A project to study social cognition (Fisher, Lavis et al., 2018) in the messiness (Gabb, 2010) of real life is proposed; but doing this without stifling the natural activity and social functioning which is vital to the observations and demonstrating that the research will do no harm is a difficult balance to ascertain. Critics of international ethical review processes suggest that doing so is restrictive to many forms of qualitative methods (Allbutt, 2010).Aims
To find methods which are true to the ethnographic methodology of the project but satisfy the principles of the World Medical Association Helsinki Treaty (World Medical Association, 2013) and American Anthropological Association (American Anthropological Association, 1998) ethical frameworks.Methods
After a literature review of many of the ethical dilemmas posed by working with couples/families/people with HD and populations classed as hard to reach, there were still several outstanding questions which a review board could raise concerns about. However, the review also strongly indicated an answer to this conundrum – talk with your population, ask their opinion, after all you’re studying and working alongside them.Results/Conclusion
A precis of questions evolved from the review and has been put together for the UK HDA patient involvement group ‘HD Voice’ to comment on. Their critique and ideas will be integrated into the ethics application prior to submission. This work is ongoing at the time of writing this abstract.