Research Ethics Terminological Issues: Participants/ Subjects or Respondents?

Social science research data may exist in a variety of forms. The data may be collected directly as during an interview, or while observing a group of people. Alternatively, the data may consist of artefacts produced by people, such as a diary or, perhaps more unconventionally, the contents of a waste bin in an office. In research literature, there are a number of terms which are used to describe people who provide data, such as research subjects, participants or respondents, or sometimes a term such as interviewee, to reflect the particu­lar data-collection method which has been employed. At first sight, the terms which we use to describe people who provide data may seem relatively unimportant, but the concepts used do carry implications for how we view people and their role in the research process. The word 'subject' perhaps carries the implication that something is being done to them, while the term 'partici­pant' implies that something is being carried out in conjunction with them. During the research process, the distinction could be quite important.

Not only are there issues to clarify about the people who provide data, but also the terms used to describe researchers reflect the differing roles occupied by those who collect and analyze data. There are first of all people who are full-time, professional researchers. Such people may work for a commercial organization, for example in market research, or they may be attached to a university. They may be research students working towards a research degree, or research fellows or associates working on a funded research project. A large amount of the work reported in academic journals is conducted by people who are carrying out research as an integral part of their professional lives.

University lecturers are perhaps an obvious example, but there is an increasing number of other professionals who view research as an important part of their job and of their professional development. These include school teachers, managers, social workers, health care professionals and community workers. Sometimes, where such professionals are also involved in research, their joint role is signified in the literature by the use of a hyphen, as in 'teacher-researcher'. There may be occasions, however, where the joint roles may conflict to some extent, or where careful thought must be exercised about competing obligations. We need therefore to look at these joint roles, and to explore areas where ethical issues could arise.

Having explored the problem of terminology in brief, let us return to those who provide data. Perhaps the most traditional term in use here is 'subject'. The use of this term is more commonly associated with research which tends to reflect the approach of the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry. Such research can be said to be carried out within a positivistic paradigm. It is perhaps typified by the use of an experimental model for research, where the researcher tries to control the majority of variables, while manipulating only one or two of them. Experimental research is found in disciplines such as psychology, social psychology, management and organiza­tion studies, and in communication studies. If a research study is being con­ducted on the social behavior of employees in a company, the research report may well refer to them as 'employees'. Similarly, in research on the process of children learning to read, the report may refer to those providing data as 'the children'. Where the term 'subject' is used, however, we have to be aware that the concept carries some impli­cations of how a hypothetical researcher may view the members of the research sample. The term subject perhaps carries the suggestion that members of the sample have a rather passive role in the research program; that they have agreed to provide data or perhaps to be tested as part of a research project. There is a suggestion that apart from providing data, the 'subjects' of the research have little or no role to play in the research program, and are relegated to a minor role in the proceedings. As research subjects we perhaps develop the feeling that they will not interact very much with those actually doing the research, and will concern themselves solely with their function of providing data.

The disadvantage from an ethical point of view, of the use of the term subject, is that arguably it tends to depersonalize the members of the sample, and reduce them to a subservient role in the research process. This is not to suggest that this happened in the article mentioned earlier, merely that it may be an implicit danger. It is important to remember that we are discussing the social or human sciences, and hence should do everything possible to retain a sense of dignity and worth for everyone involved in the research process. It could be argued that the more we tend to forget the humanity of our research sample members, the greater the possibility (however slight) that researchers might use procedures which are less than ethical.

Now this may seem to be a fine point, but some feel that the use of the term 'subject', reduces, in a rather subtle way, the status of the person providing the data. It may be felt that the term suggests a slight lack of respect for the indi­vidual as a person or human being. Perhaps we could argue here that there is a universal principle involved, and that this principle involves treating all those involved in the research process equally. In other words, the researcher is no more important than the person providing data; they merely have different roles in the enterprise of research. This then becomes a categorical imperative, and we should hence always select terminology which reflects this principle of equality of treatment. The problem is, of course, that two people may agree with the principle of equality of treatment, but differ as to whether the term 'subject' reflects a sense of inequality.

The use of the word 'subject' appears to imply that the research process is unidirectional, that it proceeds from the researcher to the 'subject'. The researcher initiates proceedings, which then have an impact upon the 'subject'. Arguably, this is much less true of the term 'respondent'. In everyday language when we speak of someone 'responding to a request' there is a sense in which the person is able to choose whether or not to respond. There is an element of volition in the process. The use of the term respondent in research does tend to underline the autonomy of the person providing the data. There is the suggestion of a person with a much more active role to play. From the point of view of research ethics, the term respondent appears to be a much more satisfactory term than subject. It retains a sense of the free will of the person providing data, and suggests, by implication, that if the circumstances of the research were not entirely satisfactory to the respondent that they might withdraw cooperation.

The term respondent is certainly widely used in research articles. The same articles also use another popular term to refer to members of the research sample, and that is 'participant'. Whereas the term respondent may give the impression of some­one who while providing data is not closely involved in the research process, the concept participant suggests a different kind of relationship. If we speak of a person participating in an activity, such as for example the organization of a social event, there is the assumption that the person is fully involved in the process. We assume that the person is involved in planning and decision ­making, and in the execution of the plan. In research terms, when we reflect on the role of the participant, we certainly envisage a role which is more extensive than that of simply providing data. There is the implication that the person is perhaps consulted over certain matters, such as the organization of the data collection, at least in so far as it affects the participant. We may not necessarily envisage participants taking an active part in the research design, or having a role which is equal to that of the researcher, but there is certainly a feeling of a much more democratic involvement than in the case of the term respondent.

One might tend to associate the term participant with a qualitative or interpretative research perspective. The reason for this is that such perspectives place a great emphasis upon the unique contribution of each individual to the collective nature of society. They stress the individual vision of the world, a view which appears to be in harmony with the idea of the individual sample member who is also invited to contribute to the overall research strategy. Nevertheless, the association with interpretative research is by no means an absolute rule, and some quantitative studies retain the use of the term 'participants'.

The use of the pair of terms, 'interviewer' and 'interviewee', is also popular in social science research circles. The advantage of using a pair of terms such as these is that one appears to avoid the attribution of value judgments to either term: there does not appear to be the same assumption of a power and status differential as in the case of 'researcher/subject'. The very similarity of the terms interviewer and interviewee tends to suggest a parity of status. The term interviewee also has the advantage of conveying the type of data-collection method used.

There is an alternative to the use of these terms when referring to the members of the research sample, however, and that is to describe the people concerned using a broad category. If the descriptive term is chosen carefully, and reflects accurately the category of people in the sample, then it should not imply any value or status differentials between the researcher and those who provide data. It should in principle, be a value-neutral term. So, if the sample consists of headteachers, we refer to them as headteachers; if the sample con­sists of social workers, then we refer to them as such. Whichever term we prefer, when writing a research report, it may be necessary to use alternatives simply to retain a freshness of writing style. In this book I have tended to alternate between the use of participant and respondent, depending upon the context and which term seemed to be more appropriate. Perhaps the main issue is that we try to be sensitive to the possible connotations of words, and try to select our terms carefully.

Moving from those who provide data to those who collect it, there are perhaps rather fewer problems of nomenclature. If a term is used at all, then 'researcher' often suffices, and does not generally suggest any value judgments. In some areas of research, however, there is an increasing tendency for the role of the researcher to be linked with a professional role. This may lead to terms such as the 'practitioner-researcher' or more commonly, with education, the 'teacher-researcher', for example, in the case of school teachers conducting research within their own classrooms or schools. The term could well be adapted to the nurse-researcher' or the 'social-worker-researcher'. The purpose of the research may be to gain a higher degree or research degree, or perhaps for professional development and ultimately of publishing an article in a scholarly journal.

The combination of the professional role and of the researcher role may, however, lead to a lack of certainty about the separation of the roles, or perhaps to a conflict of interests. An issue which can arise fairly commonly is whether activities involved in the collection of data could be construed to be a part of the teacher's normal professional role.

This example is definitely an ethical dilemma because it is concerned with how one ought to behave in both a professional and research context. The teacher here is rightly concerned to ensure that the research role is not merging with the teacher role in an unacceptable manner. If, for example, the teacher started to interview the students and ask them questions about their views of field trips, would the students feel that it was inappropriate in some way? A teacher, like any professional, has a role which is circumscribed by the terms of their contract, by custom and practice, and by the norms and values which have evolved within the social context of that school. To move outside the limits of those conventions may not be explicitly contrary to the teacher's contract, but it may cause concern, disquiet or anxiety in the students. This is not an argument for conformity, but merely to suggest that it is important to have a concern for the feeling of students.

It may not be very common for a teacher to interview students about their feelings about field trips, and hence to start doing so without a careful introduction may be seen as inappropriate. There may not be any­thing wrong with collecting data on student attitudes, especially given the current extent of evaluation practices throughout the education system. Students are becoming familiar with being asked their opinions about various aspects of the teaching and learning process. However, the students should be approached in such a way that they are given a full explanation of the research and its purposes. Thus, one might argue that if the students are briefed on the purpose of the data collection, and they are happy to proceed, there is no further obligation to obtain permission. The research is so close to the kind of evaluation of teaching and courses which has become common practice that any further seeking of permission may be unnecessary.

This may not be the case, however, if the teacher intends to write up and publish the research, when a different range of ethical obligations arise. It would be important to ensure that the students understood the way in which the teacher intended to use the data which they provided, and that they approved of that use.

Thus we can see that the terminology used for both the researcher and the persons providing data has implications for the ethics of the research process. The terms which we decide to use for the providers of data carry implicit assumptions about the way in which we view them. Equally, if we employ a term such as teacher-researcher, there are assumptions about the way in which those two roles interact.