No harm to participants in research

Are going through a time of profound change in our understanding of the ethics d social research. There was a gradually developing consensus about the key ethical principles underlie the research endeavor. Cancer patients and persons fought publicly with the medical research establishment about the long time needed approval for and complete research into potential cures for fatal diseases. After all, we would rather risk denying treatment for a while achieve enough confidence in a treatment, rather than run the risk of harming (as in the nuremberg and tuskegee events). But now, those who were threatened illness were saying to the research establishment that they wanted to be ts, even under experimental conditions of considerable risk. You had several and articulate patient groups who wanted to be experimented on coming up against l review system that was designed to protect them from being experimented gh the last few years in the ethics of research have been tumultuous ones, it ing to appear that a new consensus is evolving that involves the stakeholder affected by a problem participating more actively in the formulation of research. Allowing anyone who is willing to be are a number of key phrases that describe the system of ethical protections contemporary social and medical research establishment have created to try to the rights of their research participants. The principle of ipation requires that people not be coerced into participating in is especially relevant where researchers had previously relied on 'captive audiences'. Closely related to of voluntary participation is the requirement of informed ially, this means that prospective research participants must be fully the procedures and risks involved in research and must give their consent ipate. Ethical standards also require that researchers not put participants in ion where they might be at risk of harm as a result of ipation. There are rds that are applied in order to help protect the privacy of research all research guarantees the participants confidentiality -- they d that identifying information will not be made available to anyone who is ly involved in the study. Clearly, the anonymity standard is a tee of privacy, but it is sometimes difficult to accomplish, especially ions where participants have to be measured at multiple time points (e. Increasingly, researchers have had to deal with the ethical issue of 's right to service. No-treatment control group -- a group of participants who do not get ent or program that is being studied. But when that treatment or program may cial effects, persons assigned to the no-treatment control may feel their rights access to services are being when clear ethical standards and principles exist, there will be times when to do accurate research runs up against the rights of potential participants. Furthermore, there be a procedure that assures that researchers will consider all relevant ethical formulating research plans.

Harm to participants in research

To address such needs most institutions and formulated an institutional review board (irb), a panel of persons s grant proposals with respect to ethical implications and decides onal actions need to be taken to assure the safety and rights of participants. Ing proposals for research, irbs also help to protect both the organization and cher against potential legal implications of neglecting to address important of ght 2006, william m. Trochim, all rights se a printed copy of the research methods revised: 10/20/ble of contentsnavigatingfoundationslanguage of researchphilosophy of researchethics in researchconceptualizingevaluation re and research on human l issues regarding participants in encourage responsible research by students and faculty, the department of sociology and anthropology has adopted a policy concerning the treatment of participants in research. The policy and procedures apply only to research that entails the active engagement, direct involvement, and/or individual identification of persons as research participants. No act is considered inherently immoral; rather, any conduct while performing research is considered a moral issue because it has negative consequences on some party. The two primary parties that might be hurt by research are the subjects of the research and the discipline or the scholarly community as a whole. If research undermines willingness of subjects to participate in future research or undermines legitimacy and integrity of the scientific enterprise among the public, a serious disservice has been done to all scholarly cannot always anticipate every consequence, but the obligation of the researcher is to be as complete as possible in predicting any harm that could be done by the research. In protecting the subjects and the discipline from deleterious consequences, sociologists have identified a number of concrete behaviors or issues that researchers must acknowledge and following summarizes some of the most important ethical agreements in social ary participation. Since social research may represent an intrusion into people's lives and may require that people reveal personal information about themselves, it is important that the participants in research volunteer for the project. Informed consent is an ongoing issue during the research, not an issue to be relegated to a simple signature on a form. A sample form for obtaining written consent for particaption in research is found harm to participants. As the most important ethical norm, it is essential to pay attention to the subtle ways in which participants may be harmed. Research participants may be asked to reveal deviant behavior, unpopular attitudes, or demeaning personal characteristics such as low income, receipt of welfare payments, or general information that they view as personally compromising. If this norm needs to be violated, there should be compelling scientific or educational reasons for doing so, and the "harm" cannot involve any sort of physical injury. An institutional review board-which is always skeptical of any need to harm people-must approve any action that negatively impacts even the self esteem of a ting privacy. It is essential that those who assist us in our research not then be subject to embarrassment or harassment in any way.

A respondent may be considered anonymous when the researcher cannot identify a given response with a given respondent. In a confidential survey, the researcher can identify a given person's responses but essentially promises not to do so publicly. In addition to participants, if this principle is not honored the prospect of continued participation in research would be severely limited. Thus, future researchers and the integrity of the discipline are also subjects of ing participants. Because deceiving people is unethical, deception within social research needs to be justified by compelling scientific or administrative concerns. Even then, it may be necessary to debrief the participants after the research project is complete. The subjects of concern in this case are both the participants and the continuing integrity and viability of the discipline; people will not agree to participate if they are ocity. They must recognize their debt to their participants - and when studying people in other parts of the world - to their societies. The researcher has an obligation to make technical shortcomings and failures of the study known to the reader. While some of the principles listed above may be compromised if there are compelling reasons and an institutional review board has approved the research, integrity in reporting and analysis is absolute. Scholarly research cannot be used by society if the integrity of the researchers is in doubt. A disservice would be done to the discipline and to the society as a whole if policy decisions were based on fraudulent is the policy of the department of sociology and anthropology to protect the rights and welfare of the participants of research conducted as part of the courses, independent studies, thesis projects, faculty research, and other academic activities that we sponsor. The department prohibits research that poses a demonstrable danger to the safety and security of research participants. The department also prohibits research that does not adequately protect the identity of participants, the confidentiality of information obtained from them, or their right to refuse to department strongly discourages the use of designs and procedures that entail substantial deception of participants with regard to the nature and purposes of the research project. In all cases where deception is employed, the researcher(s) must demonstrate convincingly that deception is essential for assuring the validity of the research and does not pose a significant risk to participants. The department also cautions against research projects in which the researcher's safety and security might be in doubt; compelling arguments must be provided regarding the value of the research and the necessity of the proposed research research that may result in publication or in a formal presention at a professional meetingmust be approved by the hanover college institutional review ch that is exempt from l types of research are exempt from departmental review:" research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (a) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (b) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.

Research involving the use of educational tests, survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior unless (a) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that participants can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the respondents; and (b) any disclosure of the participants' responses outside the research could reasonably place them at risk for criminal or civil liability or be damaging to their financial standing, employability, or reputation. Research involving historical studies, secondary analyses of existing data that do not involve confidential materials (such as the general social survey), and most forms of passive or unobtrusive observation in which the investigator observes an ongoing social scene but does not directly participate or intervene in y research involving original data collection must be circulated to all members of the department. The proposal should ordinarily be approved by all departmental colleagues, but in cases where a difference of judgment exists between colleagues about acceptability of a form of research, at least 60% of the departmental faculty must endorse the project, and must be approved by the hanover l review of research projects in standing courses normally will be handled by the instructor. However, if the research might put participants at risk, involves intervention or deception, requires interviews or surveys on sensitive topics, or involves special populations (such as minors or prisoners), the proposal must be submitted to the hanover the case of original student research for independent studies, every member of the department will be consulted. The instructor will make the final decision, but completed proposal forms for research will be submitted to all other members of the department. They will give their comments to the mentor of the project for deliberation and ed by the department of sociology and anthropology april 13, tative tative tation ch questions & ts, constructs & ples of research are a number of ethical principles that should be taken into account when performing undergraduate and master's level dissertation research. At the core, these ethical principles stress the need to (a) do good (known as beneficence) and (b) do no harm (known as non-malfeasance). In practice, these ethical principles mean that as a researcher, you need to: (a) obtain informed consent from potential research participants; (b) minimise the risk of harm to participants; (c) protect their anonymity and confidentiality; (d) avoid using deceptive practices; and (e) give participants the right to withdraw from your research. However, there are many instances where it is not possible or desirable to obtain informed consent from research participants. Similarly, there may be instances where you seek permission from participants not to protect their anonymity. More often than not, such choices should reflect the research strategy that you adopt to guide your y speaking, your dissertation research should not only aim to do good (i. Whilst ethical requirements in research can vary across countries, these are the basic principles of research ethics. This is important not only for ethical reasons, but also practical ones, since a failure to meet such basic principles may lead to your research being (a) criticised, potentially leading to a lower mark, and/or (b) rejected by your supervisor or ethics committee, costing you valuable time. Each of these basic principles of research ethics is discussed in turn:Principle one: minimising the risk of ple two: obtaining informed ple three: protecting anonymity and ple four: avoiding deceptive ple five: providing the right to sing the risk of tation research should not harm participants. Where there is the possibility that participants could be harmed or put in a position of discomfort, there must be strong justifications for this. Such scenarios will also require (a) additional planning to illustrate how participant harm (or discomfort) will be reduced, (b) informed consent, and (c) detailed are a number of types of harm that participants can be subjected to.

Privacy and lly, it is not harm that we need to think about since a researcher does not intentionally go out to cause harm. In order to minimising the risk of harm you should think about:Obtaining informed consent from ting the anonymity and confidentiality of ng deceptive practices when designing your ing participants with the right to withdraw from your research at any discuss each of these ethical principles in the sections that follow, explaining (a) what they mean and (b) instances where they should (and should not) be ing informed of the foundations of research ethics is the idea of informed consent. Simply put, informed consent means that participants should understand that (a) they are taking part in research and (b) what the research requires of them. Such information may include the purpose of the research, the methods being used, the possible outcomes of the research, as well as associated demands, discomforts, inconveniences and risks that the participants may face. Whilst is it not possible to know exactly what information a potential participant would (or would not) want to know, you should aim not to leave out any material information; that is, information that you feel would influence whether consent would (or would not) be r component of informed consent is the principle that participants should be volunteers, taking part without having been coerced and deceived. Where informed consent cannot be obtained from participants, you must explain why this is the case. We discuss these in more detail under the section: avoiding deceptive ting anonymity and ting the anonymity and confidentiality of research participants is another practical component of research ethics. After all, participants will typically only be willing to volunteer information, especially information of a private or sensitive nature, if the researcher agrees to hold such information in confidence. Whilst it is possible that research participants may be hurt in some way if the data collection methods used are somehow insensitive, there is perhaps a greater danger that harm can be caused once data has been collected. However, this does not mean that all data collected from research participants needs to be kept confidential or anonymous. It may be possible to disclose the identity and views of individuals at various stages of the research process (from data collection through to publication of your dissertation). However, such a stripping of identifiable information may not always be possible to anticipate at the outset of your dissertation when thinking about issues of research ethics. This is not only a consideration for dissertations following a qualitative research design, but also a quantitative research design [for more information, see the article: research strategy and research ethics]. That your dissertation used a quantitative research design and a survey as your main research method. If the work is later published, adjustments would then need to be made to protect the confidentiality of are also a wide range of potential legal protections that may affect what research you can and cannot perform, how you must treated the data of research participants, and so forth. Simply have a duty to protect the data you collect from participants; you may also have (in some cases) a legal responsibility to do so.

After all, how can participants know (a) that they are taking part in research and (b) what the research requires of them if they are being deceived? For this reason, in most circumstances, dissertation research should avoid any kinds of deceptive practices. However, this is not always the ion is sometimes a necessary component of covert research, which can be justified in some cases. Covert research reflects research where (a) the identity of the observer and/or (b) the purpose of the research is not known to participants. Cases where you may choose to engage in covert research may include instances where:It is not feasible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what you are observation or knowledge of the purpose of the research may alter the particular phenomenon that is being 's take each of these in turn:It is not feasible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what you are feasibility, we are not talking about the cost of doing research. Instead, we mean that it is not practically possible to let everyone in a particular research setting know what you are doing. This is most likely to be the case where research involves observation, rather than direct contact with participants, especially in a public or online setting. You may not be intentionally trying to engage in deceptive practices, but clearly participants are not giving you their informed observation or knowledge of the purpose of the research may alter the particular phenomenon that is being observations or a participants? Knowledge of the true purpose of the research have the potential to alter the particular phenomenon that you are interested in, this is a major concern in terms of the quality of your ore, when you think about whether to engage in covert research and possibly deceptive practices, you should think about the extent to which this could be beneficial in your dissertation, not research in general; that is, everything from the research paradigm that guides your dissertation through to the data analysis techniques you choose affect issues of research ethics in your dissertation [see the article: research strategy and research ethics]. Some of the following scenarios where covert research may be considered justifiable:You are conducting a piece of research looking at prejudice. Whilst participants are given a questionnaire to complete that measures their prejudice, it is not obvious from the questions that this is the case. Furthermore, participants are not told that the research is about prejudice because it is felt that this could alter their responses. As a result, if participants knew that this is the purpose of the study, they may well provide responses that they think will make them appear less are interested in understanding the organisational culture in a single firm. You feel that observation would be an appropriate research method in such a naturalistic setting. Therefore, you may have received permission to go undercover or provide a story to explain why you are there, which is not the such covert research and deceptive practices, especially where used intentionally, can be viewed as controversial, it can be argued that they have a place in ing the right to the exception of those instances of covert observation where is not feasible to let everyone that is being observed know what you are doing, research participants should always have the right to withdraw from the research process. Furthermore, participants should have the right to withdraw at any stage in the research process.

When a participant chooses to withdraw from the research process, they should not be pressured or coerced in any way to try and stop them from your supervisor and/or ethics committee expect you to complete an ethics consent form, it is likely that you will have to let participants know that they have the right to withdraw at any time [see the article: ethics consent form]. That you have read these basic principles of research ethics, you may want to understand how the research strategy you have chosen affects your approach to research ethics [see the article: research strategy and research ethics]. You will need to understand the impact of your research strategy on your approach to research ethics when writing up the research ethics section of your research strategy chapter (usually chapter three: research strategy). 2012 lund research are here: my-peer toolkit » evaluation » ethical l is imperative that ethical issues are considered during the formulation of the evaluation plan. Participants need to be made aware of the purpose of the project, who or what group is funding it, how the findings will be used, if there are any potential adverse impacts of their participation and who will have access to the findings. Participants are free to withdraw their participation at any time without negatively impacting on their involvement in future services or the current program2 and relationships with any of the researchers or research bodies involved. It can be challenging to encourage high risk youth to become engaged in a program and it is therefore difficult when participants choose not to continue in a program. It is the right of participants to leave a program of this nature at any time, therefore no pressure should be placed on those who choose not to continue. It is imperative that the evaluation process does not in any way harm (unintended or otherwise) entiality means that any identifying information is not made available to, or accessed by anyone but the program coordinator. Given that there are often small numbers in peer based programs, it is very important to consider how reports are worded to ensure that there is no opportunity for people to be identified even though names are not ity is a stricter form of privacy than confidentiality, as the identity of the participant remains unknown to the research team. This is more difficult to achieve than confidentiality as participants in the context of social research are usually known to the program assess relevant assess those components that are of relevance to the program/initiative being conducted. It is important to keep evaluations as simple as possible and to remain focused on the intention of the evaluation and what the data gathered will be used australian community health research unit n. Pmcid: pmc4263394ethical challenges of researchers in qualitative studies: the necessity to develop a specific guidelinemahnaz sanjari,1 fatemeh bahramnezhad,1 fatemeh khoshnava fomani,1 mahnaz shoghi,2 and mohammad ali cheraghi31nursing phd candidate, school of nursing and midwifery, tehran university of medical sciences, tehran, iran2assistant professor, school of nursing and midwifery, iran university of medical sciences, tehran, iran3associate professor, school of nursing and midwifery, tehran university of medical sciences, tehran, ponding author: mohammad ali cheraghi, address: school of nursing and midwifery, tehran university of medical sciences, tehran, iran. Which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited article has been cited by other articles in ctconsidering the nature of qualitative studies, the interaction between researchers and participants can be ethically challenging for the former, as they are personally involved in different stages of the study. The present paper aimed to discuss the necessity to develop explicit guidelines for conducting qualitative studies with regard to the researchers’ role. For this purpose, a literature review was carried out in domestic and international databases by related care providers who carry out qualitative research have an immense responsibility.

As there is no statistical analysis in qualitative studies, the researcher has to both evaluate what he or she observes and to interpret it. Providing researchers with the necessary skills and applying stringent supervision can lead to better extraction of reliable information from qualitative studies. This article presents a debate in order to illustrate how researchers could cover the ethical challenges of qualitative studies and provide applicable and trustworthy chers face ethical challenges in all stages of the study, from designing to reporting. These include anonymity, confidentiality, informed consent, researchers’ potential impact on the participants and vice versa. It seems of paramount importance that health care providers, educators and clinicians be well informed of all the different aspects of their roles when acting as qualitative researchers. Hence, these adroit roles need to be well defined, and the use of practical guidelines and protocols in all stages of qualitative studies should be ds: qualitative research, ethical challenges, researcher’s role, guidelineintroductionin the recent millennium, the constant trend of change in the demands of the community as well as transforming the trend of knowledge production has highlighted the necessity for researchers to adopt a more comprehensive approach. Increasingly, many academic disciplines are utilizing qualitative research (qr) as the qualitative method investigating the why and how of the process of a developed concept (1, 2). Qualitative research is sometimes defined as interpretive research, and as interpretations can be incorrect or biased, the findings may be controversial (3). However, qualitative research is not only useful as the first stage of quantitative research, but can also play a key role in ‘validating’ it or in providing a different viewpoint on the same social phenomena (4). Given that the researcher is considered to be the research instrument, and the plan of inquiry needs to be developed and altered as the study progresses, a qualitative researcher cannot depend upon traditional approaches to address certain concerns such as bias and credibility. Therefore, learning from a series of mistakes is often considered an integral part of qualitative research (5, 6). This study, a literature review was carried out in international electronic databases including pubmed, web of sciences, cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature (cinahl), scopus, ebsco, embase and science direct without any time limitation, using the search terms “qualitative research”, “researchers’ role”, “ethical challenges” and “ethical guidelines”. These keywords were also searched on national electronic databases including scientific information database (sid), iran medex and medical articles library (medlib) using the same s of the present article endeavor to shine a light on the ethical issues affecting researchers and propose strategies to face the ethical challenges of qualitative studies, so as to provide applicable and trustworthy outcomes. This could be the basis for the formulation of specific ethical guidelines in this overview on qualitative research in health careup to the 1970s, qualitative research was solely employed by anthropologists and sociologists. Research has been conducted in the field of nursing in order to identify, describe and explain related concepts, experiences and phenomena and to develop the nursing knowledge. Since 1970, qualitative research has been performed to achieve the concepts of patient care and other main perceptions in the nursing profession.

Of researchers in qualitative studiesin the case of nurses who perform qualitative research, ethical issues are raised when the nurse-patient relationship in the research area leads to some degree of therapeutic communication for the participants (9). Thus, nurse researchers must be aware of the impact of the questioning on the participants, and in order to decrease such harmful effects on human subjects, the “reflexive approach” is recommended (10). In the qr procedure the researcher is involved in all stages of the study from defining a concept to design, interview, transcription, analysis, verification and reporting the concepts and themes. Therefore, whenever instruments are involved in qualitative research, a human being will be an integral part of the process (12). Is argued that humans have increasingly become the “instrument of choice” for naturalistic research due to certain characteristics: they are highly responsive to environmental stimuli, have the ability to interact with the situation, pull together different pieces of information at multiple levels simultaneously, and perceive situations holistically; moreover, they are able to process findings the instant they become available, can present immediate feedback, and feel unusual responses. Nevertheless, researchers need to improve the abilities that make them appropriate human instruments and consequently, their interpersonal skills are of major importance in natural settings and study processes (table 1) (13, 14). 1researcher’s role in qualitative methods at a glanceethical challenges in qualitative studies:the researcher-participant relationshipthe relationship and intimacy that is established between the researchers and participants in qualitative studies can raise a range of different ethical concerns, and qualitative researchers face dilemmas such as respect for privacy, establishment of honest and open interactions, and avoiding misrepresentations (19). Ethically challenging situations may emerge if researchers have to deal with contradicting issues and choose between different methodological strategies in conflict arises. In such cases, disagreements among different components such as participants, researchers, researchers’ discipline, the funding body and the society may be inevitable (20, 21). Some important ethical concerns that should be taken into account while carrying out qualitative research are: anonymity, confidentiality and informed consent (22). To richards and schwartz’ findings (22), the term ‘confidentiality’ conveys different meanings for health care practitioners and researchers. For researchers, however, the duty of confidentiality is less clear and involves elaboration of the form of outcome that might be expected from the study (22, 23). Researcher must endeavor to minimize the possibility of intrusion into the autonomy of study participants by all means. It is sometimes even necessary that the researcher clarify in writing which persons can have access to the initial data and how the data might be used (24, 25). Consent has been recognized as an integral part of ethics in research carried out in different fields. For qualitative researchers, it is of the utmost importance to specify in advance which data will be collected and how they are to be used (26).

The principle of informed consent stresses the researcher’s responsibility to completely inform participants of different aspects of the research in comprehensible language. Clarifications need to include the following issues: the nature of the study, the participants’ potential role, the identity of the researcher and the financing body, the objective of the research, and how the results will be published and used (27). Many people consider it necessary to participate in research that their peers, community and/or society may benefit from. Therefore, qualitative health researchers need to clarify that the research they carry out will benefit science and can contribute to the improvement of health policy (5). The principle of ‘no harm’ to participants ought to be considered by researchers, who should be aware of the potential harms that might be inflicted upon study subjects. Researchers have the responsibility of protecting all participants in a study from potentially harmful consequences that might affect them as a result of their participation. It is getting increasingly common for research ethics committees to seek documented proof of consent in a written, signed, and ideally, witnessed form. Researchers can only do their best to protect their respondent’s identity and hold the information strictly confidential as there would be no guarantee for it otherwise (29). Therefore, researchers should seriously consider the potential impact they may have on the participants and vice versa, and details of such interactions should be clearly mentioned in research proposals (23). Overall, the role of the researcher as (a) stranger, (b) visitor, (c) initiator, (d) insider-expert or other should be well defined and explained (3). As brenner quoted kvale state that, preparing an ethical protocol can cover issues in a qualitative research project from planning through reporting (30). Gathering and data analysisin qualitative research, data are collected with a focus on multifaceted interviews and narratives to produce a description of the experiences. The researchers, therefore, play the role of a mediator between the experiences of the respondents and the community of concerned people (28, 31). The post-interview comment sheet could assist the researcher to note the feelings of informants, as well as interpretations and comments that occurred during the interview (32). Although there is no guarantee of absolute confidentiality, openly recording field notes assists participants to decide what they wish to have on the record. In health care research, the problem may be even more exaggerated as the researcher is sometimes the health provider as well (33).

When a researcher aims to study the culture of certain people, living amongst them is inevitable. Participants should always be aware of the information that has been obtained and is being recorded, and consent to it. Physical presence of the researchers within the culture requires them to be responsible for their role and potential consequences on the field. Ethnographers must be vigilant about any distractions stemming from close interactions that can be potentially harmful to participants in the long run (33, 34). Researchers can benefit from supervision sessions directed at learning, mentoring and skill development, all of which can foster their ability to carry out research without risking their health. Adequate professional supervision (which may be outside of the university) can be of service to researchers in dealing with the potential stress associated with the study (35 – 37). Interviewers should be properly scheduled to provide the researcher with sufficient recovery time and reduce the risk of emotional exhaustion, while allowing ample time for analysis of the objective and emotional aspects of the research. It is also necessary for the researcher to be familiar with signs of extreme fatigue and be prepared to take necessary measures before too much harm is done (40 – 42). It is argued that qualitative research that deals with sensitive topics in depth can pose emotional and other risks to both participants and researchers. Clear protocols for dealing with distress should be in place so that both parties involved in research can use them if necessary. It is not usually easy to predict what topics are likely to lead to distress, and researchers should therefore receive sufficient training in predicting traumatic tive measures for researchers who carry out sensitive qualitative studies should include official arrangements for a peer support program consisting of a list of researchers who are involved, or a constellation of researcher support activities aiming at improving psychological fitness in the form of a professional confidence building module. Other such measures include offering adequate supervision to provide opportunities for self-development and self-care, and facilitating the process of self-reflection and gies for emotional distancing need to be considered and adopted if the research topic or participants have the potential to be emotionally challenging. Measures must also be taken so that levels of self-disclosure, objective displays of emotion during the interviews, and strategies to end the relationships are well defined and of the most prominent tasks of qualitative researchers is to minimize the flaws in observation and endeavor to gain truthful knowledge. Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to continuously update their investigation skills in terms of methodology and find novel techniques to better carry out studies in the field of health and explained before, qualitative research is carried out in natural settings, which requires researchers to work in close collaboration with other members of the team and under direct supervision to discuss and resolve issues as they arise. Therefore, development of practical strategies and communicating them to researchers can be of great benefit and assist them in conducting more perceptive qualitative studies. It is noteworthy that such research should be directed towards making a difference in people’s lives, improving care delivery in different settings and at all levels, and providing a framework for health sciences without any ethical a result of the extensive body of research in the field of medical sciences, patients comprise a large proportion of the public who are frequently subjects of studies.

Research ethics committees are formed to provide independent advice to participants, researchers, funders/sponsors and healthcare organizations on the extent to which research proposals comply with universally endorsed ethical the history of social and medical science, there have been a few research studies that seriously injured people, and many more in which their welfare was not sufficiently protected. To return to the matter of privacy, the researcher should not rely solely on the informant to identify possible intrusion, but needs to work at anticipating it in advance. Investigators should refrain from soliciting private information that is not closely related to the research ering the aforementioned challenges, it is recommended to conduct further research in order to provide meticulous and explicit ethical protocols, guidelines and codes with respect to qualitative ledgmentsthe authors would like to offer special thanks to dr. The role of the researcher in the qualitative research process: a potential barrier to archiving qualitative data. Conflicting notions of research ethics: the mutually challenging traditions of social scientists and medical researchers. Research on difficult family topics: helping new and experienced researchers cope with research on loss. Being in, being out, being with: affect and the role of the qualitative researcher in loss and grief research.