Page 59 - Academic and Research Book_WEB

Informed Consent for Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Focus group methodology presents particular ethical challenges. Separate consent needs to be
obtained for an FGD. This involves not only the material presented for obtaining consent at the
individual level but also the need to explain that in the course of the FGD, information may come to
light that an individual may not have divulged in a one-to-one interaction. Every participant of the
FGDs needs to understand this issue before giving consent.
Here too, consent is, of course, revocable at all times. But in an FGD this presents a particular dilemma
because the participant will have made disclosures not only to the researcher but to the group as well.
Therefore, participant validation, as done in interviews is cumbersome. Revocation is meaningless.
Further, in FGDs the participant is not in charge of what disclosures take place because the way a
discussion progresses is beyond his or her control. In a sense, a consent is meaningless unless the
participant knows how an FGD progresses.
Even if a researcher were to contrive to allow the participant to withdraw his or her data, it would
render the entire FGD transcript meaningless and analysis irrelevant. The way around the problem
probably lies in individual instances. It may perhaps be managed by explaining at the beginning of
the FGD that while participants may withdraw from the FGD they may not withdraw their data (or
contribution) that is an integral part of the FGD transcripts.

Ethics in Sampling Methods and Data Collection

An ethical dilemma for researchers is to conduct research so that it has the maximum validity while
ensuring that the rights of participants are protected. In other words, what is the minimum numbers
of participants to be involved while undertaking a study that might have maximum validity. Many
researchers consider random sampling as the gold standard methodological procedure for maximizing
external validity and optimizing sample size. Social researchers have an ethical obligation to construct
the smallest representative samples possible and involve the least number of participants even while
ensuring that the research is plausible widely and may be possible to generalize.

Dattalo (2010) offers this example:

…if a study seeks: (1) sensitive information (e.g., from men in a study to compare the effec-
tiveness of two residential substance abuse interventions); (2) information from a vulnerable
population (e.g., children in a study to evaluate an intervention designed to reduce the psy-
chosocial difficulties of children with diabetes), or (3) information during a crisis (e.g., from
women seeking protective orders in cases of spousal abuse), it could be unethical to sample
too many or too few people. If a sample is too small, a study could miss important effects,
place unnecessary demands on participant privacy and time, or waste valuable resources. If a
sample is too large, the study could make unnecessary demands of the participants or misuse
other resources.

Ethical Issues Related to Collecting, Storing, and Handling Data

Data may be identified in different ways.
• Identifiable data will include data source and all the details.

• De-identified data will have had all the identifiable information removed. For example,
transcriptions of interviews that have been permanently anonymized.

48 | University Grants Commission