I feel like my journey as a student researcher started with principles like “always de-identify your participants”. In my experience anyway, this idea of de-identification has been drilled into me even before I started thinking about embarking on an educational research journey.

On the one hand for the researcher, de-identified research gives researchers a perceived layer of confidentiality and results in candid and unabashed reporting. On the other hand for the researcher, naming research subjects may result in censored key evidence to maintain rapport with subjects (Guenther, 2009).

This duality exists also for the participant. If assured of confidentiality, subjects lean more towards sharing the truth without concerns about it getting back to them. On the other hand, de-identification might be silencing a subject’s right to speak out and challenge injustice through the researcher’s mouthpiece (Sabar & Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, 2017). This leads to the ethical dilemma of power: What gives the researcher the authority to share, keep, or alter a name?

In some cases, de-identifying a setting or individual does very little to mask them when research findings are published unless a great deal is de-identified to a point where it skews the research findings (Sabar & Sabar Ben-Yehoshua, 2017) If the study de-identified a single setting, those who work there will easily be able to identify themselves and those around them. We must consider how much we can de-identify, or the consequences of de-identification, and how much is lost from the findings if we do so. But again, what gives the researcher the authority to share, keep, or alter a name?

I think it all comes down to this: Research ethics, de-identification in this case, should be considered in collaboration with research subjects (Hammersley, 2014). While such an ethical decision should be informed on research goals, analysis methods, and professional ethics, it should also be a dialogue between researcher and subject. Just as ethical consideration shouldn’t stop after ethics approval (Iphofen, 2011), this collaborative nature should continue throughout the research process, even during analysis and presentation. After all, it is their name and identity that we are using, removing, or altering.

This wasn’t something I had even considered when planning my project. I had automatically defaulted to de-identifying my participants and research setting because that’s all I’ve ever known to do. However, I now have to consider many sides of this decision.

As I navigate these complexities of research ethics and participant identity, I am reminded of the nuanced responsibility researchers carry. De-identification, while essential for confidentiality and candid reporting, also raises questions of power, representation, and ethical engagement with participants. Moving forward, I am committed to embracing a more collaborative approach with my research subjects, recognising that their voices and identities are integral to the narrative we construct. By fostering ongoing dialogue and ethical reflection throughout the research process, we can strive towards a more inclusive and respectful research practice (Iphofen, 2011), where every decision made acknowledges the shared ownership of knowledge and the ethical imperative to honour and protect participant identities.

References