Recherche en psychologie et réflexion éthique sur la demande de consentement

Abstract

ContextAny research activity requires a request for consent from the participating subjects, when personal data are studied. Some texts question consent and its methods of application in clinical psychology, and highlight the potentially harmful effects of such a request depending on the therapeutic relationship and its transference/countertransference issues. In the context of a research with migrants, undocumented, extremely vulnerable individuals, the specific issues and methods of requesting consent do not yet seem to have been investigated. ObjectivesThis text attempts to define the ethical dilemmas raised by a request for consent with migrant, vulnerable and precarious subjects. It aims to bring out clinical and theoretical elements which would make it possible to think of an ethical position for the psychologist, capable of satisfying both the requirements of the researcher and those of the clinician, requirements which are sometimes contradictory and in conflict. MethodThe proposed ethical reflection is based on a theoretical corpus from the field of psychoanalysis as well as the field of philosophy, in an attempt to address the complexity of the ethical issue raised. This ethical reflection explores the fundamental concepts of good, evil, and desire, proposed by Spinoza and taken up by J. Lacan and H. Arendt. This text considers E. Levinas’ writings about the face, incarnation of otherness, to propose an answer in terms of ethics of responsibility. ResultsAny ethical discussion involves a choice. The choice made regarding the inclusion or non-inclusion of a research participant, as well as the choice made of the form and timing of the request for consent, are considered, case by case, depending on transference/countertransference considerations (dependence, domination/submission, fear, testimony, responsibility). It is also necessary to take into account the socio-political aspects linked to the particular clinic of migrants in very precarious situations. ConclusionTo break the silence surrounding the human problems resulting from the exile, the exclusion and the precariousness, the request for consent is considered in its social context and at the heart of the practice of the psychologist who speaks up for places for dissenting freedoms but does not forget to ensure care, listening, and discretion. An ethical positioning of the clinician-researcher therefore requires adjusting the conditions for obtaining the request for consent, sometimes even renouncing it as well as renouncing the clinical material, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specificities of the transference/countertransference issues of the clinic studied. This positioning requires considering the conflicts raised by the confrontation between the requirements of a clinical listening position, considered from the feminine side, receptivity, discretion, and care, and those of a researcher position. More phallic, made up of revolt and responsibility, “speaking” and active.