Consent, Individuals, and Groups in Psychology Projects

[The following text is an example or "case", which can serve as a starting point for reflection and discussion. Some examples may be based on real events, while others are fictional representations.] 

Marty Heidegger is working on his master's degree in psychology. His project focuses on the self-image of representatives of an ethnic minority, with particular attention to generational differences in how individuals perceive their minority identity. Heidegger’s data is based on semi-structured interviews, combined with quantitative data on broader distributions within the minority group. He believes there is a pattern in the data that shows significant differences between subgroups. These differences pertain to the perceived significance of identity and, notably, whether it is viewed as a strength or as problematic. According to the data, a local hierarchy has emerged, which is perceived as oppressive and challenging for the two informants who report these feelings. Heidegger believes that contrasting this environment with two others, each defined by different social attributes, will provide a clearer understanding of the issue. His supervisor agrees with this assessment.

Of the two individuals who contributed these insights, one initially expressed that the information was confidential and did not want it included in further research. The other informant was fully supportive of using the information and hoped that publication could help improve the situation in the environment. However, when Heidegger discussed the matter with each of them, the initially skeptical informant also agreed to consent to the use of the information.

1. Is it permissible for a researcher to agree to listen to information provided on the condition that it is not covered by consent? If not, what measures can help avoid such situations? What ethical difference does it make in this case if the informant has been eager from the outset for certain facts to be made known through the research, or if the informant, on the contrary, has expressed discomfort about this?
2. Is it responsible for a researcher to publish potentially group-stigmatizing interpretations as long as he/she has ensured voluntary informed consent from the individuals used as informants? What responsibility, if any, does one have towards the limited group they represent, and/or for individuals who were not informants but belong to the group?
3. To what extent, if any, do researchers have a responsibility to help ensure that potentially stigmatizing research is reported objectively and without distortion in the media? If so, how can such (partial) responsibility be concretized?
4. If so, is such responsibility—towards individuals, groups, and society—primarily the responsibility of the MA student or the supervisor?

Note: This is a translation of the Norwegian original text by Johanne Svanes Oskarsen.