Ethical responsibilities to narrators of interviews

Very clear that we do have ethical responsibilities to interview narrators exist and many of the basic contours of such responsibilities are clear. Questions and internal debates arise in daily practice.

Witnessing versus Instrumentality: the tension that underlies every detail of our every action

- I-Thou and/versus I-It
- Process and/versus product
- Respecting the narrator's needs and/versus producing the documentation
Code of conduct covers the obvious, minimum requirements
- First, do no harm
- Advocacy versus the Prime Directive?

We strive for the latter, in a specific sense, although in larger terms we do work for change. But is that the correct ethical choice? The Prime Directive is a corrective to our hubris. But is it also a rationalization for laziness, willful paralysis?

- Identification and location of potential interview narrators; approach and communications

- Intrusiveness? Invasion of privacy?

- Encouragement/pressure to grant interview, decide, donate, consent to web publication?

- Control circumstances of interview; control within the interview

- Can a narrator change her mind after donation or consent to web publication?

- Nature of the relationship between interviewer and narrator

* Not therapist- patient
* Not lawyer or advocate-client
* Not friend
* Not permanent, but negotiation over a period of time that begins with the first interactions and continues through donation (if any) and question of consent for web publication (Will donation be the end? Later negotiations? We don't have the experience to know)