Invited Peer Commentary: Research Site Anonymity in Context.

Abstract

The authors of the paper, Research site anonymity in context (Nduna et al., 2022) set out to utilize critical theory “to interrogate and problematize the practice of anonymizing research sites as an ethical imperative”. They emphasized that as black African scholars, engaged in diverse research within the domain of the social sciences, they identify closely with the communities where they conduct their research. The focus of the paper is the authors’ challenge to the ethical standard of anonymity that they suggest is imposed by the research ethics committees (RECs/IRBs) they apply to for ethical review and clearance. With regard to anonymity (or confidentiality) being an important ethical standard that should be negotiable in some contexts, we concur with the authors but believe there are lessons to be gained from a deeper interrogation of this topic than is presented in the paper. Hence, in order to unpack key elements of the paper and extend these to create the space for academic debate, we applied critical reflection as a process for making meaning. In this process, we start this commentary by first addressing definitions of confidentiality and anonymity as generally accepted ethical standards for research with human participants. Confidentiality in research is described as measures put in place by the researcher to prevent disclosure of the participants’ identity during and after the study has been completed while anonymity is used as a standard declaring that neither the researcher nor any other person will know the identity of the research participant/s (DoH, 2015). For the purpose of this commentary, we will accept the authors’ discussion point of anonymizing research sites which would have the standard of confidentiality imposed and not necessarily anonymity. This is because these sites would be known to the researchers if the argument is that they should be able to be identified. It is the outcome of this global standard of confidentiality or anonymity that RECs are expected to uphold and this can be perceived as the RECs imposing the need for anonymity on all research participants and sites. From there we will consider motivations for why and how anonymity as a standard in all research involving humans is challenged by the authors as being inappropriate in community-based research. We will then focus our attention on deepening the discussion of whether to maintain anonymity (or not) in research involving our South African communities as research sites. This discussion will draw from the issues as they are raised in the paper but will broaden the arguments presented by providing evidence from our own experiences, in the communities we research, to substantiate our position.