TY - JOUR
T1 - Interviewers as Intruders? Ethical Explorations of Joint Family Interviews
AU - Herzog, Madeleine
AU - Jürgensen, Martina
AU - Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph
AU - Schües, Christina
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the participants in our study for their willingness to share their experiences. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was conducted with support of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, grant Nr. 01-GP1601.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2019.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/12/1
Y1 - 2019/12/1
N2 - This paper discusses a case vignette that captures an ethically challenging situation in qualitative research. The study was about families who had experienced a life-saving bone marrow transplantation between siblings, who were children at the time of transplantation. A difficult situation emerged during a joint family interview that took place a few years after the transplantation. Parents, donor and the recipient were present, both still children. This interview technique produced unique, rich, and nuanced data about the family dynamics, about how the family constructed relationships and identity (“doing family”). The difficulties included a confrontation of the 10-year old donor child with accusations and pejorative statements from the other family members and his sidelining from the conversation. The interviewers have been acutely aware that their presence in this situation in this moment was an intrusion into family dynamics. In his commentary, Simon Woods emphasizes a model of ethical reflexivity, which shows how reflexive researchers can incorporate moral reflection at the different stages of the research process. Tim Henning argues for a morally engaged interviewer: the researcher should not stay uninvolved and should show willingness to actually engage in a moral discourse with the participants. Since the actual harms were caused not during the interviews but long before, it may be beneficial to bring them out in the open, as a matter for discussion, painful though it may be. The authors of the vignette (Madeleine Herzog, Martina Jürgensen, Christoph Rehmann-Sutter and Christina Schües) respond to the commentaries by endorsing the model of the reflexive researcher while rejecting (for methodological and moral reasons) the model of the morally engaged researcher.
AB - This paper discusses a case vignette that captures an ethically challenging situation in qualitative research. The study was about families who had experienced a life-saving bone marrow transplantation between siblings, who were children at the time of transplantation. A difficult situation emerged during a joint family interview that took place a few years after the transplantation. Parents, donor and the recipient were present, both still children. This interview technique produced unique, rich, and nuanced data about the family dynamics, about how the family constructed relationships and identity (“doing family”). The difficulties included a confrontation of the 10-year old donor child with accusations and pejorative statements from the other family members and his sidelining from the conversation. The interviewers have been acutely aware that their presence in this situation in this moment was an intrusion into family dynamics. In his commentary, Simon Woods emphasizes a model of ethical reflexivity, which shows how reflexive researchers can incorporate moral reflection at the different stages of the research process. Tim Henning argues for a morally engaged interviewer: the researcher should not stay uninvolved and should show willingness to actually engage in a moral discourse with the participants. Since the actual harms were caused not during the interviews but long before, it may be beneficial to bring them out in the open, as a matter for discussion, painful though it may be. The authors of the vignette (Madeleine Herzog, Martina Jürgensen, Christoph Rehmann-Sutter and Christina Schües) respond to the commentaries by endorsing the model of the reflexive researcher while rejecting (for methodological and moral reasons) the model of the morally engaged researcher.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070442911&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1556264619857856
DO - 10.1177/1556264619857856
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 31342862
AN - SCOPUS:85070442911
SN - 1556-2646
VL - 14
SP - 458
EP - 461
JO - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
JF - Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
IS - 5
ER -