University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.
Am J Community Psychol. 2017 Dec;60(3-4):327-335. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12195. Epub 2017 Nov 20.
We describe our ethics-driven process of addressing missing data within a social network study about accountability for racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, ableism, and other forms of oppression among social justice union organizers. During data collection, some would-be participants did not return emails and others explicitly refused to engage in the research. All refusals came from women of color. We faced an ethical dilemma: Should we continue to seek participation from those who had not yet responded, with the hopes of recruiting more women of color from within the network so their perspectives would not be tokenized? Or, should we stop asking those who had been contacted multiple times, which would compromise the social network data and analysis? We delineate ways in which current discussions of the ethics of social network studies fell short, given our framework and our community psychology (CP) values. We outline literature that was helpful in thinking through this challenge; we looked outside of CP to the decolonization literature on refusal. Lessons learned include listening for the possible meanings of refusals and considering the level of engagement and the labor required of participants when designing research studies.
我们描述了在一项关于社会正义联盟组织者对种族主义、阶级主义、性别歧视、异性恋主义、顺性别主义、残疾歧视和其他形式压迫的问责制的社会网络研究中，我们如何处理缺失数据的道德驱动过程。在数据收集过程中，一些潜在的参与者没有回复电子邮件，而另一些人则明确拒绝参与研究。所有的拒绝都来自有色人种女性。我们面临一个道德困境：我们是否应该继续寻求那些尚未回复的人的参与，希望从网络中招募更多的有色人种女性，以免她们的观点被边缘化？或者，我们是否应该停止联系那些已经多次联系过的人，这将损害社会网络数据和分析？我们描述了当前关于社会网络研究伦理的讨论是如何存在不足的，因为我们的框架和社区心理学（CP）价值观。我们概述了有助于我们思考这一挑战的文献；我们从 CP 之外的拒绝去殖民化文献中寻找答案。我们学到的经验包括倾听拒绝的可能含义，并在设计研究时考虑参与者的参与程度和所需的劳动。
