Consent, Payment and a Healer's Veto
A Class XII student wins a small grant to study ritual healing among a tribal community in Idukki for four weeks. A local healer agrees to be interviewed but asks for ₹3,000, copies of all recordings, and the right to remove any passage he dislikes before submission. The community's youth club says a previous researcher posted photographs online without permission, so several households refuse photographs. The student's translator is the healer's nephew. The college ethics form requires informed consent and anonymity but has no procedure for reviewing findings with participants. The festival season begins in week three and the healer will be busy. The student has 25 interviews planned and a four-day report deadline after returning.
1. Identify the main ethical and methodological problems and rank them. Explain your ranking.
Read the worked answer
Rank: first, informed consent and the healer's condition of pre-publication review; second, photography and the earlier breach of trust; third, the translator's conflict of interest; fourth, payment and reciprocity; fifth, timing and the festival. Consent ranks first because without it there are no ethical data, and the healer's demand for veto power is a condition that must be negotiated before interviews, not after. The previous researcher's online photographs explain the refusal and make consent more than a formality. The translator, as the healer's nephew, may filter or soften answers and may expose who spoke. Payment is not automatically wrong, but it can create dependency and differential access. Festival timing threatens the 25-interview plan. The ranking follows the risk of harm and the irreversibility of disclosure.
2. Draft a consent and reciprocity plan that responds to the healer's three demands without abandoning scholarly independence.
Read the worked answer
Consent plan: explain in Malayalam the purpose, the four-week limit, who will read the draft, and the right to withdraw. For the healer's three demands: pay a modest honorarium as compensation for time, not as purchase of testimony; give him a copy of recordings and a transcript summary; offer a written process for correcting factual errors or requesting removal of passages that identify him or reveal restricted ritual knowledge. Do not grant an unrestricted veto over analysis. If he insists, narrow the study to what can be published with consent. Anonymise other households unless they choose to be named; take no photographs without separate written consent. This is reciprocity with boundaries, not secrecy.
3. How should the student handle the translator's relationship to the healer?
Read the worked answer
The translator is the healer's nephew, so he is not a neutral channel. Disclose this in the methods and ask the healer and households whether they are comfortable. Use a second translator for at least a few interviews to check consistency. Do not let the translator conduct consent; the student must explain it directly. Avoid discussing critical comments in front of him. Record who translated which interview. If a household asks him not to repeat something, that request must be honoured. The relationship can be an entry point, but it must be treated as a bias to be documented, not ignored.