572391
research-article2015
QIXXXX10.1177/1077800415572391Qualitative InquiryLahman et al.
Article
A Rose By Any Other Name Is Still a Rose?
Problematizing Pseudonyms in Research
Qualitative Inquiry
2015, Vol. 21(5) 445­–453
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1077800415572391
qix.sagepub.com
Maria K. E. Lahman1, Katrina L. Rodriguez1, Lindsey Moses2,
Krista M. Griffin3, Bernadette M. Mendoza1, and Wafa Yacoub4
Abstract
Pseudonyms, an integral part of the social science research, are ubiquitous, thereby garnering minimal published reflection.
In practice, researchers may apply pseudonyms with little thought or deep reflection. The purpose of this methodological
article is to increase the scholarly discussion to provide transparency in the participant naming process. The authors
review the literature, detail their reflexive engagement with pseudonyms, and advance issues of consideration in the areas
of power in participant naming and confidentiality. Throughout the article, the authors interrupt the text with apercus or
narrative interludes to share personal experiences, pausing the traditional scholarship, thus allowing room for reflexivity.
Keywords
confidentiality, Institutional Review Board (IRB), pseudonyms, qualitative research
Pseudonyms, seen as an integral (and by some required) to
the social science research process, are ubiquitous, thereby
garnering minimal scholarly reflection (see Behar, 1993;
Guenther, 2009; Nespor, 2000, for notable exceptions). In
practice, researchers may apply pseudonyms with little
thought or deep reflection (van den Hoonaard, 2003).
Therefore, the purpose of this methodological article is to
increase the scholarly discussion of pseudonyms to provide
transparency in the participant naming process. Toward this
goal we review the literature, detail our reflexive engagement with pseudonyms, and advance issues of consideration in the areas of power in participant naming and
confidentiality. Throughout the article, we interrupt the
scholarly text with personal narrative interludes (Lather,
2007; Lather & Smithies, 1997), which may also be thought
of as a use of apercu. An apercu refers to an illuminating
point or story providing the opportunity to share personal
experiences, to allow room for reflection, and to provide
glimpses of personal voices throughout the text.
An orthonym is a person’s given, legal, or family name,
whereas a pseudonym, or fake name, is adopted for a certain
and typically limited purpose. Common uses of pseudonyms include stage names, noms de plume (pen names),
aliases, Citizen Band Radio (CB) handles, a myriad of
Internet uses (e.g., email addresses, Twitter and instant message handles, Blog handles, manuscript reviewer’s I.D.),
nicknames, and religious names (Ciuraru, 2011).
Pseudonyms may be used to hide one’s identity due to illegal acts such as civil disobedience, terrorism, or graffiti art
(Clough & Conigrave, 2008; Fitzgerald & Hamilton, 1996;
Lucock & Yeo, 2006). People who are famous may use
pseudonyms to move about more freely or to be perceived
as more marketable (Ciuraru, 2011; Kramer, 1999). Could
John Denver have attempted to capture a sense of Colorado
and the Rocky Mountains with his given birth name, Henry
John Deutschendorf, Jr.?
In this article however, we reflect specifically on pseudonym use for social science research participants. It seems
researchers assume either their discipline or the federal
government (e.g., Institutional Review Board [IRB])
requires a pseudonym. Those with oral history expertise
(e.g., Behar, 1993; Boschma, Yonge, & Mychajlunow,
2003; Gluck & Patai, 1991; McLeod & Francis, 2007) will
know this is inaccurate and in our experience, more likely a
preference by researchers who are from a White, Western,
male, and/or biomedical orientations.
Although pseudonym are by far the norm, the federal
government does not explicitly require a pseudonym and
provides avenues for those participants who wish to use
legal names (e.g., Giordano, O’Reilly, Taylor, & Dogra,
2007; Grinyer, 2002). Human subject protection codes and
discussions in this area of the federal guidelines revolve
around privacy and confidentiality. Indeed, the federal
1
University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, USA
Arizona State University, Tempe, USA
3
Metropolitan State University of Denver, CO, USA
4
University of Colorado–Boulder, USA
2
Corresponding Author:
Maria K. E. Lahman, University of Northern Colorado, McKee Hall Box
124, Greeley, CO 80631, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
446
Qualitative Inquiry 21(5)
government has been in a process of considering revisions
to the Common Rule that outlines human research conduct
(see Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [ANPRM]
for revision to Common Rule and the National Research
Council for extensive coverage of the proposed changes).
Some of these changes might ease unwarranted restrictions
or redirect confusion about social science research. Changes
have been proposed and commented on by the public to
continue to protect humans in research while “facilitating
valuable research and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators” (Pool, 2013, p. 1).
For years, research ethics scholars (e.g., Denzin, 2014;
Lincoln & Cannella, 2004, 2009) have been calling for
changes to the Common Rule due to the perceived overly
restrictive nature of the IRB guidelines. This restrictive
nature is in part due to the regulations being developed out of
a biomedical human research model with little understanding
of social, behavioral, and educational research. Citro has
said, “This family of disciplines has often seemed to be a
stepchild in the context of human subjects protection because
the focus has been on the protection of human subjects in
biomedical research” (Pool, 2013, p. 11). Similarly, Lederman
has observed IRB should be refocused on physical risk and
biomedical research (Pool, 2013, p. 79). This mismatch
becomes even more apparent as one moves from traditional
quantitative human research methods to critical, transformative, collaborative, engaged, relational, qualitative human
research methods (Denzin, 2014; Lincoln & Cannella, 2004).
One can see why the solution to the important issues of
confidentiality and privacy is interpreted in part as a need for
pseudonyms. However, for those participants who desire to
use their own name, an addition to the consent form that
clearly states the participants’ desire to use their own name
and understand the contexts their name will be used in
allows relational researchers to proceed with honoring this
request. Forcing biomedical human research standards on
research participants risks paternalizing participants and taking away their autonomy, which is a fundamental reason
human research ethical codes were created (Pool, 2013). On
this point Citro has said, “Hard rules . . . can both underprotect and overprotect” (Pool, 2013, p. 11). See Bradley (2007)
for an in-depth example of how university IRB’s may have a
limited understanding of this type of relational research and
requests for a use of their name from participants.
Unfortunately, there is little to report in the way of literature regarding the topic of research participant pseudonyms
(see Guenther, 2009; Nespor, 2000, for notable exceptions).
We echo Hurst’s (2008) who wrote,
I would like to discuss the issue of naming. I have searched
diligently in many methodological sections and treatises for
reflections on this issue but have failed to find any satisfactory
answers. Briefly put, I am concerned about the power of the
researcher to rename his or her respondents. But there are no
good guidelines that I have seen, of how to go about doing the
renaming . . . (p. 345)
Although this is in part a dearth in the literature, it may
also be due to issues with computer searches of journal article titles, abstracts, or keywords and the ubiquity of the
topic. In the case of the former, we rarely found author’s
including the word pseudonym in the title, abstract, or keywords and instead authors used more encompassing terms
such as anonymity or confidentiality. Using these terms
lacked the specificity needed for a literature search. We saw
this example in the aforementioned article title and abstract
by Hurst (2008). This lack of specificity combined with the
brief reference to pseudonyms within social science articles
(e.g., pseudonyms were used throughout) made this literature review daunting.
Krista: I walk out of the second of three schools where I
am conducting research. I am feeling slightly uncomfortable about the interviews I have just completed,
and I’m not able to put my finger on why I am feeling
this way. The boys I have just talked with were happy to
speak with me and were forthcoming with their
answers. They were excited to choose pseudonyms and
it was a strong initial visit. I head to the third school in
my study and try to match the pseudonym the boys
chose with their real names, ones I have been accustomed to hearing during the observation stage . . .
Gustafo1 to Daniel, Tony to MG, and Conner to Coby.
I have those down by the time I start my next round of
interviews at the third site. At this site, Rainor chooses
to be known as Bryan, and Alfredo asks to be known as
Cameron. I write the names down on a pseudonym
cheat sheet when it hits me. I know why I’m feeling
slightly strange about this. Three out of four of the
English Learner participants have chosen names not
associated with their ethnicities. It isn’t as though I
don’t know people who name outside of their ethnicity.
This is common practice, but these boys’ parents did
not. It isn’t as if I came in with the expectation they
would choose names reflecting the ethnicity of their
actual name, but now they haven’t, I feel conflicted. In
a study where English Learners may have a unique
perspective, a name such as Alfredo could illustrate a
point differently than a name such as Cameron. I will
honor their choices and have always been an advocate
for allowing the children I study to choose their own
pseudonyms, but in this case, for the very first time, I
begin to wonder if I should have chosen the names.
Theoretical Framework
As authors, we hold critical race feminist (CRF) (Wing,
2003) beliefs that compel us to increase the transparency of
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
447
Lahman et al.
the research process whenever possible (e.g., Lahman,
Geist, Rodriguez, Graglia, & DeRoche, 2011). CRF is
rooted in feminist and anti-racist critical traditions, through
which scholars analyze the roles of race, class, gender, and
other identities through the experiences of women of color
(Lewis, 1998). Wing (2003) describes CRF as an
embryonic effort in legal academia that emerged at the end of
the twentieth century to emphasize the legal concerns of a
significant group of people—those who are both women and
members of today’s racial/ethnic minorities, as well as
disproportionately poor. (p. 1)
CRF is characterized by three central interventions: (a)
an analysis of the interconnection of race with gender and
other oppressions; (b) an argument for the ideas of social
difference and multiplicity within feminism; and (c) an
offering of a unique and different feminist epistemology
(Hua, 2003). Hua (2003) claims CRF opens epistemological space to include all feminists of color, mixed-race feminists, and White feminists who are engaging in critical race
analyses.
CRF researchers centralize storytelling to increase the
understanding of multiple positions of persons or groups of
persons, particularly the socially and politically marginalized individuals living at the juncture of identities. As critical race feminists are also compelled to perform activist
research with a social justice lens, they choose transparent
methods to promote political, social, or economic change
that benefits the people they study (Few, 2007). We extend
this transparent consciousness to our discussion of the
pseudonym process and use of narrative practices in an
attempt to construct other visions of reality and identity
(Wing, 1996). Although scholars have underscored the
connection between CRF and narratives or storytelling in
areas such as teaching and learning (Berry, 2010), we
extend this point to research methodology specifically.
Throughout this article, the readers encounter our methodological stories, but beyond the scope of this article we also
wonder about the stories of participants regarding experiences during the research process. We see just the tip of the
stories we need to explore in Bernadette’s narrative regarding naming and being a research “subject” as opposed to a
research participant.
Bernadette: My first experience with pseudonyms was
when I began graduate school. I was excited to be
asked to be a participant in a classmates’ research.
She was the first person on campus who wanted to get
to know me, and was open about her life so when she
asked me to be a participant in her research. I am not
really sure. I was excited to share my story. When she
asked me to choose a pseudonym, I was confused, I
mean, how was she going to tell my story without my
name? I said I wanted to use my own name. She did
not seem OK with that, but I don’t think we ever talked
about it again. Later she asked me to conduct a member check of the data. While I had shared I was a
divorced, single, Latina mother with a son, had waited
tables for 23 years, and held a double BS in
Mathematics and Astrophysics & Physics, she had
named me Eve Bronson, who had a daughter, a degree
in chemistry, and was a bartender. My stomach fell.
She asked me if my new identity was OK, and of
course I said yes. I mean, what else was I supposed to
say? She was the researcher, the expert, trying to protect me. She was writing for the greater good, right?
What did I know? After reading her account of me, I
felt I was not even present anymore . . . my story was
gone. I felt stripped of who I was and not good
enough. Here is what you should be. This is one reason I do not “give” my participants pseudonyms.
Years later, I shared with the researcher that I hated
the name Eve Bronson. First, I do not look close to
being an Eve Bronson and second, it is not a Latina
name. The researcher, now my friend, was shocked
and hurt. She said, “Why is this the first time you’ve
said this?” I finally felt comfortable enough to say
something. As a Latina, conducting research with
Latino/as I have found, similar to me, Latinos may
not prefer pseudonyms. I am sure it is not just Latinos/
as who want their story honored with their legal name
and increasingly I wonder if research pseudonyms
are a white male construction historically derived
from business and military research models.
Methodological Inquiry
Our inquiry included meetings among the authors, who
were deliberately gathered by Maria due to varying experiences with pseudonyms and research ethics. We personally
represent multiple ethnic and national perspectives, various
disciplines, and we research varying types of participants.
In addition, one author is an IRB chair, two have been IRB
reviewers, and most hold human research certificates. The
group reflected first individually by examining our
researcher journals, the literature, and engaging in writing
individual narratives to explore our personal experiences
with pseudonyms. We met in person and shared our narratives collectively. This meeting was audio recorded and
ultimately culminated in brainstorming considerations for
researchers when using pseudonyms. Following meetings
were held virtually due to our geographic dispersion.
Finally, a review of 60 articles using the word pseudonym
anywhere in the article was conducted.
The review revealed a handful of articles that were specifically about pseudonyms (e.g., Nespor, 2000). Other than
these few examples, all of the authors except one used
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
448
Qualitative Inquiry 21(5)
Table 1. Reflective Naming Experiences Questions.
Naming experiences
Possible questions
Birth, family, nicknames
Naming others (e.g., children, pets, objects)
Cultural implications of naming for groups one researches
How one was trained to create pseudonyms (naming
conventions)
Experiences with creating pseudonyms
Experiences with being given a pseudonym
simple statements to discuss pseudonyms. Examples include
statements such as, “pseudonyms were used”; in parenthesis
after the name “(a pseudonym)” by far the most dominate
use; and “pseudonyms were used to mask the identity . . . .”
One scholar used the real name of a participant at the request
of the participant and directly stated,
Although aware of the ethical duty of researchers to protect
participant identity and to offer confidentiality, Lucy made it
explicit from the beginning that she wanted her name to be
known and her story to be told. Thus a pseudonym has not been
used. However, care has been taken to preserve the anonymity
of third parties mentioned in Lucy’s account . . . . (Kavanagh,
2012, p. 70)
Maria: As part of the first significant qualitative study I
conducted, I became intrigued with pseudonyms. I
had recently read Translated Woman (Behar, 1993),
where the main participant, a Mexican woman was
asked to choose her own pseudonym. She chose the
name Esperanza, meaning hope. The author identifies the name as a symbol of Esperanza rising like a
phoenix out of the ashes of her brutal life. With this
story in mind, I asked the participants, early childhood teachers, to choose their own pseudonyms, yet
they casually deferred the task to me. I continued to
encourage the teachers choose. The next time I spoke
to the teachers, the assistant teacher said she had
chosen the name Kay since it is a piece of one of her
given names. This made sense to me because like
many people my passwords are pieces of names
important to me both in an effort to be able to remember numbers and in a sentimental gesture. However,
Kay’s close connection to her name put her at a minimal risk of having her true identity found out. The
lead teacher asked to be called Sidney. She laughingly confided Sidney would be her risqué name in a
different life, stating everyone has a sexual alter ego.
At first I was privately taken aback and I thought I
certainly would have a hard time writing about the
teacher I was hoping to describe in professional terms
as “Sidney” and secretly knowing why she choose
What do you know or can find out about your naming process?
How have you chosen names for others?
What implications does your culture have for the naming process?
What might be the implications for cultures you study?
How were or weren’t you trained to generate pseudonyms?
How have you created pseudonyms in your research?
What are your experiences with personally receiving a pseudonym?
that name. This was a far cry from how I had imagined she might name herself. As I reflected over the
day’s events I felt this was a sharp reminder to me, the
teachers were unique individuals and I should not to
try to set experiences from other studies onto ours. I
did think Sidney’s reason for choosing her name was
representative of her personality. She is a humorfilled woman, who will at times relate to children and
colleagues in a playful, irreverent manner that brings
them closer to her through laughter and pleasure.
Her teasing with adults may be mildly ribald, but is
belied by her clear blue eyes and soft blonde hair. I
kept the name Sidney and learned to associate it with
a compelling young teacher who does not follow all
the rules, fights for the rights of her students, and is
an advocate for their needs. While I kept the name, I
never was certain if I would share its risqué choosing
with a scholarly audience.
Methodological Considerations
In this section, we review methodological considerations in
the areas of power in participant naming and confidentiality. Researchers are encouraged to reflect prior to, during,
and after research through personal research journaling and
dialogue with colleagues and participants about implicit or
explicit beliefs they have regarding names. This reflexivity
may increase the researcher’s ability to reply in a responsive fashion to any dilemmas. We have developed a series
of questions to assist researchers with their own reflection
process in the area of pseudonyms (see Table 1).
Power in Participant Naming
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” (Shakespeare
in Romeo and Juliet)
We open the discussion of naming and power, by framing
this section with Shakespeare’s famous quote, regarding
names for the reader’s consideration. Some readers may
wonder, so what is all the fuss about changing a name?
Researchers have been assigning pseudonyms throughout
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
449
Lahman et al.
the history of research and have believed this practice is for
the protection of the researched. However, practical experience and research has shown people will assign characteristics to other people according to their name. For instance, in
a study of email usernames, participants were willing to
assign gender, race, age, relationship status, and even mental health status to email usernames that did not denote
these characteristics (Heisler & Crabill, 2006).
Furthermore, within the journalistic community, naming
presents an issue with regard to anonymous sources. The
Society of Professional Journalists ethics code may be
argued to be almost the opposite of human researcher ethics
stating,
Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much
information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations
of sources. Consider sources’ motives before promising
anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face
danger, retribution, or other harm, and have information that
cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was
granted. (Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics,
2014)
Sources of whistle-blowing or controversial information
are reluctant to have their identities exposed for fear of
retaliation or unwanted media spotlight. However, news
consumers may judge the credibility of a story based on
whether the source is named (Farell, n.d.). The identity of
the source may indicate to the public what information is
credible, fabricated, or severely skewed (Farell.). Like narrative research, how a story merits credibility can lie
squarely in the way sources are interpreted by the reader
depending on the writer’s representation of participant
naming.
We describe a famous historical case of a name to continue to illustrate our stance that names are important and
the process of naming is embedded with power. An infamous case from U.S. history highlighting the power of
names may be seen in a review of Former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s name in relation to politics. Trying to be
humorous and reflecting our article’s title, a writer (Kelly,
1993) for the New York Times asked, “What, Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s press secretary would like to know, is in
a name?” The writer goes on to state tongue in cheek, yet
also slipping in a veiled jab at the Clinton’s on issues of
fidelity and control in marriage, “there have been four wives
of Bill Clinton,” meaning Mrs. Clinton has called herself or
been called: Hillary Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Mrs. Bill Clinton, and Mrs. Hillary Clinton. People attuned
to politics during the era will recall the vitriol spewed at the
inclusion of her surname as a middle name, Hillary Rodham
Clinton. In fact, Governor Frank White, former President
Clinton’s Republican gubernatorial opponent in the election
of 1980, made a continuous point of reminding voters that
his wife was “Mrs. Frank White.” The power to completely
subsume his wife into the identity of his own name may
have contributed to White winning that election. We can
quickly see it may be argued a rose is not always a rose and
someone whose name is changed to Montague or Capulet
now may be perceived as someone quite different.
Hurst (2008) speaking specifically to the topic of pseudonyms writes of her concerns about the power in naming
saying, “I am concerned about the power of the researcher
to rename his or her respondents. Personal names do matter” (p. 345). Hurst goes on to mull over one example,
which we find of critical importance and believe is common
in the history of research. “Anglicizing a person’s ethnically
identifiable name, say renaming a German named Jurgen
“John,” can become a serious misrepresentation. Even more
so if a German named John is renamed by the researcher as
“Jurgen” (p. 346).
We agree with Hurst, power may be seen in many facets
of the traditional pseudonym process (Guenther, 2009;
Lucock & Yeo, 2006). Researchers have the power to strip
a name to a number (Subject: 1), acronym (Subject: AC12),
seemingly disloyal person (Informant 1), or joke (Curly
Locks). Other than large or experimental data sets where
researchers cannot or do not consider research relational,
this type of naming process reflects at best thoughtlessness
on the part of the researcher and at worse an abuse of power.
As CRF researchers, we listen for counter narratives,
hidden stories that are off the beaten track of “White, male”
academia. One such story we have heard repeatedly in our
research and see just a glimpse of in the literature (e.g., Van
der Geest, 2003) is some persons of color and Othered positions (e.g., prisoners, Tilley & Gormley, 2007) desiring to
be named and honored in research as the one from whom a
story emanated. Following a CRF framework urges us
toward acting responsively toward requests for real names
and at least constructing pseudonyms with participants, not
simply assigning fake names, and using human names
rather than numeric identifiers to keep a sense of the human
participant. It may also be appropriate to share with participants when we are uncertain of names participants have
chosen due to our prior experiences with the name, society’s associations with the name (e.g., Homer Simpson,
McKechnie, 2006) or loss of a name’s cultural context. In
these cases, we as researchers should ask, “Why did you
choose this name?” thus allowing the participant’s explanation or possible story to lead us to deeper understanding.
Lindsey: When I was a research assistant no one ever
talked to me about how to select pseudonyms, so I did
the best I could with the knowledge I had at that point
as a young, novice researcher. Reflecting back on a
study of adolescents, I seemed to select names I felt
resonated with what I knew of the young person. For
example, one of the girls in the class reminded me of
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
450
Qualitative Inquiry 21(5)
Anne from the book Anne of Green Gables, so I gave
her the pseudonym of Anne. As I reflect on this, I am
not sure it is the best way, yet these names were not
given with ill intent, nor were they given with lack of
thought. All of the names meant something to me- I
was trying to represent who and what I knew of the
student, and I typically tried to stay with pseudonyms
with similar ethnic origin as their actual names. It is
important to note the emotional attachment names
carry. I had been transcribing and writing about the
youth using their pseudonyms for so long I sometimes
couldn’t remember their actual names when having
conversations with the research group. My advisor
never commented on the pseudonym selections until
we began a deeper analysis and manuscript construction of one particular case study. I was attached to
this boy and I actually selected his name for two reasons: he reminded me of a young boy I once had in my
second grade classroom; this particular young boy I
had also had a brother with the same name as the one
I choose. I didn’t really think twice about this process,
until my advisor told me we were changing his name.
I was mildly offended because I had grown really
attached to the name, which in essence WAS the boy.
When I asked her why, she told me she once had a
student she disliked with that name, so she changed
the pseudonym to another name thus illustrating the
power of even a fake name.
Confidentiality/Anonymity
“IRB approval for my project, which came quickly when I stated that I would protect
identities of community members with pseudonyms,
gave me a sense that I was doing ethical research”
(Ellis, 2007, p. 7).
Relational research can rarely be said to be anonymous. In
the context of human research, anonymity means the source
of the data is unknown even to the researcher (Wiles,
Charles, Crow, & Heath, 2006) as exemplified by some
types of Internet surveys. In relational research, as the
researcher knows the identity of the participants, what is at
stake is the level at which the research is confidential and
what expectations the participant may have for confidentiality or desire for recognition.
In research practice, the terms anonymous and confidential are related, but frequently confused (Grever, 2013).
Given the potential vulnerability of any participant, we take
a firm stance for numerous instances where pseudonyms
are a vital part of increasing confidentiality in human
research. This may be seen in our own writing when studying a person who is undocumented (Lahman, Mendoza,
Rodriguez, & Schwartz, 2011), or in others’ research with
someone who is a “whistle blower” (Elliston, 1982; Jensen,
1987), or a culture where privacy is linked to one’s reputation, such as depicted in Wafa’s narrative of conservative
Muslim females.
Wafa: I was born and raised in the conservative society
of Palestine. As a Muslim woman for people outside
of the family to know anything about a female, even
knowing her name could be considered a great source
of shame for her and her family. Some families in this
culture do not even put their daughters’ names on
their own wedding invitations. This is similar to the
historical practice in Western culture to share first
names only with family and intimate acquaintances.
Names are seen as a source of power and reflect a
close connection. Therefore, although personally in
this stage of my life and career I would not mind to
use my real name as a research participant, as a
researcher, I still feel hesitant to use real names of
research participants.
However, the practice of using pseudonyms is dominant
to the extent of being ubiquitous and rarely examined. In
contrast, in-person, in-depth, relational researchers may
encounter persons who do not wish to have their identity
separated from their story (Bradley, 2007). By carefully following the IRB consent process, a researcher may use given
names to respect the wishes of a participant (Clough &
Conigrave, 2008; Guenther, 2009; Lucock & Yeo, 2006;
Nespor, 2000; Newell, 2010; Zarsky, 2004).
When discussing with a participant whether to use real
names, there are three major considerations among many
possible pros and cons. Research, once published, is a permanent record. With the ease of the Internet and search tools
such as Google Scholar©, it is a matter of mere moments to
find journal references with a person’s name. Although it is
unlikely non-scholars will be overly interested in conducting
this sort of search, it remains possible. Therefore, researchers
and participants need to carefully examine implications of
using real names associated with relational, developmental,
and economical considerations. Relationally, when real
names are used, the persons directly connected to the participant are also known. For example, people with the same family name (partners, parents, siblings), and people the
participant refers to such as their doctor or supervisors are
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
451
Lahman et al.
Table 2. Possible Participant Naming Statements.
Type of qualitative study
Possible statements in article
A large N or sensitive study
A relational or qualitative study
A study where monikers are part of a
subculture of study (Internet, gaming).
Sensitive research
Participants were given randomly generated names to increase their confidentiality.
Participants chose their own pseudonyms.
Participants were given the option to use part of their legal name or a nickname.
Participants were given the option to use their moniker from the subculture they are a
member of, as a reflection of the culture being studied.
Participants chose their own pseudonyms. Pseudonyms were used to increase
confidentiality.
easily identifiable. When writing in this manner Maria has
chosen to leave out all gender references to people she
describes in not so positive a light (e.g., Lahman, 2009). This
has also been termed third-party issues by Hadjistavropoulos
and Smythe (2001) who stated, “The main ethical problem
stems from the fact that these individuals did not give consent
to have stories about them circulated in this way” (p. 169).
Developmentally, as time passes, will the participants still
wish they had used their name? For example, at the start of
the AIDS epidemic, no one thought people could live with
HIV. Do the participants have the capacity to understand how
using their name affects them in the future, such as in the case
of children and youth? This then begs the question, should
another person be allowed to consent for use of a given name
(e.g., a parent or custodian)? Economically, could there be
unanticipated impact on current or future work? Perhaps a
participant runs for political office or takes a public position
in the future. Reporters certainly have the wherewithal and
will to search for references to a person’s name on the
Internet. Future employers also search a prospective employee’s name. This may even simply create social awkwardness
such as in the case of Maria’s autoethnography of ectopic
pregnancy (Lahman, 2009) where non-academics, have referenced the work to her in startling contexts.
When using real names, clearly documenting and conducting discussions with the participant across the context
of the research is vital. Here we recommend process consent (Ellis, 2007) also termed iterative consent (McKenzie
et al. in Grever, 2013), process responsiveness (Lahman,
Geist, et al., 2011), and the call for plain language (Jefford
& Moore, 2008) in research consent. Process or iterative
consent means the researcher is committed to ongoing consent not simply a one-time signature at the outset of a
research relationship. The researcher would check in with
participants at different points to see if they still wish to use
their real name. This type of consent is dynamic and the
researcher needs to be willing to be disappointed when participants change their minds about data or naming. Process
responsiveness (Lahman, Geist, et al., 2011) is an allencompassing stance whereby one is committed to a reflexive methodology that calls for the researcher to check in
with the participants and fellow researchers regarding
everyone’s comfort with all aspects of the study.
In the area of consent and simple or plain language
(Jefford & Moore, 2008), the informed consent documents
have been found to be written at a higher reading level
than typical for the intended population (Ogloff & Otto,
1991). Federal government, IRB regulation 45 CFR 46
(2009) states, “The information that is given to the subject
or the representative shall be in language understandable
to the subject or the representative.” Proposed changes to
The Common Rule suggest simplifying the consent form
to reduce lawyer type wording and statements (Pool,
2013). To ensure simple or plain language is understandable, the research process is fair and accessible, asking
persons from the sample population of interest to review
the consent form(s) prior to using it would be helpful. In
an instance where pseudonyms will be waived and real
names used, it is vital participants fully understand
consent.
We close with a call for a brief statement to be included
in articles regarding the naming process (see Table 2). In a
longer reflective article, a page or so may be warranted. We
also call for an increase of methodological articles in this
area (e.g., Boschma et al., 2003; Guenther, 2009; Nespor,
2000; van den Hoonaard, 2003; Zarsky, 2004). Researchers
who take seriously Moch and Gates (2000) call to share
clear details of researcher experiences, or what deMarrais
(1998) has termed inside stories or mucking around in the
field, leave substantial mile markers and not mere will-ofthe-wisps for fellow researchers to follow.
In qualitative, relationally oriented research and research
in general, it is arguable research ethics are paramount
(Lahman, Geist, et al., 2011; Morrow, 2008; van den
Hoonaard, 2003). Indeed the “best” research may be
deemed useless if it is unethical. Transparency in research
may enhance researchers’ ability to conduct ethical research.
Therefore, we continue to call for traditional research procedures such as the use of pseudonyms, to be examined and
reflected on to maximize researchers’ ability to conduct
ethical, relational research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
452
Qualitative Inquiry 21(5)
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. All names are pseudonyms. Names that represent given
names were carefully chosen to represent the possible ethnic
expression of the child’s given name.
References
Behar, R. (1993). Translated woman: Crossing the border with
Espernaza’s story. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Berry, T. R. (2010). Engaged pedagogy and Critical Race
Feminism. Educational Foundations, 24(3-4), 19-26.
Boschma, G., Yonge, O., & Mychajlunow, L. (2003). Consent in
oral history interviews: Unique challenges. Qualitative Health
Research, 13, 129-135. doi:10.1177/1049732302239415
Bradley, M. (2007). Silenced for their own protection: How
the IRB marginalizes those it feigns to protect. ACME: An
International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6, 339-349.
Ciuraru, C. (2011). Nom de plume: A (secret) history of pseudonyms. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Clough, A., & Conigrave, K. (2008). Managing confidentiality in
illicit drugs research: Ethical and legal lessons from studies in
remote Aboriginal communities. Internal Medicine Journal,
38, 60-63. doi:10.1016/-9536(96)00055-X
deMarrais, K. B. (1998). Inside stories: Qualitative research
reflections. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Denzin, N. K. (2014). Reading the challenges of a global community and the sociological imagination. Qualitative Inquiry, 20,
1122-1127. doi:10.1177/1077800414542034
Ellis, C. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives relational ethics in
research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 3-29.
doi:10.1 l77/1077!00406294947
Elliston, F. A. (1982). Anonymity and whistleblowing. Journal of
Business Ethics, 1, 167-177. doi:10.1007/BF00382768
Farell, M. (n.d.). SPJ [Society for Professional Journalist]
Ethics Committee Position Papers: Anonymous Sources.
Retrieved from https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp
Few, A. L. (2007). Integrating black consciousness and Critical
Race Feminism into family studies research. Journal of
Family Issues, 28, 452-473. doi:10.1177/0192513X06297330
Fitzgerald, J., & Hamilton, M. (1996). The consequences
of knowing: Ethical and legal liabilities in illicit drug
research. Social Science & Medicine, 43, 1591-1600.
doi:10.1016/-9536(96)00055-X
Giordano, J., O’Reilly, M., Taylor, H., & Dogra, N. (2007).
Confidentiality and autonomy: The challenge(s) of offering research participants a choice of disclosing their identity. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 264-275. doi:10.1177/
1049732306297884
Gluck, S. B., & Patai, D. (Eds.). (1991). Women’s words: The
feminist practice of oral history. New York, NY: Routledge.
Grever, M. (2013). Exceptions for blanket anonymity for the
publication of interviews with refugees: African refugees in Israel as a case study. Research Ethics, 9, 121-139.
doi:10.1177/1747016113481176
Grinyer, A. (2002). The anonymity of research participants:
Assumptions, ethics and practicalities. Social Research
Update, 36, 1-4. Retrieved from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/
SRU36.pdf
Guenther, K. M. (2009). The politics of names: Rethinking the
methodological and ethical significance of naming people,
organizations, and places. Qualitative Research, 9, 411-421.
doi:10.1177/1468794109337872
Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Smythe, W. E. (2001). Elements of
risk in qualitative research. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 163-174.
doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1102_4
Heisler, J., & Crabill, S. (2006). Who are “stinkybug” and “packerfan4”? Email pseudonyms and participants’ perceptions
of demography, productivity, and personality. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 114-135.
Hua, A. (2003, May). Critical race feminism. Paper session presented at the Canadian Critical Race: Pedagogy and Practice,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada:
Retrieved from http://edocs.lib.sfu.ca/ccrc/html/CCRC_PDF/
CriticalRaceFeminism(AnhHua).pdf
Hurst, A. L. (2008). A healing echo: Methodological reflections
of a working class researcher on class. Qualitative Report, 13,
334-352.
Jefford, M., & Moore, R. (2008). Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents. Lancet Oncology,
9, 485-493.
Jensen, J. V. (1987). Ethical tension points in whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 6, 321-328. doi:10.1007/
BF00382941
Kavanagh, E. (2012). Affirmation through disability: One athlete’s personal journey to the London Paralympic games.
Perspectives in Public Health, 132, 68-74. doi:10.1177/
1757913911435757
Kelly, M. (1993, February 14). Again: It’s Hillary Rodham
Clinton. Got that? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/1993/02/14/us/again-it-s-hillary-rodhamclinton-got-that.html
Kramer, M. (1999). A rose by any other name will probably sell
more music; pseudonymania. Edmonton Journal. Retrieved
from http://0-search.proquest.com.source.unco.edu/docview/
252618703?accountid=12832
Lahman, M. K. E. (2009). Dreams of my daughter: An ectopic pregnancy. Qualitative Health Research, 9, 272-278.
doi:10.1177/1049732308329484
Lahman, M. K. E., Geist, M. R., Rodriguez, K. L., Graglia, P.,
& DeRoche, K. K. (2011). Culturally responsive relational
reflexive ethics in research: The three rs. Quality & Quantity,
45, 1397-1414. doi:10.1007/s11135-010-9347-3
Lahman, M. K. E., Mendoza, B. M., Rodriguez, K. L., & Schwartz,
J. L. (2011). Undocumented research participants: Ethics and
protection in a time of fear. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 33, 304-322. doi:10.1177/0739986311414162
Lather, P. (2007). Getting lost: Feminist efforts toward a double(d)
science. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lather, P., & Smithies, C. (1997). Troubling the angels: Women
living with HIV/AIDS. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lewis, H. (1998). Global intersections: Critical Race Feminist
human rights and Inter/National Black women. Maine Law
Review, 50, 309-326.
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
453
Lahman et al.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2004). Dangerous discourse:
Methodological conservatism and governmental regimes of
truth. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 5-14.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2009). Ethics and the broader
rethinking/reconceptualization of research as construct.
Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 9, 273-285.
Lucock, C., & Yeo, M. (2006). Naming names: The pseudonym in the name of the law. University of Ottawa Law and
Technology Journal, 3(1), 53-108.
McKechnie, L. (2006). “Spiderman is not for babies” (Peter, 4
years): The “boys and reading problem” from the perspectives
of the boys themselves. The Canadian Journal of Information
and Library Science, 30(1/2), 57-67.
McLeod, M., & Francis, K. (2007). A safety net: Use of pseudonyms in oral nursing history. Contemporary Nurse: A
Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 25(1-2),
104-113.
Moch, S. D., & Gates, M. F. (2000). The researcher experience in
qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Morrow, V. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in research with children
and young people about their social environments. Children’s
Geographies, 6, 49-61. doi:10.1080/14733280701791918
Nespor, J. (2000). Anonymity and place in qualitative inquiry.
Qualitative Inquiry, 6, 546-569.
Newell, S. (2010). Something to hide? Anonymity and pseudonyms
in the Colonial West African Press. Journal of Commonwealth
Literature, 45, 9-22. doi:10.1177/0021989409359547
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Otto, R. K. (1991). Are research participants
truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used
in research. Ethics & Behavior, 1, 239-252. doi:10.1207/
s15327019eb0104_2
Pool, R. (2013). Proposed revisions to the common rule:
Perspectives of social and behavioral scientists—Workshop
summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. (2014).
Retrieved http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Tilley, S., & Gormley, L. (2007). Canadian university ethics review: Cultural complications translating principles into practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 368-387.
doi:10.1177/1077800406297654
van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2003). Is anonymity an artifact in ethnographic research? Journal of Academic Ethics, 1, 141-151.
doi:10.1023/B:JAET.0000006919.58804.4c
Van der Geest, S. (2003). Confidentiality and pseudonyms: A
fieldwork dilemma from Ghana. Anthropology Today, 19(1),
14-18.
Wiles, R., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Heath, S. (2006). Researching
researchers: Lessons for research ethics. Qualitative Research,
6, 283-299. doi:10.1177/1468794106065004
Wing, A. K. (1996). Critical race feminism and the international
human rights of women in Bosnia, Palestine, and South
Africa: Issues for LatCrit theory. The University of Miami
Inter-American Law Review, 28, 337-360.
Wing, A. K. (2003). Critical Race Feminism: A reader (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: University Press.
Zarsky, T. Z. (2004). Thinking outside the box: Considering transparency, anonymity, and pseudonymity as overall solutions to
the problems of information privacy in the Internet society.
University of Miami Law Review, 58, 1302-1354.
Author Biographies
Maria K. E. Lahman, PhD, is a professor in the Department of
Applied Statistic and Research Methods at the University of
Northern Colorado, where she teaches qualitative research. Her
specialty area is the advancement of ethical qualitative research
with an emphasis on diversity and young children.
Katrina L. Rodriguez, PhD, is assistant vice president and dean
of students at the University of Northern Colorado. Her research
interests include transformative research methodologies, intersectionality and multiple identity development, and Latina/o leadership development.
Lindsey Moses, EdD, is an assistant professor in the Mary Lou
Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University, where she
teaches courses in literacy education. Her specialty area is early
literacy learning among young culturally and linguistically diverse
learners.
Krista M. Griffin, EdD, is an assistant professor of reading at
Metropolitan State University of Denver, where she teaches literacy courses for pre-service teachers. Her research interests include
motivation and engagement in reading and researching children.
Bernadette M. Mendoza is a doctoral student in an interdisciplinary degree with an emphasis in applied statistics and research
methods and mathematics education at the University of Northern
Colorado.
Wafa Yacoub, EdD, is a lecturer in the department of mathematics at the University of Colorado–Boulder where she teaches
undergraduate mathematics courses. Her specialty area is minority
women and mathematics, Ethnomathematics, and Mathematics
Anxiety research.
Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016