— Clark, T. Qualitative Research, 10 4 , — Colnerud, G. Brief report: Ethical problems in research practice. Corden, A. Google Scholar. Dawson, L. Views of US researchers about informed consent in international collaborative research. Dingwall, R. The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research.

Downes, J. Ethics in violence and abuse research - a positive empowerment approach. Sociological Research Online , 19 1. Feenan, D. Legal issues in acquiring information about illegal behavior through criminological research. British Journal of Criminology, 42 4 , — Finch, E. Issues of confidentiality in research into criminal activity: The legal and ethical dilemma. Mountbatten Journal of Legal Studies, 1 2 , 34— Goffman, A. On the run. Fugitive life in an American city.

New York: Picador. Guillemin, M. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 2 , — Hammersley, M. Against the ethicists: On the evils of ethical regulation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12 3 , — Ethics in qualitative research. Controversies and contexts. London: SAGE. Book Google Scholar. Israel, M. Strictly confidential? Integrity and the disclosure of criminological and socio-legal research. British Journal of Criminology, 44 5 , — James, N. Sociological Research Online , 18 4.

Jaskulowski, K. Social construction of the impact of Euro a Wroclaw case study. Leisure studies, 35 5 , — Kaiser, K. Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19 11 , — Kulczycki, J. My experience as a paid informer of the polish security service. East European Politics and Societies, 23 1 , — Kvale, S. InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

London: Sage. Levy, N. Moral relativism: A short introduction. London: Oneworld. Liamputtong, P. Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. Lowman, J. Journal of Academic Ethics, 5 2—4 , — The betrayal of research confidentiality in British sociology. Research Ethics, 10 2 , 97— Lubet, S. New Republic. Meyer, M. Stoics, rights, and autonomy. American Philosophical Quarterly, 24 3 , — Palys, T. Going boldly where no one has gone before? How confidentiality risk aversion is killing research on sensitive topics.

Journal of Academic Ethics, 8 4 , — Patton, M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage. Pearson, G. Polanska, V. City, 19 2—3 , — Polish Sociological Association. Kodeks etyki socjologa [Code of sociologist's ethics]. Saja, K. Etyka normatywna. Between consequentialism and deontology]. Saunders, B. Anonymizing interview data: Challenges and compromise in practice.

In response to criticism and accusations of complicity in the attempted Safeguard Confidentiality In Research, Goffman defended herself, Safeguard Confidentiality In Research that Safeguard Confidentiality In Research did not believe that they would find Safeguard Confidentiality In Research murderer Lubet We are going through a time of profound change in our understanding of the ethics of applied social research. Cookies make wikiHow better. Pearson, G. I believe that it is important to consider these issues in detail, because they may have Safeguard Confidentiality In Research consequences for research Safeguard Confidentiality In Research, researchers and the research process as a whole, as well as for employers, Safeguard Confidentiality In Research and peer researchers. I Safeguard Confidentiality In Research that researchers were Safeguard Confidentiality In Research likely to break Safeguard Confidentiality In Research and to take the balancing approach in the case of knowledge of minor harm than in the Safeguard Confidentiality In Research of serious Safeguard Confidentiality In Research, Personal Narrative: The Empire House they Safeguard Confidentiality In Research the possible negative Safeguard Confidentiality In Research Real-Life Events In Harper Lees To Kill A Mockingbird such actions for various individuals e. In other words, he did not adopt Safeguard Confidentiality In Research the law-first perspective or the poem for sister perspective.

Web hosting by Somee.com