When writing the report about the interviews we will refer to participants using:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Anonymity and confidentiality require referring to interviewees in a neutral, non-identifying way such as "Participant 1, Participant 2, etc." This protects identities, follows ethical research practice, and keeps quotes and data traceable without revealing personal details.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Research ethics: protect participant identity and maintain confidentiality.
- Anonymisation vs pseudonymisation: anonymisation removes identifying details; pseudonyms (neutral labels) allow consistent reference without revealing identity.
- Data protection principles (e.g., consent, minimising identifiable data) favor non-identifying labels in reports.

2. Step-by-step reasoning process
- Step 1: Determine need to refer to participants in the report while preserving privacy.
- Step 2: Evaluate label options for identifiability and consistency.
- Step 3: Select the option that is non-identifying, reproducible, and clear for readers and auditors.

3. Intermediate steps and considerations
- Option a (first name only): might still identify someone in a small community or when combined with context.
- Option b (first and second name): directly reveals identity — unacceptable.
- Option c (made-up proper name): can mistakenly suggest a real identity and is less transparent about anonymisation; also can be confusing across transcripts.
- Option d (Participant 1, Participant 2): assigns neutral, consistent identifiers; easy to link to demographic codes in a secure key if needed.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
Using numbered participant labels is standard practice in qualitative reporting because it balances traceability (you can link quotes to a code) with strict protection of personal identity. It avoids accidental disclosure and communicates transparently to readers that identities are anonymised.

5. Why other options are incorrect (brief)
- a: First names alone can be identifying in context.
- b: Full names disclose identity — unethical without explicit consent.
- c: Invented names may mislead readers and still risk identification or misattribution.

6. Conclusion
Therefore, the correct choice is d. Participant 1, Participant 2, etc., which matches the provided answer.

When writing the report about the interviews we will refer to participants using:单项选择题

类似问题

On the consent form, we will collect:

Which of the following is not of ethical concern regarding survey research on the Internet?

What is plugging?

In the context of an IT research study, when recruiting human participants for a study, you must ALWAYS do the following:

A researcher in the Faculty of Education is investigating tutors’ experiences. She discovers some have been underpaid by the University of Melbourne. She publishes her research and uses the media to advocate for change. Is the researcher’s action appropriate at the University of Melbourne?

One way that anthropologists make an effort to protect informants’ anonymity is by:

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单