Six questions researchers should ask before assigning pseudonyms

Choosing a pseudonym for research participants should have been one of the simplest parts of preparing our research for publication. Instead, we found ourselves debating what a name might imply about someone’s age, culture, ethnicity and identity and whether, in trying to protect participants, we might also be misrepresenting them.

Anonymity has long been considered the cornerstone of standard ethical research. Pseudonyms are often used to disguise and protect a participant’s real identity. It sounds simple; replace a real name with a fictional one and move on. But in practice, it’s not that simple. 

• How to conduct research involving people who may not have capacity to consent for themselves
• Key challenges for patient and public involvement leads
• Understanding ethics approval in academic research

In our recent focus group project exploring employment and dementia, we found ourselves unsettled by the process of assigning pseudonyms. What initially seemed like a minor and routine step opened up a series of ethical, practical and philosophical uncertainties. 

Researchers make these decisions routinely but often without guidance. The more we considered these uncertainties, presented here as six questions, the less straightforward anonymity appeared. 

1. Is anonymity the most ethical approach?

Society evolves at a much quicker pace than research and academia. Social media, for example, allows us to create and promote experiences and stories that were previously hidden or inaccessible to the wider world. In a world where people increasingly share their own stories publicly, is the protective assumption of anonymity outdated? 

For some, particularly those whose voices are often marginalised, anonymity might feel like erasure rather than protection. It may have negative associations with shame, risky behaviour or being “fake”, while taking away the voice of lived experience that they fought so hard for. These participants might prefer their stories, quotes and data to be recognisable.

Others might value anonymity and be much more comfortable with a pseudonym. The issue is we can’t assume that anonymity continues to be the absolute standard it might have once been.

2. Should participants choose?

At face value it might seem simple to allow participants to use their real name if they choose but this can get complicated. Revealing identity has potential for harm or could unintentionally reveal the identity of others, particularly in smaller or well-connected participant groups.

Offering participants the option to select their own pseudonyms can also be fraught with complexities. Asking more of participants, such as selecting their own pseudonym, adds another thing to navigate and could create unnecessary barriers to participation. 

In practice, this means being transparent about how you plan to approach building a short, clear conversation about naming into the consent process, rather than treating it as a later-stage administrative task. Participant choice matters but researchers must still consider risk, safeguarding and whether naming one person could identify others.

3. Should pseudonyms be avoided?

Removing names altogether and replacing them with “Participant A” might avoid some of these issues and may be appropriate in some contexts. However, in qualitative research, where lived experience and narrative are central, this feels somewhat incongruent with overall ethos, and perhaps even dehumanising.  

Names help readers connect and identify with the participants and their stories. So, taking this away could undermine the very purpose of qualitative inquiry, particularly when working with those experiencing the stigma of one of the most feared diagnoses of our time.

4. What does the pseudonym say – and not say?

Wrestling with what a pseudonym reflects about a participant’s identity was where our discomfort with the anonymisation process solidified. 

Assigning pseudonyms forces researchers to make assumptions about identity. As we selected names, we tried to choose those that aligned with the real name of the participant. But this was fraught with uncertainty and little guidance within the literature. Cultural appropriateness, while avoiding reinforcement of stereotypes, was a concern. We cannot assume the social, cultural or historical experiences attached to a name, and these are impossible to replicate in a pseudonym.

As white British women, assigning culturally appropriate pseudonyms reflects our own understanding of names, biases and perspectives. But we also found that focusing on ethnicity was questionable. We had implicitly assumed that a participant would agree that a similar name to their own was appropriate. For example, that a participant of Indian heritage would want an Indian pseudonym. 

In doing this, we risked reducing the importance of someone’s name to their ethnic background while neglecting other aspects of identity they might feel are more reflective of who they are. 

Names also carry assumptions about age. We avoided some names for younger participants because we associated them with older generations but that understanding was limited by our own experiences and networks. Not everyone reading this will have the same assumptions. 

We also recognised that many names reflect diverse ethnic or cultural backgrounds in ways that are not immediately obvious. We could potentially select a pseudonym with good intentions but still cause offence or misrepresent identity in ways we couldn’t fully appreciate. 

Researchers need to be cautious about the implicit suggestions their pseudonym choices make and should document their approach in advance, including how cultural, gender and age-related assumptions will be handled. 

5. Has power been considered?

Names are powerful, and so is the responsibility of naming. When researchers assign pseudonyms, they make decisions about how participants are represented and understood. 

We use participants’ data and insights for our research but the experiences are never ours. We rely on participants to share them yet potentially miss a pivotal aspect that reshapes these experiences in ways that distance them from the people and communities to which they belong. 

Power can be peripheral to the focus on practicalities. Many projects happen with limited resources and time, and adopting an anonymisation strategy that seems straightforward and simple might feel necessary. Considering how the strategy we adopted reflected power was something we did afterwards, and it would have been much more useful to do so before.

6. Is the balance right?

Whatever approach to pseudonym use is adopted, there needs to be balance and acceptance of the trade-offs between protection, representation and practicality. 

It would be impossible for any single researcher to resolve all the conflicts and complexities that using pseudonyms presents. The strategy needs to be manageable for the researcher and meet the needs and preferences of participants. 

We’ve learned that this is something we need to clarify at the ethics stage and document explicitly, instead of treating pseudonyms as a routine step. 

Researchers should engage participants in decisions while remaining transparent about the lack of a perfect approach. 

Assigning pseudonyms might have been part of the job but we now understand that it was a responsibility we had not been adequately prepared for. We might be overthinking it – perhaps even caring more about pseudonyms than some participants do. But we cannot assume that it doesn’t matter to participants or decide that we know best while describing our research as inclusive. 

Universal guidelines wouldn’t work in such an increasingly diverse and nuanced research landscape but perhaps these questions can help both novice and experienced researchers do better than “Participant A”. 

Moving from reflection to practice

Based on our experience, there are some simple ways researchers can approach pseudonyms more thoughtfully:

• Raise it early: include discussion of names and anonymity in the design and ethics stage, not just during write-up
• Offer structured choice: where appropriate, give participants options but with clear explanation of risks and implications.
• Be reflexive: acknowledge and document how decisions about naming are made and what assumptions underpin them.
• Prioritise context: consider how names contribute to (or detract from) understanding participants’ lived experiences.
• Accept imperfection: there is no “correct” approach.

Inclusive research practice needs to ensure pseudonyms are treated as an ethical decision. Naming participants shapes how participants are seen and understood. Yet it’s a hidden and poorly defined aspect of research that can fall through the gap between prioritising participants’ voices and telling their stories.

Eileen Harkess-Murphy is a researcher specialising in psychology, health and well-being, with particular interests in dementia, trauma-informed practice and improving outcomes for vulnerable groups; Rachel Allen is an impact officer with Working with Dementia Network Plus, whose research explores women’s career development following a diagnosis of young-onset dementia, both at the University of the West of Scotland.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.