I’ve been a research subject twice in the last two weeks. I participated in a psychological social study and an audiology study. I find them a good comparison because one is strictly medical, and the other bridges the social sciences.
- Both were conducted within the framework of research by prestigious UK universities.
- The psychological one was a group study; it involved playing and interacting with others, while the audiological one was individual and involved testing my left ear.
- Both lasted an hour and required over half an hour of commuting. Both paid me for participating.
- I enjoyed the psychological one, so I didn’t mind the commute in the end.
- I found the audiological one exhausting and somewhat uncomfortable; it made me feel objectified at some point. My ear also hurt the next day because they inserted a plug too deeply into my right ear. That night, I was slightly regretting having taken part in the study.
- Moreover, the audiology test required me to stay still for 30 minutes in front of a screen while they monitored my pupils. I couldn’t move much, and the lack of movement stressed me out.
It was useful for me to see how researchers behave when they’re with their subjects. The most interesting behaviour for me was the process of the consent forms, maybe because I’m currently struggling with how to ask people to sign them. Sometimes, it doesn’t even make sense to me to ask for a signature especially for some interviews. I feel it might scare people and make them less open to talk. Luckily, I’m starting to notice that in this country it’s quite common to be asked to take part in research, so maybe it’s not a big deal.
My attention was mainly focused on how they were going to ask me to sign the consent form and how it was structured. I expected the medical consent form to be more rigorous and “serious” than the psychological one. I think that’s a bit sad, because it might imply that I see medical research as more serious than social sciences. Although many factors can influence how the consent process is carried out (who explained it, who wrote it, their background), and I can’t draw general conclusions, I was surprised by how structured and informative the psychological consent form was. In contrast, the medical one was clear, but the document seemed less “formal” or “research persuasive.”
Should I pursue the same aura that I felt in those studies? That is, to not being fully aware of what the research is about and just obbeying and doing what they told me I have to do as a subject? Feeling that I cannot fully know what they want to extract or learn from me. It’s okay to feel extracted as a research subject?
Notes on Jim Parsons’ Paper
Now I can connect this to “An Introduction to Action Research and Its Ethical Practices,” a paper by Jim Parsons.
(If you Google this name, chances are that you’re going to find Sheldon Cooper’s images and think the actor was a psychological researcher. After five minutes you’re going to find they are not. God, I hate The Big Bang theory).
He mentions that, since Action Research implies the researcher is an insider, the logic of other research ethics might not apply. That’s important for two reasons:
- In my first intervention, I was unsure whether I had to participate in the conversation with the other participants or stay silent and try to be as invisible as possible.
- I never considered that these two studies might not be comparable to mine. They’re not; the dynamics are different.
Parsons mentions five ethical principles for Action Research. I’m not going to explain them here, just comment on my own notes about them.
1. Minimize harm
He says teachers are in loco parentis, which makes sense with children, but does that apply in a postgraduate course? I had the same question when I was a lecturer back in Colombia. I felt paternalized by people 15 years older than me, they were asking me life advices. Usually, what I thought was: ‘I know what Aristotle said about rhetoric, but I have no idea how to behave in life. Why are you asking me that? I’m 26, you might be 37, wtf’. It’s interesting to think that in all contexts, teachers have a role of care. Why? At some point, I saw myself as just a bridge for specific knowledge.
2. Informed consent
I like that he mentions there are cases where asking for signed informed consent doesn’t make sense, like when a professor is researching in their own class. I see it this way: he might inform them, but asking 32 people to sign forms every time is not practical.
To me, there are cases where it also makes no sense to ask for a signed form, for example, when findings won’t be published (even in blogs), or when there’s no specific research question as a framework. I’ve take part of casual non formal interventions in CSM two weeks ago, I didn’t signed any form and I didn’t think it was necessary.
3. Anonymity of subjects and information
No comments, I agree.
4. No deception in data gathering (lol, this one is important)
My only reference for social research had been positive psychology and Gesell boxes. I’m glad to know I don’t have to act like a covert researcher and can be transparent about what I’m looking for. That’s one of the main takeaways from this reading for me.
5. Right of withdrawal
He says it doesn’t make sense to let students withdraw from classroom-based research. I disagree, logistical problems don’t justify removing the right to withdraw. It’s not the same as the written consent form. Even if there’s no harm, denying someone the option to withdraw denies their agency entirely.
Final thought: I didn’t understand the concept of the “Zone of Accepted Practice” he mentions.