ABSTRACT
Arguably, researching the trade and trafficking of natural resources, such as wildlife crime, environmental crime, trafficking of natural commodities, unregulated and unreported fishing, factory farming, human–wildlife conflict, to name a few examples, involves all four areas of threat. [...]research can be extremely emotionally taxing for both the researcher and research participants. [...]it offers the researcher an opportunity to think through potentially "risky”, dangerous, harmful, and ethically compromising fieldwork situations, while reflecting on their own positionality and protection of themselves, research participants, and data. [...]they are required to fill out risk assessments and complete specialized training for hostile environments. With increasing use of qualitative research methods within the wildlife trafficking research field, coupled with the growing importance of human–wildlife interactions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, this disparity in ethical regulations needs imminent addressing. [...]with the current emphasis on ‘decoloniality', an ethical review process could ensure that parachute social science is avoided, and equity and sustainable collaboration between stakeholders are foregrounded in the research.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT In response to concerns about the use of online focus groups, particularly around sensitive topics research, we provide two case examples of sensitive topics research that pivoted to online focus groups amid university ethics restrictions due to COVID-19 concerns. We begin by contextualizing the studies, one of which used the more traditional focus group method while the other employed a mix of focus groups and a variation on the World Cafe method, termed Community Cafes. We discuss issues like online platform choice (Microsoft Teams versus Zoom), security, and considerations for effective participant communication and connection. We demonstrate the effectiveness of online focus group data collection for sensitive research in two disciplines as well as the benefits to participants. We conclude by providing considerations and recommendations based on our own learnings for researchers wanting to conduct online focus group research on sensitive topics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
The outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic required several readjustments of daily life and work, including redefining the paths of ongoing research. For researchers who needed to make approximations and interactions with field subjects, these changes also involved emotional and ethical accommodations. In this sense, the objective of this article is to discuss the research experience of two doctoral students during isolation. We use the concepts of sensitive themes, sensitive conditions, and experience to build the theoretical framework and methodology of the duoethnography for the production of information and the construction of dialogue. The analysis of narratives allowed organizing the plot of the experiences lived by the doctoral students during the pandemic, revealing that expectations, frustrations, and loss of meaning are not externalities but part of the research experience. The recognition of the researcher's human condition helped to understand the sensitive condition of the research experience.
ABSTRACT
In Germany, studies have shown that official coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination coverage estimated using data collected directly from vaccination centers, hospitals, and physicians is lower than that calculated using surveys of the general population. Public debate has since centered on whether the official statistics are failing to capture the actual vaccination coverage. The authors argue that the topic of one’s COVID-19 vaccination status is sensitive in times of a pandemic and that estimates based on surveys are biased by social desirability. The authors investigate this conjecture using an experimental method called the item count technique, which provides respondents with the opportunity to answer in an anonymous setting. Estimates obtained using the item count technique are compared with those obtained using the conventional method of asking directly. Results show that social desirability bias leads some unvaccinated individuals to claim they are vaccinated. Conventional survey studies thus likely overestimate vaccination coverage because of misreporting by survey respondents. © The Author(s) 2022.
ABSTRACT
The impacts of healthcare professionals (HCPs) being research participants are often neglected. As professionals, they tend to be perceived as 'immune' to many negative effects of sharing their experiences. However, in the context of an ongoing global pandemic such as COVID-19, these assumptions can be clearly challenged. This article draws on researchers' experiences of conducting single and longitudinal qualitative interviews with HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe during 2020. Reflecting on the methodological and ethical implications of doing such research during a pandemic allows researchers to surface assumptions about and question categories of 'vulnerability' and 'sensitivity'. We explore these categories in relation to three issues we have identified: (i) Blurred boundaries in researcher-participant relationships;(ii) Interviews as spaces to process experiences;and (iii) Motivations to conduct and participate in research. We demonstrate that qualitative interviews during a pandemic are embedded in sense-making processes for both the interviewer and participant, and as such may play an important role in coping and resilience. We therefore argue for ethically active research that critically engages with the concepts of 'vulnerability' and 'sensitivity', and underpinning assumptions, in context over time throughout the research process for current and future research with HCPs and other groups beyond pandemic situations. We thus aim to prepare researchers for managing these potential facets during the research process. We conclude with practical implications for managing emerging ethical tensions, methodological challenges and the wide-ranging possibilities and responsibilities for research with HCPs, urging researchers to consider the issues in advance. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Qualitative Methods is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)