Balancing Methodological Rigor and the Needs of Research Participants: A Debate on Alternative Approaches to Sensitive Research

Qual Health Res. 2017 Jan;27(2):260-270. doi: 10.1177/1049732315605272. Epub 2015 Sep 17.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Canada; Hong Kong; adult survivors; childhood sexual abuse; cultures; gender; interviews; qualitative; research ethics; sensitive research.

MeSH terms

  • Adult Survivors of Child Abuse / psychology*
  • Cultural Competency
  • Ethics, Research*
  • Humans
  • Research Design*
  • Research Personnel / psychology*
  • Research Subjects / psychology*
  • Sex Factors