Can anonymisation become disempowering? Rethinking ethics for low-risk global health research
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 19550102 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Shukanto Das (0000-0001-5114-3923), Felicity V Mehendale (0000-0002-9716-8162), Lorna Grant (0000-0001-7248-7792), Liz Grant |
| Ano | 2025 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Páginas | 03048-03048 |
| Data de publicação | 2025-11-14 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Journal of Global Health (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 2047-2978 • E-ISSN: 2047-2986 |
| Editora | International Society of Global Health (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.7189/jogh.15.03048 |
| PMID | 41232129 |
| OpenAlex | W4416235945 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 3 |
| Referências citadas | 29 |
Anonymisation is intended to confer protection in research, yet in research where disclosure poses minimal threat, blanket anonymisation may disempower participants who explicitly seek recognition. Drawing on fieldwork examining task shifting and sharing in India, we present an example where the leadership of a non-profit questioned why they must stay anonymous, viewing research participation as a rare chance to share learnings, document impact, and build credibility; opportunities otherwise constrained by funding and capacity limitations. Looking through an epistemic injustice lens, we argue that mandatory anonymisation policies reflect global north institutional assumptions about protection rather than the preferences of participants, potentially perpetuating patterns where researchers advance their goals whilst organisations whose knowledge forms their evidence remain invisible. While anonymisation is critical for sensitive research where disclosure could do harm, we call for flexible ethical guidelines that empower participants to make informed choices regarding recognition if risks are minimal. We recommend tiered consent processes which allow participants to select their levels of identification, differentiate between organisational and individual visibility, and use context-dependent frameworks like the Global Ethical Research toolkit to move towards proportionate, context-dependent decisions that truly protect those we study
Ethical issues · Informed consent · Injustice · Research ethics · Task force · Ethics in Clinical Research · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Ten simple rules for Global North researchers to stop perpetuating helicopter research in the Global South
Epistemic injustice in academic global health
Making research ethics work for global health
Ethics in global research
The use of confidentiality and anonymity protections as a cover for fraudulent fieldwork data
Naming Research Participants in Qualitative Language Learning Research
Controversies between regulations of research ethics and protection of personal data
Conducting co-creation for public health in low and middle-income countries
Giving Them a Choice
Ethical Dilemmas in Qualitative Research
The ethics and politics of community engagement in global health research
Mapping the global landscape of task shifting and sharing
Unfair knowledge practices in global health
Barriers and facilitators of disclosing domestic violence to the healthcare service
Research Site Anonymity in Context
Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research
| Obras citantes distintas | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 3 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Velocidade de citação | current |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 3 |