Research
JCPSLP
Volume 16, Number 3 2014
123
KEYWORDS
PARTICIPATORY
ACTION
RESEARCH
ETHICAL
RESEARCH
RESEARCHER-
PARTICIPANT
RELATIONSHIP
APHASIA
RESEARCH
THIS ARTICLE
HAS BEEN
PEER-
REVIEWED
of changed roles and responsibilities. The term “research
subject” suggests a level of passivity, of some intervention
or experiment
being done to
someone. This may fit a
positivist view of research where there is an external truth
to be found through the process. This approach favours
larger numbers of subjects, often placed into groups (and
ideally recruited into randomised controlled trials), isolating
variables, and with the researcher taking care not to
influence subjects in any way. The term “participant”, on
the other hand, suggests a more active role. In interpretive
research approaches, there is more room for the
individuality of participants, and for them to influence the
direction of the research. This is more typical in qualitative
research which favours smaller numbers and relies on the
trust and rapport between participant and researcher for
quality findings (for example, in an interview situation). In
practice, there is no simple divide between quantitative and
qualitative research in use of the term “participant” and it is
now used widely across different philosophical frameworks
(along with other terms like subject, interviewee,
respondent, informant – depending on the type of study).
For example, in Section 1 (“Values and Principles of Ethical
Conduct”) of the NHMRC National Statement on Ethical
Conduct in Human Research (2007), we see:
The relationship between researchers and research
participants is the ground on which human research is
conducted. The values set out in this section – respect
for human beings, research merit and integrity, justice,
and beneficence – help to shape that relationship as
one of trust, mutual responsibility and ethical equality.
For this reason, the National Statement speaks of
research ‘participants’ rather than ‘subjects’. (p. 9)
Within its remit covering the ethical conduct of all human
research, the National Statement also acknowledges
the very broad use of the term “participants” to include
involvement through survey, interviews, and focus groups;
undergoing testing or treatment; researchers accessing
personal documents; collection or use of body organs,
tissues, fluids; and even “to include those who may not
even know they are the subjects of research; for example,
where the need for their consent for the use of their tissue
or data has been waived by a Human Research Ethics
Committee (HREC)” (p. 7). This point demonstrates a
certain flexibility assigned to the term “participant” but also
that there is a responsibility to participants in all forms of
research, regardless of the degree of their involvement
in the research process. Despite this complex research
climate, it is worth considering what the term “participant”
might entail in speech pathology, what we expect of
In this paper, I examine the role of participants
in research, and their relationships with
researchers. I suggest three reasons to
consider the nature of participation in research:
to direct the ethical decisions, protections
and processes in the research; to ensure the
quality of the research; and to guide the
dissemination, translation and impact of the
research. I illustrate each of these points with
some examples from the field of aphasiology,
and suggest that participatory research
designs offer ways to identify and truly
respond to the needs of our clients.
W
hether working clinically or in academic contexts,
speech pathologists are encouraged to undertake
research as part of their practice. Many research
designs depend on the recruitment of participants. While
this appears to be stating the obvious, it is worth stepping
back to consider what the role of the participant entails in a
particular project. A good way of illustrating why this issue
is important is to be found close to home. In the Speech
Pathology Australia Code of Ethics (Speech Pathology
Australia, 2010), section 3.3.8 on
Research
includes the
need to “respect the rights of research participants” and
to “communicate the results of our research or other
professional advancements in a professional manner to
our colleagues and to the research participants/our clients
where appropriate” (p. 3). This statement represents a
subtle shift over the last ten years. The equivalent section
of the previous Speech Pathology Code of Ethics (2000, p.
7) stated:
We communicate the results of our research or other
professional developments to our colleagues through
recognised scientific channels, so that our colleagues
may form an opinion of the merits of this work before
we present the results to the public.
In this version, there was no specific obligation to inform the
participants of the results of the research in which they had
been involved. This shift is of interest because it forms part
of a wider move within research to revise and perhaps
challenge the relationships between researchers and
participants. What roles might participants now play in our
research?
Birch and Miller (2012) note the shift in terminology in
social research more generally from the “research subject”
to “research participant” with an accompanying expectation
Participants,
researchers and
participatory research
Deborah Hersh
Deborah Hersh
