Journal of Research and Publication Ethics (연구윤리)

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Importance of Anonymity and Confidentiality for Conducting Survey Research

  • Eungoo KANG (Becamex School of Business, Eastern International University) ;
  • Hee-Joong HWANG (Department of International Trade, Korea National Open University)
  • Received : 2023.02.28
  • Accepted : 2023.03.31
  • Published : 2023.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Poor anonymity and confidential strategies by a researcher not only develop unprecedented and precedented harm to participants but also impacts the overall critical appraisal of the research outcomes. Therefore, understanding and applying anonymity and confidentiality in research is key for credible research. As such, this research expansively presents the importance of anonymity and confidentiality for research surveys through critical literature reviews of past works. Research design, data and methodology: This research has selected the literature content approach to obtain proper literature dataset which was proven by high degree of validity and reliability using only books and peer-reviewed research articles. The current authors have conducted screening procedure thoroughly to collect better fitted resources. Results: Research findings consistently mentioned the confidentiality and anonymity principles are preserved and implemented as a means of protecting the privacy of all individuals, establishing trust and rapport between researchers and study participants, as a way of critically upholding research ethical standards, and preserving the integrity of research processes. Conclusions: Confidentiality and anonymity are research ethical principles that help in providing informed consent to participants assuring subjects of the privacy of their personal data. As provided by research bodies and organizations, every research process has to incorporate the principles to meet credibility.

Keywords

References

  1. Alase, A. (2017). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A guide to a good qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 5(2), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.5n.2p.9
  2. Ali, S., & Kelly, M. (2004). Ethics and social research. Researching society and culture, 2, 116-127.
  3. Avidan, M. S., Ioannidis, J. P., & Mashour, G. A. (2019). Independent discussion sections for improving inferential reproducibility in published research. British journal of anaesthesia, 122(4), 413-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.12.010
  4. Bolderston, A. (2012). Conducting a research interview. Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences, 43(1), 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2011.12.002
  5. Boruch, R. F., & Cecil, J. S. (2016). Assuring the confidentiality of social research data. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  6. Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G. (2013). Misplaced confidences: Privacy and the control paradox. Social psychological and personality science, 4(3), 340-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612455931
  7. Bromley, E., Mikesell, L., Jones, F., & Khodyakov, D. (2015). From subject to participant: Ethics and the evolving role of community in health research. American journal of public health, 105(5), 900-908.
  8. Christen, P., Ranbaduge, T., & Schnell, R. (2020). Linking sensitive data. Methods and techniques for practical privacypreserving information sharing. Cham: Springer.
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). The ethics of educational and social research. In Research methods in education (pp. 111-143). Routledge.
  10. Curtin, M., & Fossey, E. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian occupational therapy journal, 54(2), 88-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00661.x
  11. Dennis, S., Garrett, P., Yim, H., Hamm, J., Osth, A. F., Sreekumar, V., & Stone, B. (2019). Privacy versus open science. Behavior research methods, 51, 1839-1848.
  12. Gibson, S., Benson, O., & Brand, S. L. (2013). Talking about suicide: Confidentiality and anonymity in qualitative research. Nursing ethics, 20(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733012452684
  13. Giordano, J., O'Reilly, M., Taylor, H., & Dogra, N. (2007). Confidentiality and autonomy: The challenge (s) of offering research participants a choice of disclosing their identity. Qualitative health research, 17(2), 264-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306297884
  14. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and "ethically important moments" in research. Qualitative inquiry, 10(2), 261-280.
  15. Halperin, I., Wulf, G., Vigotsky, A. D., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Behm, D. G. (2018). Autonomy: a missing ingredient of a successful program?. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 40(4), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.0000000000000383
  16. Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: Controversies and contexts. Sage.
  17. Hassan, M. U., Rehmani, M. H., & Chen, J. (2019). Privacy preservation in blockchain based IoT systems: Integration issues, prospects, challenges, and future research directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 97, 512-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.02.060
  18. Joinson, A. N., Reips, U. D., Buchanan, T., & Schofield, C. B. P. (2010). Privacy, trust, and self-disclosure online. Human-Computer Interaction, 25(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370020903586662
  19. Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondent confidentiality in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 19(11), 1632-1641. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309350879
  20. Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 19(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308329306
  21. Kokolakis, S. (2017). Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon. Computers & security, 64, 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002
  22. Krol, K., Spring, J. M., Parkin, S., & Sasse, M. A. (2016, May). Towards robust experimental design for user studies in security and privacy. IEEE.
  23. Lancaster, K. (2017). Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(1), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1123555
  24. Novak, A. (2014). Anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, and identity: The ties that bind and break in communication research. Review of communication, 14(1), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.942351
  25. Petrova, E., Dewing, J., & Camilleri, M. (2016). Confidentiality in participatory research: Challenges from one study. Nursing ethics, 23(4), 442-454.
  26. Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative research in accounting & management, 8(3), 238-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091111162070
  27. Sherif, V. (2018, May). Evaluating preexisting qualitative research data for secondary analysis. In Forum: qualitative social research (Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 26-42). Freie Universitat Berlin.
  28. Surmiak, A. (2018, September). Confidentiality in qualitative research involving vulnerable participants: Researchers' perspectives. In Forum: Qualitative social research (Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 393-418). Freie Universitat Berlin.
  29. Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management. The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 68(3), 226-231.
  30. Vainio, A. (2013). Beyond research ethics: Anonymity as 'ontology','analysis' and 'independence'. Qualitative Research, 13(6), 685-698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112459669
  31. Vandekerckhove, W., & Lewis, D. (2012). The content of whistleblowing procedures: A critical review of recent official guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1089-1
  32. Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed method research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and practice in language studies, 3(2), 254-262. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262