Code of Ethics – Preamble for conducting Epistolary (Asynchronous) Interviews

This code of ethics has been produced to address the human concerns and considerations that are not covered in IRB processes. The points highlight below are specifically around considerations for the virtual fieldwork method of epistolary or asynchronous interview. This is not intended to be prescriptive as much as thought provoking as we, as researchers, prepare to engage in relationships with participants that are fraught with

  1. Assessing Fit & Recruitment: With respect to a particular method, such as epistolary interviews. It is important to consider the “fit” with the participants you are hoping to connect with. This method does allow for flexibility in platform and style of communication (e.g., written text, voice or video recording), however this variability may blur personal-professional demarcations as particular communication platforms may be indexical of certain types of relations. When recruiting participants, be open and flexible to conversations around form and type of conversation and be curious about what else the forms of communication participants request may be used for and how this may shape the interaction (e.g., using a work communication platform; using WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger).
  2. Practice of Consent: Throughout the participant/researcher relationship, consent must be seen as a continuous and dynamic practice, not an achieved mark. Work to understand the context and circumstances while determining the most appropriate method of obtaining consent from research participants – do not make your participants bring up concerns, hold space for their concerns to be addressed at regular intervals, so that the researcher can respect the boundaries presented to them as they become apparent.
  3. Social Media Connection: When connecting online, particularly through social media platforms, address the potentiality of a digital connection to affect anonymity of the participant, particularly when anonymity is of particular importance to the participant or breach of anonymity is particularly risky for the participant, researcher or others connected via the same social media platform. Contextually consider the risk/benefit to connecting via social media with participants. In one respect, the mutuality of vulnerability or sense of sharing of self could support participant/researcher relationship while perceived secrecy or rejection from social media connection could inhibit the connection. When asking individuals to share and be vulnerable, the reciprocity of sharing and being vulnerable back could be incredibly important, however the risks for participant/researcher and the broader community must be considered. Always best to have the conversation about concerns, consider participants as active co-creators of the participant/research relationship.
  4. Be Flexible: Throughout the research processes actively listen to participants and be flexible with original research “goals” or “questions.” Once enmeshed in your research, the questions originally posed may not fit with the participants or the current socio-temporal situatedness of the current conversations. Remain open to not knowing where things are going, but rather allowing participants to share around particular topics and show you the pressing concerns, considerations, or experiences. Do not force people or their shared experiences into boxes – this is a harmful form of “representation” that prioritizes your research product and not the participants or societal stakes or potential impact of the research.
  5. Preparing your “contact”: Whatever form of asynchronous contact is co-selected between participant and researcher, work to have a conversation not an interrogation. The goal should be connection, not extraction of information. Through the connection, information will be shared, do not send a list of questions without framing, greeting, and gratitude. Acknowledging the asynchronous nature allows flexibility for the participant to not respond immediately and gives them more time to craft responses as desired, but it also comes with risk of misdirection (e.g., sending message to the wrong person), so do not start with vulnerable topics. Allow the connection to deepen naturally – do not intentionally initiate sensitive topics and offer other forms of communication when sensitive topics arise (e.g., scheduling an in-person meeting if possible or a phone or video call at a time and in a place that the participant feels safe to engage).
  6. Be Curious: When interacting with participants, fellow researchers, and our surrounding communities, always be curious. Do not assume cross cultural awareness or competency, approach individuals as people first and allow them to share the parts of their identity that are meaningful to them and what these identities mean to them. This is important for individuals who we initially see as other to our “knowns” or are groups, categories or identities that we know through mass media or other forms of produced content and not (mainly) from personal relationships. This is also important for individuals we initially see as “known” either like us or like people we know through personal relationships. Do not let the belief that you “know” or “understand” keep you from being fully present and engaged with the people around you (whether it be in a “real” world or a virtual one).
  7. Data Dissemination: Prior to the use of or publication of any image, likeness, or recording, permission or confirmation of consent should be asked of the participant. The research processes are co-engaged in by researchers and participants and the research products should be similarly co-produced. No matter what copyright laws say, research products are not solely your property or that of any institution providing funding or support. By co-produced, I do not suggest research participants should be co-authors, but the space should be held for participants to feel a sense of ownership or inclusion in the products – this may include making non-traditional research products that are more directed by or requested by participants (e.g., holding a workshop to discuss findings and foster conversation or dialogue in particular communities). Remain open to feedback, concerns, and corrections, not ending with publication. Consider publishing open access when possible and working to engage with publications beyond academic journals to share the research products and broaden the potential for societal impact.