The public right of access to research data: an ethical dilemma?
Uloženo v:
| Název: | The public right of access to research data: an ethical dilemma? |
|---|---|
| Autoři: | Borgerud, Charlotte |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Documentation. 81(7):355-375 |
| Témata: | right-of-access principle, FOI, freedom of information requests, research data, contextual integrity, privacy |
| Popis: | PurposeThis study examines the role of the right-of-access principle in investigating research misconduct, focusing on its implications for transparency and privacy. By comparing two Swedish cases, it explores how public access to research data can facilitate accountability but also raise ethical concerns regarding confidentiality.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative case study using document analysis was conducted, collecting public records such as court rulings and government decisions. Data were analysed from the outset of Nissenbaum’s theory of contextual integrity, combined with data protection legislation’s interest-balancing requirements. An integrated analytical model was developed to assess the balance between public transparency and the protection of personal privacy.FindingsThe findings indicate a conflict among confidentiality, privacy intrusion and patient safety, suggesting that, in some instances, intruding on personal privacy may be necessary to protect research participants. Researchers are urged to avoid unfeasible confidentiality promises and to clarify data-handling practices to maintain contextual integrity. Current protective measures, such as masking, pseudonymisation and informed consent, appear insufficient, highlighting the need for ethical interest-balancing and further research on safeguarding the privacy of both research subjects and researchers while ensuring oversight in cases of suspected misconduct.Originality/valueThis study fills a research gap by examining how Freedom of Information legislation can be used to request research data, thereby elucidating its dual role as both a protective mechanism and a potential source of privacy infringement. |
| Popis souboru: | electronic |
| Přístupová URL adresa: | https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-568482 https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-04-2025-0096 |
| Databáze: | SwePub |
Full Text Finder 
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstrakt: | PurposeThis study examines the role of the right-of-access principle in investigating research misconduct, focusing on its implications for transparency and privacy. By comparing two Swedish cases, it explores how public access to research data can facilitate accountability but also raise ethical concerns regarding confidentiality.Design/methodology/approachA qualitative case study using document analysis was conducted, collecting public records such as court rulings and government decisions. Data were analysed from the outset of Nissenbaum’s theory of contextual integrity, combined with data protection legislation’s interest-balancing requirements. An integrated analytical model was developed to assess the balance between public transparency and the protection of personal privacy.FindingsThe findings indicate a conflict among confidentiality, privacy intrusion and patient safety, suggesting that, in some instances, intruding on personal privacy may be necessary to protect research participants. Researchers are urged to avoid unfeasible confidentiality promises and to clarify data-handling practices to maintain contextual integrity. Current protective measures, such as masking, pseudonymisation and informed consent, appear insufficient, highlighting the need for ethical interest-balancing and further research on safeguarding the privacy of both research subjects and researchers while ensuring oversight in cases of suspected misconduct.Originality/valueThis study fills a research gap by examining how Freedom of Information legislation can be used to request research data, thereby elucidating its dual role as both a protective mechanism and a potential source of privacy infringement. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00220418 17587379 |
| DOI: | 10.1108/jd-04-2025-0096 |