Gaining ethical approval for qualitative health research and implementing all the planned research processes in a proposed study are not straightforward endeavours. The situation becomes more complex when qualitative research is conducted in a cross-national healthcare and academic context. Also, it is even exhausting when the study is student-based, as student researchers may be considered novices and inexperienced researchers, especially for field-based research. Our aim in this reflective paper is to present, reflect, and discuss the experiences of a doctoral researcher in dealing with two independent institutional review boards in Canada and Ghana during an interdisciplinary Ph.D. project and the ethical dilemmas encountered while collecting data in Ghana. Based on the researcher’s experiences, it became apparent that consent and its documentation can have cultural implications in different settings; hence, institutional review boards must exercise reflexivity in their protocol review practice. Also, sharing research data with participants and institutional leaders while maintaining participant confidentiality and privacy in institutional ethnographic research requires sensitivity to bi-lateral ethical values. With the experiences shared in this paper, we advocate for a dialogic ethical review process in qualitative research where researchers and research ethics boards engage in ongoing dialogue rather than the usual prescriptive format research ethics reviews often assume.

获得定性健康研究的伦理批准并在拟议的研究中实施所有计划的研究过程并不是一件容易的事。当在跨国医疗保健和学术背景下进行定性研究时，情况会变得更加复杂。此外，当研究以学生为基础时，甚至会让人筋疲力尽，因为学生研究人员可能被认为是新手和缺乏经验的研究人员，特别是对于基于实地的研究。我们在这篇反思性论文中的目的是介绍、反思和讨论一位博士研究员在跨学科博士学位期间与加拿大和加纳的两个独立机构审查委员会打交道的经验。项目以及在加纳收集数据时遇到的道德困境。根据研究人员的经验，很明显，同意及其记录在不同的环境中可能会产生文化影响；因此，机构审查委员会必须在其方案审查实践中发挥反思性。此外，在机构民族志研究中与参与者和机构领导者共享研究数据，同时维护参与者的机密性和隐私，需要对双边道德价值观保持敏感。根据本文分享的经验，我们提倡在定性研究中采用对话式伦理审查流程，研究人员和研究伦理委员会进行持续的对话，而不是研究伦理审查通常采用的规定格式。在机构民族志研究中，与参与者和机构领导者共享研究数据，同时维护参与者的机密性和隐私，需要对双边道德价值观保持敏感。根据本文分享的经验，我们提倡在定性研究中采用对话式伦理审查流程，研究人员和研究伦理委员会进行持续的对话，而不是研究伦理审查通常采用的规定格式。在机构民族志研究中，与参与者和机构领导者共享研究数据，同时维护参与者的机密性和隐私，需要对双边道德价值观保持敏感。根据本文分享的经验，我们提倡在定性研究中采用对话式伦理审查流程，研究人员和研究伦理委员会进行持续的对话，而不是研究伦理审查通常采用的规定格式。