The Right to Report, the Duty to Report, and the Costs of Reporting

A Framework for Answering Ethical Dilemmas for Qualitative Sociolegal Researchers

Datos Bibliográficos

ID7149152
AutoresAlexander Mcclelland (0000-0002-6397-2953, Carleton University, autor de correspondencia), Neha Chugh (0000-0002-1307-5875, University of Ottawa), Chris Bruckert (University of Ottawa)
Año2025
Volumen40
Número2
Páginas228-248
Fecha de publicación2025-08-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaCanadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit et Société (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0829-3201 • E-ISSN: 1911-0227
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/cls.2025.10020
OpenAlexW4414187560
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas37

It is well understood that safeguarding confidentiality is paramount to ensuring the success of research and the protection of participations. However, professional responsibilities and ethics of care can, at times, manifest in a requirement, or even a desire, to breach promises of confidentiality. We unpack this tension by drawing on research on the concepts of legal privilege, the right to report and the duty to report, the impacts of disclosures, as well as a study conducted with socio-legal and criminological researchers and criminalized or socially sanctioned communities who have participated in qualitative a research project. Our findings illustrate that while researchers with a clinical designation (e.g., nurses and social workers), enjoy clarity on professional duties, for researchers without such professional policies (e.g., criminologists) there is little guidance on when and how disclosures could and should take place. That said, when faced with the potential of actual and imminent threats of harm to an identifiable person, most researchers align with Supreme Court of Canada guidance, and would consider reporting, but with much deliberation regarding what constitutes harm, to whom one should report, and the consequences of disclosures. In the interests of contributing to this conversation, we conclude this paper with a decision-making framework that puts the Wigmore test into conversation with the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1999 Smith v Jones decision

CLARITY · Confidentiality · Deliberation · Duty · Duty of care · Harm · Qualitative research · Safeguarding · Supreme court · Interpreting and Communication in Healthcare · Migration, Health and Trauma · Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics