Erasure: A Challenge to Feminist and Queer Research

  • Jacqueline MarxEmail author
  • Catriona Ida Macleod


Anonymity and confidentiality feature prominently in research ethics guidelines. In this chapter we draw on examples from a research ethics application for a project involving women who had extricated themselves from relationships in which they had experienced intimate partner violence, and an ethnographic study of cross-dressing and drag, to illustrate the multiple ways in which identity masking can be put to work, both promoting and undermining what it means to do ethical research. We argue that the requirement for anonymity and confidentiality cannot be assessed without taking into account historicity and the sociopolitical contexts in which a study and its participants are located. The chapter concludes by giving consideration to the potential of a situated ethics approach and the implications for ethics review processes.


Queer Research Approach Ethical Situations Masked Identity Intimate Partner violenceViolence anonymityAnonymity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackard, D. M., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Long-term impact of adolescent dating violence on the behavioral and psychological health of male and female youth. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151(5), 476–481. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, D. (2002). Research involving vulnerable young people: A discussion of ethical and methodological concerns. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 9(3), 275–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkhout, S. G. (2013). Private talk: Testimony, evidence, and the practice of anonymization in research. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 6(1), 19–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., Rivara, F. P., & Thompson, R. S. (2007). Health outcomes in women with physical and sexual intimate partner violence exposure. Journal of Women’s Health, 16(7), 987–997. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boonzaier, F. (2008). ‘If the man says you must sit, then you must sit’, the relational construction of women abuse: Gender, subjectivity and violence. Feminism & Psychology, 18(2), 183–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruzzese, J.-M., & Fisher, C. (2003). Assessing and enhancing the research consent capacity of children and youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7(1), 13–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Carpenter, W. T., Gold, J. M., Lahti, A. C., Queern, C. A., Conley, R. R., Bartko, J. J., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2000). Decisional capacity for informed consent in schizophrenia research. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(6), 533–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casarett, D. (2005). Ethical considerations in end-of-life care and research. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 8(1), 148–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clifford, J. (1983). On ethnographic authority. Representations, 2(1), 118–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. (2016). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva: CIOMS.Google Scholar
  13. de Gruchy, J., & Lewin, S. (2001). Ethics that exclude: The role of ethics committees in lesbian and gay health research in South Africa. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 865–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Vries, R. G., & Forsberg, C. (2002). What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive? Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 9(3–4), 199–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Health. (2015). Ethics in health research: Principles, processes and structure (2nd ed.). Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Health.Google Scholar
  16. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  17. Dube, L., Mhlongo, M. A., & Ngulube, P. (2014). The ethics of anonymity and confidentiality: Reading from the University of South Africa policy on research ethics. Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems, 3(2), 201–214.Google Scholar
  18. Eckstein, S. (Ed.). (2003). Manual for research ethics committees (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Edwards, S., Kirchin, S., & Huxtable, R. (2004). Research ethics committees and paternalism. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 88–91. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701–2711. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., Killen, J., & Grady, C. (2004). What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 189(5), 930–937. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, M. (2004). Ethics, anonymity, and authorship on community centred research or anonymity and the Island Cache. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 2(1), 59–75.Google Scholar
  23. Figueroa, P. (2000). Researching education and racialization. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 82–100). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (R. Hurley, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  25. Furedi, F. (2002, January 11). Don’t rock the research boat. Retrieved May 16, 2015, from
  26. Gallant, D., & Bliss, A. (2006). Qualitative social science research. In R. J. Amdur & E. A. Bankert (Eds.), Institutional review board: Management and function (2nd ed., pp. 397–401). Boston: Jones & Bartlett.Google Scholar
  27. Haggerty, K. (2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hellström, I., Nolan, M., Nordenfelt, L., & Lundh, U. (2007). Ethical and methodological issues in interviewing persons with dementia. Nursing Ethics, 14(5), 608–619. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Iacono, T. (2006). Ethical challenges and complexities of including people with intellectual disability as participants in research. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 31(3), 173–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists: Between ethical conduct and regulatory compliance. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jewkes, R., Penn-Kekana, L., & Rose-Junius, H. (2005). ‘If they rape me, I can’t blame them’: Reflections on gender in the social context of child rape in South Africa and Namibia. Social Science & Medicine, 61(8), 1809–1820. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kendall-Tackett, K., & Campbell, J. (2005). Intimate partner violence: Implications for women’s physical and mental health. In K. Kendall-Tackett (Ed.), Handbook of women, stress, and trauma (pp. 123–140). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Larkin, M. (2009). Vulnerable groups in health and social care. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Le Roux, C. (2015). Oral history research ethics: Should anonymity and confidentially issues be dealt with on their own merit? Africa Education Review, 12(4), 552–566. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Louw, B., & Delport, R. (2006). Contextual challenges in South Africa: The role of a research ethics committee. Journal of Academic Ethics, 4(1–4), 39–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malone, R. E., Yerger, V. B., McGruder, C., & Froelicher, E. (2006). ‘It’s like Tuskegee in reverse’: A case study of ethical tensions in institutional review board review of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 1914–1919. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin-Hill, D. (2008). The Lubicon Lake nation: Indigenous knowledge and power. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marx, J. (2011). (In)visibility and the exercise of power: A genealogy of the politics of drag spectacles in a small city in South Africa. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.Google Scholar
  40. Moffett, H. (2006). ‘These women, they force us to rape them’: Rape as narrative of social control in post-apartheid South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 32(1), 129–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mohanty, C. T. (1995). Feminist encounters: Locating the politics of experience. In L. Nicholson & S. Seidman (Eds.), Social postmodernism: Beyond identity politics (pp. 68–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moodley, K., & Myer, L. (2007). Health research ethics committees in South Africa 12 years into democracy. BMC Medical Ethics, 8(1), 1. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Nel, J. A., & Judge, M. (2008). Exploring homophobic victimisation in Gauteng, South Africa: Issues, impacts and responses. Acta Criminologica: Southern African Journal of Criminology, 21(3), 19–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nelson, J. L. (2000). Moral teachings from unexpected quarters: Lessons for bioethics from the social sciences and managed care. The Hastings Center Report, 30(1), 12–17. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Oakes, J. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443–479. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Piper, H., & Simons, H. (2005). Ethical responsibility in social research. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 56–64). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Republic of South Africa. (1969). Prohibition of Disguises Act, No. 16 of 1969. Pretoria: Government Printers.Google Scholar
  48. Rich, A. (2003). Notes toward a politics of location. In R. Lewis & S. Mills (Eds.), Feminist postcolonial theory: A reader (pp. 29–42). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Sikweyiya, Y., & Jewkes, R. (2011). Perceptions about safety and risks in gender-based violence research: Implications for the ethics review process. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 13(9), 1091–1102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simons, H., & Usher, R. (2000). Introduction: Ethics in the practice of research. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in educational research (pp. 1–11). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Svalastog, A. L., & Eriksson, S. (2010). You can use my name; you don’t have to steal my story’: A critique of anonymity in indigenous studies. Developing World Bioethics, 10(2), 104–110. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. The Nuremberg Code. (1949). Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law, 10(2), 181–182.Google Scholar
  54. Tilley, S., & Gormley, L. (2007). Canadian university ethics review: Cultural complications translating principles into practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(3), 368–387. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van den Hoonaard, W. C. (2003). Is anonymity an artefact in ethnographic research? Journal of Academic Ethics, 1(2), 141–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. World Health Organization. (2001). Putting women first: Ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  57. World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Helsinki: World Medical Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Critical Studies in Sexualities and Reproduction, Department of PsychologyRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations