Considering the IRB process a bit further this week made me wonder about the norms of confidentiality and anonymity in research and how they came to be. Anonymity in particular seems almost fundamentally at odds with the principle of informed consent. It seems to me that, as researchers, we’re likelier to overestimate our ability to cloak private identities than otherwise, so perhaps it would be more forthcoming to start with a presumption that anonymity can’t be guaranteed (though it could still be earnestly attempted)? I understand, of course, that this would make some types of research difficult if not nearly impossible to pursue, and that’s a consideration. I am also taking for granted that a participant who agreed to be identified would understand all the implications of publicity. That’s problematic too.

I guess my interest in these questions is driven by the fact is a place where the standards of journalism and research differ most dramatically.