Benner and Löhe chose a written consent form. However, signing an official written informed consent (which contained information about the research project, a statement on anonymity and data protection, and consent for recording interviews) caused irritation, mistrust, and insecurity among the participants. According to Benner and Löhe, it also hindered a “productive conversation atmosphere”, as well as the intended formation of emotional closeness and trust-building. Additionally, some individuals were unable to sign the consent form due to illness (e.g., blindness or quadriplegia), even though they were cognitively capable of making decisions.

Due to these experiences, the researchers explored the possibility of obtaining oral informed consent. Since the interviews were already being recorded on tape, it made sense to record the informed consent within the interview, thus ensuring compliance with the documentation requirement of GDPR Article 7(1). When obtaining oral consent, there is the advantage that information sharing can more easily develop into a dialogue, allowing for flexible responses to (non-verbal) signals and questions from participants. This enables a deeper connection and better understanding between researchers and participants, which Benner and Löhe summarize as follows:

„A verbal, dialogue-oriented form of informed consent can therefore offer advantages over written consent in fulfilling its core purpose, as it ensures more comprehensive and understandable information dissemination“ (Benner & Löhe, 2019, p. 325), thus making „the consent process significantly more nuanced and considerate“ (ibid. p. 354).

Consent is only valid if it is given voluntarily. Through audio recording, voluntary participation can sometimes be better verified than through a written signature, as the recorded voice confirms that consent was given by the same person who is audible in the interview. Since the interview is usually transcribed anyway, the consent is also available in written form and can later be signed if necessary.

The researchers recommend that, when obtaining oral consent, the reasons and circumstances for choosing this method should be documented in writing. Additionally, the oral consent must, like written consent, include comprehensive and understandable information about the research project and data processing. To comply with data protection regulations, the recorded consent statement must be immediately separated from the rest of the interview recording.

Benner and Löhe’s example illustrates that obtaining written informed consent may negatively impact the establishment of a trusting conversation atmosphere and cannot be applied in cases of physical impairment. It is therefore always necessary to carefully consider in advance which form of informed consent – written or oral – is most appropriate for the specific research context.