Reading focus
Syllabus: How Can Psychological Science Become More Reliable?
Examine the ethical premises of sharing recommendations, including decisions about previously collected material.
Why you’re reading it. Make participant obligations part of research quality rather than an afterthought.
A question to consider. For sensitive interviews, what combination of documentation, permission and access conditions could support justified scrutiny?
Why this reading
Making research inspectable involves obligations to participants as well as other researchers. Meyer examines how consent, identification risks and access arrangements shape responsible sharing.
Before you read
Removing names does not necessarily prevent identification. Identifiability, sensitivity and the consequences of disclosure are different considerations. Access can be controlled rather than public.
Read for
- Compare prospective consent planning with decisions about previously collected data.
- Examine the assumptions behind the author’s recommendations for broad sharing.
- Consider why publicly accessible information can still raise ethical questions.
Consider afterwards
- Interview transcripts contain distinctive life events. How could researchers enable scrutiny while respecting participants’ expectations and legitimate restrictions?
Editorial context
This is a normative and practical argument situated in U.S. research regulation in 2018, not current legal guidance. Its recommendations invite scrutiny rather than automatic adoption. The optional CARE paper extends the discussion to collective benefit, authority and Indigenous data governance.