Premium
Ethnography and the ethics of undertaking research in different mental healthcare settings
Author(s) -
ALLBUTT H.,
MASTERS H.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.69
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1365-2850
pISSN - 1351-0126
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2009.01493.x
Subject(s) - mental health , qualitative research , public relations , gatekeeping , paternalism , health care , government (linguistics) , nursing , research ethics , service (business) , ethnography , medicine , psychology , sociology , political science , business , psychiatry , social science , linguistics , philosophy , marketing , law , anthropology
Accessible summary• We report our experiences of seeking regulatory approval to undertake a qualitative research study using observation and interviews in three different mental healthcare settings. • All users of mental health services are classified as ‘vulnerable’ research participants by UK regulatory research systems. We argue that this is both disempowering to users and also at odds with current health care policy to promote service user involvement in research processes. • Access to mental healthcare sites was difficult in spite of agreement by senior area managers. Front‐line team leaders acted as gatekeepers to influence which service users could be approached to take part in the study. This type of intervention may bias research samples and dilute the knowledge claims researchers can make from research undertaken in practice settings.Abstract This paper draws on our experiences of seeking research ethics and management approval for a 1‐year ethnographic research study in three mental health settings. We argue that the increased bureaucratization of research governance in the UK is paternalistic and unfit for qualitative, non‐interventionist study designs. The classification of all mental health services users as ‘vulnerable’ is also disempowering and contrary to government calls to increase user involvement in research processes. We relate our difficulties in accessing National Health Service sites to undertake our study despite endorsement by senior managers. The current research ethics system reinforces the gatekeeping role of front‐line National Health Service staff but this may work to bias samples in favour of ‘amenable’ service users and exclude others from having their views and experiences represented in studies over the long‐term.