Ethics in research can be broadly divided into two epistemic dimensions. One dimension focuses on bureaucratic procedures (i.e., procedural ethics), while the other focuses on contextually and culturally contested practice of ethics in research (i.e., ethics in practice). Researchers experience both dimensions distinctly in their qualitative research. The review of ethics in prospective research through bureaucratic procedures aims to measure compliance with documented requirements relating to research participants, data management, consent, and ensure researchers can demonstrate their ethical competence before they commence their research. However, researchers often experience unanticipated ethical issues within the context of their research; sometimes ethics-related situations, including language sensitivity, cultural humility, and data processing experienced by researchers can be very different from what was included in bureaucratic procedures. In this study, phenomena related to research ethics in practice, as experienced by social scientists (n = 5) in their qualitative research, are hermeneutically explored and interpreted. The selected phenomena represent the researchers’ lived experiences regarding the practice of participant autonomy, specifically exploring participants’ right to withdraw from research. These phenomena are interpreted from the theoretical perspectives of situational relativism and self-determined autonomy. The interpreted phenomena reveal the current practices in ethical management of data collected from participants before their decision to withdraw from research (i.e., withdrawal data), are predominantly focused on tangible forms of data (i.e., the information that can easily be distinguished from other data), but ethical concerns associated with intangible forms of data are often neglected. The intangible forms of data are experiential knowing and understanding that include, feeling, emotion, courage, respect, celebration, anger, and the sense of being and belonging. The study recommends that researchers and research professionals should exercise ethical sensitivity and humility towards intangible forms of data collected during qualitative research when participants withdraw their consent.

研究伦理可以大致分为两个认知维度。一个维度侧重于官僚程序（即程序伦理），而另一个维度则侧重于研究中的伦理实践（即实践中的伦理）。研究人员在定性研究中明显体验到这两个维度。通过官僚程序对前瞻性研究进行道德审查，旨在衡量对研究参与者、数据管理、同意等书面要求的遵守情况，并确保研究人员在开始研究之前能够证明其道德能力。然而，研究人员在研究过程中经常会遇到意想不到的伦理问题；有时，研究人员经历的与道德相关的情况，包括语言敏感性、文化谦逊和数据处理，可能与官僚程序中包含的情况有很大不同。在这项研究中，社会科学家（ n  =  5 ）在定性研究中所经历的与实践中的研究伦理相关的现象被解释学地探索和解释。所选现象代表了研究人员关于参与者自主实践的生活经验，特别是探索参与者退出研究的权利。这些现象是从情境相对主义和自我决定自主性的理论角度来解释的。解释的现象揭示了在参与者决定退出研究之前收集的数据（即退出数据）的当前伦理管理实践主要集中在有形数据形式（即可以轻松与其他数据区分开来的信息） ），但与无形数据形式相关的道德问题常常被忽视。数据的无形形式是经验性的认识和理解，包括感觉、情感、勇气、尊重、庆祝、愤怒以及存在感和归属感。该研究建议，当参与者撤回同意时，研究人员和研究专业人员应对定性研究期间收集的无形数据表现出道德敏感性和谦逊态度。