Why use pseudonyms in research

Having said that, I think it also depends on the audience who will be reading your writing — the use of numerical identifiers can sometimes make for easier reading, and may be more appropriate for your audience. What names do I choose? One nice strategy is to ask participants to choose their own pseudonyms — it can be a great way to build rapport at the beginning of an interview or focus group.

When do I decide? However, a difficulty arises if issues emerge that researchers had not expected and had not alerted participants to as part of the consent process. A problem arises for the researcher if the participant does not agree to the issue being disclosed and there is little discussion in the literature on how this should be managed. Most researchers appear to feel that unless a research participant gives permission for information about them to be disclosed then researchers should not do so Wiles, Crow et al , In such cases discussion of the issue with supervisors, peers or a research ethics committee prior to taking action is appropriate.

If the decision to disclose 45 information without the permission of the participant is made, it would be expected that participants are informed of this decision.

It is clearly important that researchers are aware of what their legal responsibilities are and that they think through, and can justify, their moral duty to participants in such cases. One researcher participant taking part in our research study on informed consent noted:. Well I think it's a bit of a grey area because the teachers have a duty to report [but] do researchers?

I think we may not be covered by the letter of the law but I think in the spirit of the law we have to report. I think I would have to say to the child, the promise of confidentiality would have to be framed in terms of the fact that if I find they're in danger, then I would have to speak to somebody but I'd try and do it with them.

Wiles, Crow et al , : Criminological research raises some specific issues in relation to confidentiality in that information about illegal or criminal activity might be identified in the process of the research. The identification of illegal activity, or activities on the boundaries of legality, such as drug taking, falsely claiming benefits, underage drinking or sexual activity might of course arise in any research project. The decision about whether or not illegal or immoral activity should be kept confidential may be a difficult one.

Reporting of criminal activity identified through a research project inevitably risks alienating research participants and perhaps preventing subsequent research being conducted. In our research project on informed consent, we found that researchers do not feel obliged to report criminal or immoral activity, providing no one is at risk of physical harm Wiles, Crow et al , Indeed in some research contexts concerning illegal activity, the fieldwork is conducted on the understanding that the information provided will be kept confidential.

However, researchers need to be aware that they may be forced to breach confidentiality and provide information should the authorities become aware that they have it. The research literature indicates there have been no cases where social researchers have been forced to reveal information collected for research purposes in the UK although such cases have been reported in North America Lee, : ; van den Hoonard, : 8.

This appears to be an area of great uncertainty for researchers which involves them having to balance issues of legality and morality in how they manage their research.

Iphofen : sums this up in this way:. Most researchers in the UK working in these areas appear to work in ways that enable them to avoid any legal pressure to divulge information. However, increasing levels of ethical regulation and concerns with risks to institutional reputation may present a challenge to these ways of working see Adler and Adler, Researchers working in such areas should seek advice from their organisation's legal representative or research support office prior to conducting research.

Accidental breaches of confidentiality can occur in a range of ways. Accidental disclosures can occur when researchers discuss their research with peers or others , in the process of presenting research at conferences or other forums and in publications. It needs to be remembered that the anonymisation of individuals does not mean that they cannot be identified by others. Clark see Wiles, Prosser et al , : 30 , for example, found that despite his best efforts at anonymisation, someone attending a presentation he gave was able to accurately identify the specific individual presented in a quote.

In this specific case, the presence of visual clues about an anonymised place provided enough information to enable the participant to be identified:. Despite our best efforts, we did not entirely resolve the challenges of anonymising place. In some instances a failure to anonymise place can also unwittingly reveal the identities of individual participants as well. For example, the use of a quotation positioned alongside a particular photograph in this case, of a patch of waste-ground in my research site during a seminar paper I gave was sufficient to enable one member of the audience who was familiar with the research site to identify the participant who gave the quotation, even though I believed I had anonymised both participant and name of the fieldsite and ensured there was, seemingly, no identifying feature in the photograph.

Particular difficulties with disclosure of confidentiality occur in research projects involving high profile and distinctive individuals, such as Government ministers or a CEO of a company. It may be impossible to anonymise such individuals, and not necessarily desirable to do so. These individuals are likely to be clear about what they are willing and not willing to discuss in a research interview and the implications of doing so. For these individuals, concerns about confidentiality may be minimal.

Research involving individuals who have distinct roles and who choose to be anonymous, such as a head teacher of a school or hospital manager, may pose greater difficulties in relation to confidentiality, particularly when a study involves one or a small number of organisations or groups.

In part the risks to confidentiality arise because, even though a research site and an individual may be anonymised, views expressed often need to be identified by a particular position for example, head teacher in various dissemination fora for the research to make sense.

It is often easy to take an educated guess on the basis of descriptive information or to conduct a Google search that will identify, for example, the identity of a school on the basis of its Ofsted Report or the identity of a hospital on the basis of waiting times for specific surgical procedures. Once an organisation is identified, readers may feel they are able to guess at the identity of an individual's views set out in a report of the research.

Although of course this may be only a guess on their part this will not necessarily prevent consequences flowing from it. Research with people who have distinct experiences which might enable them to be easily identified are another group for whom confidentiality issues are raised.

As well as considerations of confidentiality to the external world there are considerations of internal confidentiality to consider; that is, confidentiality of participants to other participants in the same organisation or group.

Study participants within an organisation taking part in research are likely to know who else is taking part and may ask a researcher what their colleagues have said or indeed a manager may ask what their employees have said about particular issues. While it may be clear that such requests 48 for information should not be met, a researcher may nevertheless inadvertently recount a seemingly innocuous event or comment to a participant that has arisen through the research that has unanticipated consequences for another participant.

Additionally, participants within a specific organisation or group that are the subject of research are likely to be able to take an educated guess at people's identities within a research report and this can have unintended consequences. These issues of internal confidentiality are not necessarily confined to research taking place in organisations and may equally apply to research focusing on families or friendship networks.

It has been noted that a number of harms might arise from confidentiality breaches which, depending on the context, may range from embarrassment to violence Lee, : A researcher interviewed in our study on informed consent Wiles, Crow et al , : noted in the context of research within families that a number of difficult issues arise in relation to this:.

There are really difficult issues when you are interviewing members of a family or couples, or people who are in a relationship and you are putting their accounts side by side. There are some very difficult issues there and we often try to side-step them by changing enough so that we're hoping that the person they're talking about won't be able to recognise themselves if they read it. It's very common for people to tell you things that you think would be hugely problematic if their relatives knew they'd said that … I think it's important to exercise judgement about the impact that that could have in the network that the person comes from.

In situations where accidental disclosures of confidentiality might occur, various steps can be taken to limit disclosure see Lee, In some cases it may be possible to write about particular findings in general ways, and to avoid the use of direct quotations, to limit the risk of identification.

However, in other cases it may be necessary to omit some data, especially when data are particularly sensitive or when its inclusion could have negative consequences if the individual were identified. Sometimes it may be necessary to exclude individual cases altogether in order to protect people's identities, especially in cases where dramatic or extreme 49 situations are described which are likely to make individuals identifiable.

Another strategy is to change some aspect of the identity of an organisation or an individual in the description of a case or in the attribution given to various individuals when quotes are used. So, for example, an individual might be ascribed a different gender, job or medical condition in order to reduce the likelihood of their being identified. However, if such an approach is used, great care needs to be taken to ensure this doesn't affect the integrity of the data.

Certainly such an approach needs careful consideration and justification. One researcher from our study on informed consent Wiles, Crow et al , : noted:. Some of the people I've interviewed have got very distinctive stories and you have to develop ways of ensuring their anonymity.

In situations where there are specific concerns about confidentiality, it is advisable to liaise closely with study participants about the ways in which data will be reported. This may involve sharing transcripts or other data such as observational notes or photographs with participants and getting consent for their use.

In the case of transcripts this may involve inviting study participants to amend the transcript and agree to its use. I started to think about how my participants would be represented in my thesis. Obviously to maintain the principle of beneficence, they had to remain anonymous. The use of pseudonyms is as we know recommended, but I wondered if this was a unified strategy or if anyone had other thoughts.

So I posed this question on twitter to explore further:. There was a general consensus from the responses PhD students, researchers and a PhD supervisor that using pseudonyms was a good idea as it allowed participants to feel like real people. Consequently, it helped researchers portray their story effectively and maintain that human element. This of course is key in qualitative research. However, there were some important considerations raised. Not everyone used pseudonyms and someone felt that codes were easier for the reader to track and relate to, whereas names could perhaps be easily forgotten.

Others stated that it was important to use both — the pseudonym for the human element, but also codes to differentiate between groups of people. So how do people choose their pseudonyms? Someone also suggested choosing similar sounding names to their own.

I know others have asked their participants to choose their pseudonym, but this can be challenging if the same name is chosen by a number of participants. I also wonder what the implications of this are if that participant is able to identify him or herself in the research findings?

So the outcome of this twitter conversation in relation to my study is that I am using pseudonyms, in addition to codes which is also what one of my supervisors did. This is because I really want to keep the human element, but as I am analysing my public, healthcare professional and media professional data together and will be reporting my findings in one chapter, it is imperative that the groups are differentiated. Another critical aspect that needs to be considered is that even when using pseudonyms, participants can still be identifiable, especially if they are from small communities.

This is something that I need to be mindful of as some of my participants live in a small community which had experienced a traumatic event and some are journalists working for specific newspapers. Just because I have given them different names, I need to ensure that no one can be personally identifiable or connected with a professional organisation in any way.

Tags: anonymity , data , Participants , pseudonyms , Qualitative , research. I tend to just use a name generator or list of top names when assigning pseudonyms in my qual research. There are a few other considerations which might be worthwhile keeping in mind. First, the real identity might well be retained until the research has been completed.

Changing Toni, a woman who lived on a half-million acre farm in the back of beyond, into Betty was never really going to alter the poignancy and utter reality of my interactions with Toni.