For Scientific Ethics: Interview With People Whose Opinions Are Not Usually Taken Into Consideration: Crossed Viewpoints

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

What ethics to adopt and what responsibilities toassume for the researcher who investigates by engaging thespeech of those whose opinions are not usually taken intoconsideration? How is the researcher's report played out to hisrespondents? In very different fields of research - the sociologyof mental health and the history of contemporary art - thesequestions arise in the same terms. This article is based on theresearch experiences of the research authors. They all haveexperienced a relatively complex survey approach because of therespondents' positioning, perceived as "stigmatizing" or "out ofstep" from society’s point of view. Laurence Fond-Harmant hasgathered a panel of testimonies for the de-stigmatization ofpsychiatric diseases by inviting patients to testify of their relationto their mental pathology and to the social world. Lydie Rekowhas interviewed live models of the contemporary artist Paul-Armand Gette with the aim of listening to the voices of thosewho act as part of his art, in order to constitute a corpus ofknowledge enlightening the modalities of the artist’s artwork. Mihaela Gavrila-Ardelean has studied occupational interviewtechniques and educational methods to reduce stigma of peoplewith mental health problems. Liviu Gavrila-Ardelean has beenworking for over a decade with children with mentaldeficiencies, improving their compliance to medical treatment. Inall cases, the researchers have adapted to a new audience andadopted a new position; what are the stakes and issues, the addedvalues and the scientific postures in the field of the interview?These are the tormenting questions of scientific ethics that thearticle attempts to answer. It inscribes the tracks of reflection inthe deontological and ethical framework of the fields of researchreviewed in human and social sciences.