As I explained in the first episode, Introducing Really Specific Stories, this podcast is a part of a PhD project on tech podcasting through open RSS. Every interview that you hear is a deliberately unstructured conversation to reveal genuine qualitative experiences—whether about someone’s personal history and preferences or the relationships and connections that form across the fan community.
If you’re listening to Really Specific Stories, you’re a fan of tech shows or at least broadly interested in the podcast medium. You have probably heard tech podcasts with multiple co-hosts or participants before, and while these conversations require the agreement of any guests, there is inherently less pressure when it’s purely between friends, colleagues or fans of the same medium.
In the case of an academic project, there is a different dynamic to consider: the relationship between the researcher and those who are being researched. Although I am a listening fan of many podcasts, including the project case studies so far, the moment that I become an interviewer and researcher of participants, I am responsible for the ethical sharing and presentation of their narratives. Whenever you interview someone, even if you are a fellow fan, you are benefitting from their time to fuel your own project. A new power dynamic is established. You must ask yourself: what’s in it for them and what are the potential risks to their identity and reputation?
To ensure that I gain appropriate consent to publish, every participant gives their signed permission to be featured in the Really Specific Stories podcast and eventual thesis. This is the result of detailed documentation after an extensive ethical review process with my university. Still, it doesn’t sound great to record someone’s responses and just run off with their signature and data, does it? How can we make podcasting for research more ethical in its production and review?
The answer lies in a fantastic process that was formulated and visualised by writers Day et al. (2017) to gather, review and publish (hitherto marginalised) Indigenous perspectives on water management in Canada. The resulting Water Dialogues podcast was an example of community-based participatory research and focused on decolonising and breaking down unequal power dynamics in research.
The Collaborative Podcasting Process explains how to construct a podcast in which participants are involved actively in production, review and any discussion following publication. It has served as the guiding production method and inspiration behind Really Specific Stories. See a diagram of the Collaborative Podcasting Process below (Day et al., 2017, p. 209), including the steps for audio collection, review and analysis, structure and sequencing, sound editing, participant review and public release.
Every interview participant whom you have heard has gone through this process with me. They are in full control of their stories, whether requesting to remove certain elements or even the potential to refuse publication of their respective episodes, should they be unhappy with what they have heard.
So, why am I sharing this with you? Aside from my ethical obligations as an academic researcher, I believe that it is important to share this process with everyone who is enjoying the podcast. Whether you’re a podcast producer, an enthusiastic listener or you engage in any other collaborative projects in your daily working life or set of hobbies, it’s crucial to prioritise care for others. How can you be more transparent with people, open about your intentions and ensure that personal experiences and data are handled appropriately?
Every voice deserves to be treated with respect.
Source: Day, L., Cunsolo, A., Castleden, H., Martin, D., Hart, C., Anaviapik-Soucie, T., Russell, G., Paul, C., Dewey, C. and Harper, S.L., 2017, ‘The Expanding Digital Media Landscape of Qualitative and Decolonizing Research: Examining Collaborative Podcasting as a Research Method’, in MediaTropes eJournal, Vol. 7, No. 1., pp. 203–228.