Informed consent is a crucial instrument in research data management, legitimizing data processing, the use of research data for publications, as well as their archiving and sharing. In the ethnological context of ethnographic research, informed consent – understood as a “formal, inflexible, pre-obtained, and documented written declaration for both research and data archiving” (Imeri, 2018, p. 75) – is often met with skepticism.

This skepticism arises because informed consent is subject to both ethical and formal regulatory processes within empirical research. In the Anglo-American context, obtaining informed consent is institutionally and mandatorily reviewed and assessed by ethics committees and is considered a fundamental principle of research ethics. In cultural and social anthropology in the German-speaking world, ethics reviews are not yet mandatory; however, considerations regarding the effectiveness of informed consent have gained importance since the introduction of the GDPR in May 2018.

Nevertheless, ethnographic research presents profound challenges and issues concerning the highly formalized requirement of obtaining informed consent (see Practical Example Röttger-Rössler). One major concern is that the necessity of obtaining informed consent before conducting research could negatively affect the openness of the research projectAn attitude of methodological openness is essential in ethnographic research to adapt to the dynamics of social processes and respond to unforeseen events in the field. A fixed, unchangeable set of research methods does not meet these requirements. Furthermore, ethnographic research is also characterized by openness toward research materials after data collection; this approach encourages the continuous establishment of new theoretical perspectives on the material in order to allow for constructive and multi-layered interpretations. Read More and process. In most cases, it is impossible to provide comprehensive information in advance about the specific research project, including its exact course, research questions, objectives, and anticipated results. As a result, informed consent in ethnographic research remains inherently incomplete – „in process“ and „unfinished“ (Benner & Löhe, 2019, p. 352).

Additionally, due to the openness of the ethnographic field, unplanned and spontaneous encounters and interactions frequently occur, making it impossible to obtain informed consent before engaging with research participants. The boundaries of actual research participation are, therefore, highly fluid. Consequently, consent is often understood and practiced as a „continuous task and a dynamic-reflective negotiation process”¹Translated by Saskia Köbschall. (Imeri, 2018, p. 74). This raises questions about which form of consent – written or oral – is suitable for participation in research as well as for the potential archiving of research data. The question remains whether alternative or more flexible consent regulations and formats are necessary to meet data protection requirements while minimizing negative impacts on ethnographic research processes.

Informed consent is particularly criticized for potentially granting the researcher exclusive rights and control over research data through a signed document, even though knowledge in ethnographic research is shared, jointly generated, and thus considered co-produced. Therefore, data ownership and control should not reside solely with researchers or research institutions. On the other hand, informed consent can also serve as a tool to grant research participants some degree of control over their data by allowing them to participate in decisions regarding the reuse of their personal data. However, this is only feasible in contexts where local actors understand and are interested in the digital storage and reuse of data.

Moreover, the formal and official process of obtaining consent poses significant challenges for ethnographic researchers, particularly in the simultaneous process of trust-building. It is crucial to recognize that ethnographic research generally involves the establishment of reciprocal, intensive, and often long-term relationships based on trust. Obtaining formal informed consent can disrupt interaction processes in the field and permanently damage relationships with research participants – especially when the research topic is heavily stigmatized in the local context (see Practical Example Dilger). When dealing with sensitive or highly taboo subjects such as illness, debt, or violence, a strong foundation of trust is essential. The format of consent – ideally written and signed – may, in some cases, create additional distrust among certain groups who are already exposed to repression, making access to the field more difficult or even impossible. However, in contexts where formalized practices such as signing documents are common, obtaining written informed consent can positively influence research relationships (see Practical Example Inhorn).

Researchers are personally responsible for handling data and research materials ethically throughout the project and beyond. This responsibility raises ethical concerns that extend beyond simply avoiding tangible harm and disadvantages for participants as outlined by the GDPR. The relationship and interaction between researchers and research participants – along with associated vulnerabilities or power asymmetries – must not be overlooked in discussions of research ethics, risk assessment, and harm prevention. Research involving vulnerable or marginalized groups (e.g., individuals in situations of illegality, violence, or criminality) must carefully consider the potential risks that obtaining written consent may pose for both participants and researchers.

Thus, ethical considerations do not end with obtaining informed consent; they should be integrated into every phase and decision-making process until the research report is finalized. In this regard, it is essential to critically assess whether informed consent genuinely serves to uphold ethical research principles:

“It is the quality of the consent, not the format, that is relevant”.

(Huber & Imeri, 2021, p. 14)

In summary, informed consent is generally a legal necessity and an ethical obligation in empirical research projects. However, as the preceding discussion illustrates, the requirement to obtain informed consent as mandated by the GDPR presents a series of methodological and ethical challenges – particularly within ethnographic research practice. There are no simple or universally applicable solutions that can be directly adopted from textbooks and standardized. Each research project must individually determine whether, when, and in what form effective informed consent can be obtained. This includes balancing the need to protect participants’ rights with the goal of enabling future data archiving and reuse.

From a research data management perspective, it is advisable to document all activities and decisions related to informed consent in the data management planA data management plan (DMP) describes and documents the handling of research data and materials during and after the project period. The DMP specifies how data and materials are generated, processed, stored, organized, published, archived, and, if applicable, shared. Additionally, it outlines responsibilities and rights. As a 'living document' (a dynamic document that is continuously revised and updated), the DMP is regularly reviewed and adjusted as needed throughout the course of the project. Read More (DMP). If obtaining informed consent is impossible or does not meet legal requirements, it is recommended to document the reasons for this in the DMP.

Evidence in Data Affairs

Informed Consent