Rev. Dr. Bonnie Robinson
The Reverend Dr Bonnie has a special place in the history of NZCCSS. Three generations of her family have been involved in the leadership and governance of the organisation since our creation. She has served in the past as a both the Executive Officer and the President of the Council and is currently a Council appointed additional member. Currently Director of the Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit, Bonnie was the Deputy Director at its inception in 2004 and in between has worked for a variety of NZCCSS members, including as Chief Executive Officer for both Howick Baptist Healthcare and Presbyterian Support Northern. As an ordained Presbyterian minister, Bonnie brings her commitment to faith as service to every role she holds. For this she received a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit (MNZM) in 2023 for her services to seniors and social services. Her Doctor of Professional Practice, awarded in the same year, was on supporting leaders of not-for-profit social services to include social justice in their decision-making, which formed the basis of this piece.
NZCCSS is proud to count Bonnie as a strong ally as we walk our path towards a Just and Compassionate Aotearoa, and I am personally grateful to her taking the time to share with us this special contribution.
– Rachel
Story is an ancient form of information sharing. Humanity for centuries used the power of story to convey facts, history, geographical signposts, genealogy, morality, and cultural norms. Story is easily remembered, and natural to every human being. It is an effective tool to gather, understand and disseminate information.
In the western developed world of research however, for many centuries story was a second-class citizen. Story was not considered scientific because it is hard to replicate, test, and can’t be put through the “gold standard” of double-blind randomised trials. Story was seen as of use only to the so called ‘soft’ sciences and applied areas of study.
Fortunately, over the past 50 or so years, story has made a resurgence and is now understood by many researchers as “data” in its own right. The use of case study, case stories, autoethnographic description, fictionalised reporting, contextual fiction and other forms of narrative research and reporting give access to information that is not easily accessed by other research methods.
Using story, however, raises several ethical questions – which may not get asked as often as they should, given that story is often used in action research contexts, where the participants are frequently both researcher and researched.
In social services, where I work, we are often using story as data without being fully conscious of this. We hear clients’ stories, take notes, complete client records, and produce summaries and reports for management and funders – turning story into data without being aware that this is a form of research reporting that has ethical consequences.
Usually if we do think about it, we often regard adherence to privacy, anonymisation and the use of client consent forms as sufficient. Yet no human being can present their story in isolation. “The self is porous, constantly leaking into others” (Tolich 2016, 1608). My story is inevitably also someone else’s. I may have given consent, but did they and do they have to?
It can feel more ethical (or at least easier) not to gather and tell stories. Yet, the not telling can also have ethical implications, especially if by not telling, certain voices, and information are not heard and taken into consideration.
How then do we gather and use story ethically? Acknowledgment and mitigation of ethical issues is key. Understand, on a deep level, the ethical risks, to both research subjects, and researcher, and then work to develop mitigation strategies that are acceptable to all in the data gathering process.
When I do research using story I use Tolich’s three categories and then tease out the detailed implications for the use of story in my research context.
The three categories are:
Consent: respecting participants autonomy while recognising the limitations on the voluntary nature of participation
Here we recognise that all consent is partial, even my own, because no one can foresee all possibilities. We are unable to control how people will react to a story/data embedded in research or reporting or how they will use it. Harm may be inadvertently done by communication of self-reflection because even if others are not named readers may assume who is being talked about.
To mitigate consent, we need to acknowledge and make overt its partiality. For sensitive topics we need to explore the most appropriate method of telling the story – fictionalised accounts, rather than case study, anonymising of contexts, timeframes, and using generalised scenarios rather than specific incidences. Cultural alignment of researcher, topic, method and reporting is critical.
Consultation: checking with others about ethical issues and not publishing anything that I would not be prepared to show to those implicated or mentioned in the text.
Consultation involves understanding that in all research there are multiple layers of accountability – to self, family, employer, sector, community, perhaps even society. These accountabilities may result in conflict in terms of process, outcomes and communication.
To mitigate requires an on-going process of communication and negotiation of boundaries – who is comfortable with sharing what, when and how? Multiple opportunities for participation in and understanding of what the story will be used for must be offered.
Vulnerability: assumes that all people mentioned or implicated in the story will read it and that we must ensure internal as well as external confidentiality.
Vulnerability recognises that we need to balance micro and macro ethical issues. Micro issues are those affecting an individual or one situation, while macro issues concern the impact on a wider group or society in general. Protecting an individual, by not using a story, might solve a micro ethical issue, but create a macro one, if that negates the ability to create a positive outcome for a wider group.
Mitigation here involves an overt recognition of the vulnerability of those who share their story for use as data and when-ever possible, use of multiple sources of data (many stories), so that the research or work can continue, even if one story is not available.
All data has ethical considerations. Data in some shape or form is essential for us to pursue knowledge, move things forward, make change. But “if there is capacity for benefit there is capacity for harm” (Campbell and Groundwater Smith 2007, 16). While story provides opportunity for much richness, its depth offers multiple opportunities for, usually, inadvertent harm. This should not stop us using story but make us very diligent to ask the ethical questions, and always be mindful, of whose story it is, who gets to decide and who gets to tell.
Bibliography
Campbell, Anne, and Olwen McNamara. 2007. “Ways of Telling: The Use of Practitioners’ Stories.” In An Ethical Approach to Practitioner Research: Dealing with Issues and Dilemmas in Action Research, Campbell, Anne, and Susan Groundwater-Smith. 99–112. London: Routledge.
Tolich, Martin. 2016. “Qualitative Ethics in Practice.” In Qualitative Ethics in Practice, Martin Tolich, 13–24. New York: Routledge.
