Ethics in Visual and Creative Methods
Person-to-person qualitative online research
This series of newsletters focuses on studies that involve direct online interaction with human participants. In March we’ve been considering ethical implications of online research; this follow-up blast will examine ethics in online visual research and ethics in online international or cross-cultural research. Looking ahead, in April we will delve into ways to use research journaling as a practice of reflexivity and self-care. In May we will explore methods for planning and conducting interviews online, in June we will look at ways to conduct focus groups.
Language involves more than words.
I talk with my hands and speak with pictures. Of course, some people literally talk with their hands, using visually expressive sign language. The rest of us use facial expressions and pictures, body language and touch to say what our words cannot express. These forms of expression are possible online (minus touch!). We use digital snapshots as a kind of shorthand. Instead of saying “the baby’s smile is so sweet” or “sunset over the ocean displayed every shade of orange” we share a picture. Instead of explaining each step involved in making a souffle, we share a video. Instead of writing a long email, we jump on a video chat, so we don’t have to wait for an answer to hit our inbox. This mix of words and images in immediate and any-time exchanges offers a rich options for person-to-person communication – and data collection.
I use the term person-to-person intentionally. When we are online today, we interact with non-human bots that mimic communication. We receive automated or AI-generated emails and text messages. In this context it is ever more important to choose rich forms of interaction with participants, so they know we are qualitative researchers interested in learning about the lived human experience.
I use the term rich intentionally. In the 1980s Daft, Lengel, and Trevino articulated a media richness theory (MRT). While their work was set in a time when “face-to-face” happened in real life and text-based communication was the only online form. Nevertheless, some points fit today (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Daft et al., 1987). They discussed richness as a blend of four criteria:
1. Feedback that allows for immediate interpretation and if needed, timely adjustments or refocusing of the message.
2. Multiple cues that include visual and nonverbal cues as well as verbal exchanges.
3. Language variety the includes words and symbols.
4. Personal focus that conveys personal feelings and emotions.
Daft et al. (1986) theorized that for effective communication, the richness of the medium should match the level of message ambiguity. When the communication concerns well-defined issues and information, messages can be communicated in ways that are low on the richness hierarchy. On the other hand, when ambiguity and uncertainty are high, messages that use rich media facilitate understanding. All to say that when qualitative researchers want to study the messy realities of life using methods that involve participants, exchanges that allow for various cues, forms of communication, personal focus, are best. I suggest that means we consider arts-based, visual, and creative methods. Of course, this means we have new ethical dilemmas to consider.
Learn more about creative methods in these newsletters: Creative Methods in Online Qualitative Research and More Creative Research Methods.
Ownership, Anonymity, and Rights
One of the first questions about ethical use of visual materials relates to their source. Where did the images (photos, artwork, maps, diagrams) or media (film or video) originate? Here are three options:
Researcher provides images or media to spur discussion using visual elicitation methods. The researcher creates or obtain images or media.
Participant provides images that represent their experiences using photovoice, diary, or related methods. The participant creates images or media that are their intellectual or creative property.
Researcher and participant co-create images or media.
The situation in the first instance is straightforward. The researchers owns the rights or has permission to use the materials in the study, publications, or presentations, etc.. In the second two instances researchers need to determine how to handle this kind of material in negotiation with the participant(s).
When participants bring family pictures to the interview to help explain dynamics, they own the rights and will use (and potentially post online) those photos in other situations.
When participants take photographs in response to the researcher’s prompts, it can be argued that there is shared ownership. Dr. Nicole Brown, author of Photovoice Reimagined, suggests that “researchers and participants ought to jointly develop the parameters for the taking of photographs. These specifications need to include details on who or what to take a photograp of and how to take that photograph ethically”(Brown, 2024) p. 101. That way everyone is clear about consent from the beginning.
The sensitivity of the topic and vulnerability of the participant(s) ties into the appropriate degree of privacy. A study where the participant creates, or co-creates, visual representations of a local history project will be different than a study where a traumatic experience or present danger is recounted.
A staged or rolling process of consent and agreement
When you inform participants about the study, you need to discuss:
What you hope participants will do (for example ‘make a collage’or ‘keep a photo diary’.) (Rose, 2023)
How you will use the visual data (for example, ‘use for analysis only’, ‘reproduce in my dissertation’ or ‘use in a public exhibition’. (Rose, 2023)
It is best to think in advance about how to conduct the study ethically so you can negotiate options with participants at the consent stage. That said, even when you think through every possibility, unforeseen questions arise during the study. As noted, an ongoing or rolling consent process means you can keep informing participants and renegotiate consent as the study unfolds. The International Visual Sociology Association (IVSA) Code of Research Ethics and Guidelines point to the need to build trust with participants and negotiate how to proceed based on the circumstances of the study, rather than simply inform them.
The consent process varies in research methodologies. IVSA supports the ethical research of members whose qualitative work meets ethical considerations for subjects but may use and negotiate a variety of consensual means for working with research participants over time. Such means include but are not limited to long-term trust building with individuals and communities; the negotiation of use of photographic and other visual images, specifically including the use of identifying information for subject empowerment; the practice of socially responsible research that seeks to provide justice and the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research.
Researchers and participants need to agree to specific usages, for example, can the participant post the images online, out of context of the study? Can participants sell the images? How can or where should the researcher post or share images? Again, this should be part of the consent negotiation/renegotiation process.
Learn more about consent in this newsletter:
InformING & ConsentING to participate in online research.
Images with secondary participants or non-consenting sites
What happens when you or participants take pictures that show other people who have not consented to participate? The presence of participants’ family members or friends can be complicated. As a general rule of thumb, anyone not identifiable is a bystander but not a secondary participant. This distinction rests on personally identifiable information. Anyone who is identifiable needs to be asked for consent, blurred, or in the case of a photograph, cropped out. Soliciting consent may not be an impediment and, indeed, may expand the study.
If participants capture a glimpse of people or places when they take pictures in public spaces, whether online or off, that is not in itself problematic. Dr. Gillian Rose, Dr. Gillian Rose , author of five editions of the book Visual Methodologies, notes that in the US and UK it is legal to take photographs in public places, even when a private site is shown. The International Visual Sociology Association (IVSA) Code of Research Ethics and Guidelines, states that:
Visual researchers may conduct research in public places or use publicly-available information about individuals (e.g. naturalistic observations in public places, analysis of public records, or archival research) without obtaining consent.
Anonymity
Unless you are using images in a for-your-eyes-only way, for analysis only, you need to think about how you will protect the identity of your sources, if you use their images in presentations or publications. Rose (2023) notes that:
Consent might be gained for specific sorts of dissemination…But once an image has gone public – and online, in particular – it will be very hard to ensure that it will only be seen by particular audiences, or in the context in which you have carefully placed it (any caption might well disappear if the image is cut and pasted elsewhere). (p. 79-80)
Of course some participants want their work to be named and noticed, especially those who collaborate with the researcher.
i-docs: An example of rich communication and active collaboration
I invited Dr. Ella Harris, author of Encountering the World with i-Docs: Interactive Documentary as a Research Method, to explain how she handles ethical issues in this innovative research approach. Ella says:
Interactive Documentaries, or i-docs, are web-based, interactive forms of non-fiction multi-media. While they began life as an offshoot of documentary film making, myself and other researchers have been experimenting with their capabilities as a way of doing and communicating research. I’ve worked with i-docs as a participatory method, resulting in projects like The Lockdown Game (press the remote to start).
In any research, a key ethical concern is that of representation. It’s crucial that participants feel accurately and fairly represented in outputs, especially if they’re publicly available. This can be a challenge when you’re trying to tell an overarching story about your findings. The differences between individual experiences can end up subsumed and erased by simplistic but compelling meta-narratives.
I-docs can help with this ethical dilemma because, as a media form, they’re premised on narrative multiplicity. I-docs are made up of numerous discrete pieces of media (film clips, audio, photos, graphics etc.) collated together into a shared online space. This means that individuals can tell their own personal stories on their own terms - by each producing contents that are directly shared in the i-doc - while the group can also articulate a shared message through the design of the i-doc interface. In this way, i-docs can offer a solution to issues of representation, providing a space that accommodates difference while also articulating a shared story.
You can read more about i-docs and their potentials as a research tool in my new book Encountering the World with i-Docs: Interactive Documentary as a Research Method and if you’re interested in working with i-docs I’m holding a free event on i-Docs for Research from 12-1pm on May 12th. You can sign up here.
Ethics and international or cross-cultural research
Sometimes we cross cultures as well as borders when we do research online. It can be easy to sit at one’s computer and think, “since I can connect with people anywhere, maybe I will study people in ________!” However, it is not that simple. Ethical issues carry more weight when languages, norms, and expectations are grounded in cultural identities. When research takes place in more than one country, or researchers go to another country to collect data, whose ethical codes and reviews are followed Fortunately, the Global Trust Code offers excellent guidance and well-written resources to consult, even though they do not focus specifically on research conducted online.
The mission of the Global Trust Code is to help researchers establish respectful partnerships to avoid ethics dumping, the practice of exporting unethical research practices to lower-income settings. The Global Code of Conduct for Equitable Research Partnerships counters ethics dumping by:
providing guidance across all research disciplines
presenting clear, short statements in simple language to achieve the highest possible accessibility
focusing on research collaborations that entail considerable imbalances of power, resources and knowledge
using a new framework based on the values of fairness, respect, care and honesty.
In addition to the code itself, find excellent resources and free -ebooks about the Trust Code in action!
Learn more!
Books about online and visual methods for qualitative research from Sage Publications.
As someone who loves the arts and research and communicating online, the potential for using visual and creative methods online has intrigued me for a long time. My first major research project involved asking for input on a visual taxonomy that depicted processes associated with collaboration. I used a shared whiteboard on a videoconference platform. This allowed me to collect visual, verbal, and written types of data with participants from across the world in online interviews. In my first book on the topic, Online Interviews in Real Time (2009), I discussed the practical, methodological, and theoretical aspects of this kind of data collection. A few years later I expanded the discussion to include a wider range of synchronous/asynchronous interviews and related observations and wrote Qualitative Online Interviews (2014). The most recent book, Doing Qualitative Research Online (2023) explores a wide range of visual and creative methods. See these previous posts about creative methods on Substack.
If you would like to purchase digital versions of my Sage books, Visual Methodologies by Gillian Rose, or Participatory Visual Methodologies by Claudia Mitchell, Naydene De Lange, Relebohile Moletsane use the discount code UK25BOOKS on the ebooks.com page.
See my interview with Gillian Rose here:
Books from Policy Press
For a 50% discount on the books in the Creative Research Methods in Practice Series, use the code BUP04 through April 2025.
Doing Phenomenography by Amanda Taylor-Beswick and Eva Hornung
Encountering the World with i-Docs: Interactive Documentary as a Research Method by Ella Harris
Photovoice Reimagined by Nicole Brown
Poetic Inquiry as Research edited by Heidi van Rooyen and Raphael d’Abdon
And Creative Research Methods: A Practical Guide by Helen Kara
Open-Access Articles
Brelsford, K. M., Ruiz, E., & Beskow, L. (2018). Developing informed consent materials for non-English-speaking participants: An analysis of four professional firm translations from English to Spanish. Clinical Trials, 15(6), 557–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774518801591
Abstract. An increasing body of research is being conducted with non-English-speaking subjects. Study-related materials, including those essential for obtaining informed consent, must often be translated from English into other languages. In this study, we sought to examine the types of issues that may arise when consent materials are translated from English to Spanish. Drawing on expertise from five individuals associated with our research team, four of whom are native Spanish speakers of different dialects of Spanish, we crafted translations of our own consent materials for biobanking using a rigorous, multi-step process involving both forward and back translation. We then systematically compared our translations to those produced by four professional translation firms to identify potential concerns.
Dove, E. S., & Garattini, C. (2018). Expert perspectives on ethics review of international data-intensive research: Working towards mutual recognition. Research Ethics, 14(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117711972
Abstract. Life sciences research is increasingly international and data-intensive. Researchers work in multi-jurisdictional teams or formally established research consortia to exchange data and conduct research using computation of multiple sources and volumes of data at multiple sites and through multiple pathways. Despite the internationalization and data intensification of research, the same ethics review process as applies to single-site studies in one country tends to apply to multi-site studies in multiple countries. Because of the standard requirement for multi-jurisdictional or multi-site ethics review, international research projects are subjected to multiple ethics reviews of the same research protocol.
Jao, I., Kombe, F., Mwalukore, S., Bull, S., Parker, M., Kamuya, D., Molyneux, S., & Marsh, V. (2015). Involving Research Stakeholders in Developing Policy on Sharing Public Health Research Data in Kenya: Views on Fair Process for Informed Consent, Access Oversight, and Community Engagement. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(3), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615592385
Abstract. Increased global sharing of public health research data has potential to advance scientific progress but may present challenges to the interests of research stakeholders, particularly in low-to-middle income countries. Policies for data sharing should be responsive to public views, but there is little evidence of the systematic study of these from low-income countries. This qualitative study explored views on fair data-sharing processes among 60 stakeholders in Kenya with varying research experience, using a deliberative approach.
Kara, H., Jäppinen, M., Nordberg, C., & Riitaoja, A.-L. (2022). The ethical performance of access and consent in ethnographic research on social work encounters with migrant-background service users. Qualitative Social Work. https://doi.org/10.1177/14733250221088421
Abstract. In this article, we contribute to an emerging body of literature concerning the often-overlooked topics of access and consent in research. We posit our understanding of access and consent as continuous ethical reflection and negotiation, conceptualised here as ethical performance, which is particularly valuable in research in institutional contexts defined by numerous power asymmetries. We draw empirically from research on street-level institutional encounters between social work practitioners and migrant-background service users in the Helsinki capital region.
Korkiamäki, R., & Kaukko, M. (2022). Faceless, voiceless child – Ethics of visual anonymity in research with children and young people. Childhood, 30(1), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682221126586 (Original work published 2023)
Abstract. The anonymisation of research participants is a standardised ethical practice, but researchers sometimes struggle to find an ethical balance between the practice of anonymisation and participants’ wishes to reveal their identities. In the Australian and Finnish studies utilising visuality, the participating asylum-seeking and refugee children and youths wished to reveal their faces and claim ownership for their work. The hindrance of this caused disappointment for the participants and inhibited them from telling their message. Unproblematised anonymisation may have unplanned consequences for children and present them not only as faceless but also as voiceless, thus leading to further ethical problems.
Mapedzahama, V., & Dune, T. (2017). A Clash of Paradigms? Ethnography and Ethics Approval. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697167
Abstract. Obtaining ethics approval from university ethics committees is an important part of the research process in Australia and internationally. However, for researchers engaging in ethnographic work, obtaining ethics approval can (re)present significant hurdles to overcome in planning and facilitating a research project. In this article, we discuss potential challenges of reconciling the differences between institutional ethical review standards and the reality of ethnographic research. To do so, we reflect on our own experiences seeking ethics approval for a study on racialized visibility in rural nursing and another on the experiences of gender and sexuality diverse older women. We focus on two particular queries from ethics committees that reaffirm, for us, the incompatibility of biomedically informed ethics guidelines for naturalistic, ethnographic research.
Mitchell, C., Yamile, N., D’Amico, M., Linds, W., & Denov, M. (2023). On the Ethics of Getting the Word Out: Rural Girls Reflect on Ownership in Participatory Visual Research in Rural South Africa. YOUNG, 31(3), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/11033088231166814
Abstract. Despite the growing body of literature dedicated to ethical and methodological issues related to youth engagement and youth participation in arts-based research, the ethics of ownership in relation to the production and sharing of visual artefacts remains an understudied area. This work is particularly critical in the context of war-affected youth, and youth addressing issues of gender-based violence in their lives. Drawing on the voices and perspectives of a group of girls and young women affected by sexual violence in rural South Africa, we explore their views on the idea of ownership of the visual productions (videos, photos, policy briefs) created in an arts-based research project.
Morris, N. (2015). Providing ethical guidance for collaborative research in developing countries. Research Ethics, 11(4), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016115586759
Abstract. Experience has shown that the application of ethical guidelines developed for research in developed countries to research in developing countries can be, and often is, impractical and raises a number of contentious issues. Various attempts have been made to provide guidelines more appropriate to the developing world context; however, to date these efforts have been dominated by the fields of bioscience, medical research and nutrition.
Teti, M. (2019). The Murky Ethics of Visual Qualitative Methods: Picturing a Clear Path Forward. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919884810
Abstract. As a visual qualitative researcher, I believe in the value of methods that include images, such as photos, in the production and interpretation of knowledge (Glaw, Inder, Kable, & Hazelton, 2017). Photovoice in particular—a participatory visual qualitative method in which people take pictures to identify, discuss, and address their challenges (Wang & Burris, 1997)—changed my own observational lens and allowed participant-generated ideas to emerge in my inquiries.
References
Brown, N. (2024). Photovoice reimagined. Policy Press.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554-571.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems [Article]. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 354-366. http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4679714&site=eds-live&scope=site
Rose, G. (2023). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Ltd.
This license enables reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
Thanks to Beth Spencer for this badge, indicating that no AI tools were used to create this post!