Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Balancing methodological rigor and the needs of research participants : a debate on alternative approaches to sensitive research T.M. Sinon Chan, Eli Teram and Ian Shaw

By: Chan, T.M. Simon.
Contributor(s): Teram, Eli | Shaw, Ian.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticleSeries: Qualitative Health Research.Publisher: Sage, 2017Subject(s): CANADA | CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE | ADULT SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ABUSE | QUALITATIVE RESEARCH | RESEARCH METHODS | THERAPY | TREATMENT | DENMARK | HONG KONGOnline resources: Read abstract In: Qualitative Health Research, 2017, 27(2): 260 - 270Summary: Despite growing consideration of the needs of research participants in studies related to sensitive issues, discussions of alternative ways to design sensitive research are scarce. Structured as an exchange between two researchers who used different approaches in their studies with childhood sexual abuse survivors, in this article, we seek to advance understanding of methodological and ethical issues in designing sensitive research. The first perspective, which is termed protective, promotes the gradual progression of participants from a treatment phase into a research phase, with the ongoing presence of a researcher and a social worker in both phases. In the second perspective, which is termed minimalist, we argue for clear boundaries between research and treatment processes, limiting the responsibility of researchers to ensuring that professional support is available to participants who experience emotional difficulties. Following rebuttals, lessons are drawn for ethical balancing between methodological rigor and the needs of participants. (Authors' abstract). This issue of Qualitative Health Research focuses on violence. Record #5287
No physical items for this record

Qualitative Health Research, 2017, 27(2): 260 - 270

Despite growing consideration of the needs of research participants in studies related to sensitive issues, discussions of alternative ways to design sensitive research are scarce. Structured as an exchange between two researchers who used different approaches in their studies with childhood sexual abuse survivors, in this article, we seek to advance understanding of methodological and ethical issues in designing sensitive research. The first perspective, which is termed protective, promotes the gradual progression of participants from a treatment phase into a research phase, with the ongoing presence of a researcher and a social worker in both phases. In the second perspective, which is termed minimalist, we argue for clear boundaries between research and treatment processes, limiting the responsibility of researchers to ensuring that professional support is available to participants who experience emotional difficulties. Following rebuttals, lessons are drawn for ethical balancing between methodological rigor and the needs of participants. (Authors' abstract). This issue of Qualitative Health Research focuses on violence. Record #5287