This paper identifies and discusses ethical issues associated with the increasingly common use of multiple reminders in postal survey research. When undertaking postal surveys, it is common to improve response rates by contacting survey recipients multiple times encouraging them to complete the questionnaire. The ethical implications of the use of multiple reminders are rarely discussed in the literature advocating their use. The paper briefly reviews the arguments encouraging use of multiple reminders, and identifies and discusses the potential ethical issues raised (...) by their use in postal surveys. A set of principles is then proposed for using multiple reminders in an ethically responsible way. It is argued that by following these principles, the use of multiple reminders should present no increased potential for harassment or coercion of survey recipients compared to alternative survey techniques. The use of these principles in a recent postal survey is then presented and discussed; a 60% response rate was achieved utilising multiple survey reminders in a way consistent with this set of principles. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 4, Page 47-48, April 2012.

There is limited research into the situations of people living with precarious status in Canada, which includes people whose legal status is in-process, undocumented, or unauthorized, many of whom entered the country with a temporary resident visa, through family sponsorship arrangements, or as refugee claimants. In 2005, a community-university alliance sought to carry out a research study of the lived experiences of people living with precarious status. In this paper, we describe our negotiation of the ethics review process at a (...) Canadian university and the ethical, legal, and methodological issues that emerged. Although being able to guarantee our participants complete confidentiality was essential to the viability of the project due to their vulnerability to detention or deportation, we discovered that the Canadian legal framework limited us to being able to offer them confidentiality “to the fullest extent possible by law.” One way to overcome this conflict would have been through the construction of a Wigmore defence, in which we would document that the research would not be possible without assurance of our participants’ confidentiality. Such a defence would be tested in court if our research records were subpoenaed by immigration enforcement authorities. Rather than take the risk that this defence would not be successful and would result in our participants being deported, we altered the research methods from using multiple interviews to establish trust (which would have required that we store participants’ contact information) to meeting participants only once to discuss their experiences of living with precarious legal status in Canada. Our encounter with the ‘myth of confidentiality’ raised questions about the policing of knowledge production. (shrink)