Wassenaaar (2006) contends that research ethics in social sciences should be a fundamental concern from the planning stage to the writing of the report, if the research concerns human participants (:61). Rossman and Rallis (2012) distinguish various ethical theories that they summarise under two headings, consequentialist and non-consequentialist (:69). As they explain, consequentialist ethical theories focus on the outcomes (:69). This means that the rightness or the wrongness of the action is determined on the basis of its consequences (:69). On the other hand, non-consequentialist ethical theories are based on ―universal standards to guide all behaviour regardless of the consequences in a specific context‖ (:69). In this way, they attempt to avoid every wrong action considering that it can never yield any good outcome. Further, Rossman and Rallis (2012) specify that in this second type of ethical theories, qualitative researchers commonly consider two theories, the ethics of individual rights and responsibilities and the ethics of justice (:69). The former theory refers to the respect for the rights of the individual while the latter refers to equity, equality and fairness (:69-70).
In this study, both the consequentialist and non-consequentialist perspectives of research ethics were considered. With regard to the consequentialist perspective two aspects are considered. The first relates to what Wassenaaar (2006:67) terms Non-maleficence. This means that researchers have to ensure that participants are not harmed or wronged as a direct consequence of the research. This requirement was met in this study by not asking questions, carrying out acts or
108
creating a situation which is likely to harm the participants. If inadvertently, an ethical issue should emerge during the process, preparation was also made for counselling by competent professional counsellors or psychologists and specialists through an organisation which deals with psycho-social issues.
The consequentialist perspective was also valuable as it ensured privacy and confidentiality. As Rossman and Rallis (2012:72-73) explain, this requirement consists of ―protecting the privacy of participants (identities, names, and specific roles) and holding in confidence what they share with you (not sharing it with others using their names)‖ (see also Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011:85). In order to meet this requirement, information was not shared in the research using the names of participants. In writing the report, the participants were identified using codes rather than by name. During the interview process, however, one participant agreed that his name may be revealed. In this case, the advice of Rossman and Rallis (2012:73) was followed, that of always masking identities unless under compelling reasons, because the written report can be used beyond the control of the researcher or the participant.
With regard to non-consequentialist ethical theories, the two theories preferred by qualitative researchers were considered. Two aspects relating to the theory of ethic of individual rights and responsibilities were focussed on. The first concerns the consent of participants. According to Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2011), the consent of research participants became mandatory because some researchers were threatening participants (:60). The most cited case is the Tuskegee syphilis study initiated by the United States Public Health Service in early 1932 in order to determine the natural causes of syphilis. Six hundred African-American men, 400 of whom were suffering from syphilis participated without being informed and were not given treatment, even after a suitable antibiotic became available in the 1940s (:60). However, as these authors explain the formal consideration of the participants‘ rights was informed by the realisation of atrocious medical experiments on Jews and other minority groups prisoners in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (:61). This resulted in the Nuremberg code of 1949 specifying that participation in research must be voluntary (:61).
In relation to this, Rossman and Rallis (2012) suggest four ethical principles fundamental to the participants‘ consent. Participants must be informed about the study‘s purpose and audience, understand the content and the meaning of their agreement, willingly give their consent, and understand that they may withdraw at any time without any negative consequences (:73-74). In order to meet these requirements, the participants were presented with an introductory letter that
109
outlined the principles that would govern the relationship during the data gathering.60 After they declared their understanding of the context and process of the study, they were invited to fill in their names and to sign a consent form which was a summary of the letter and the specification that their identity will not be linked to the information they provide.61 All of the participants approached willingly accepted to participate and filled in their names and gave their consent.
The second aspect focused on in the theory of ethics of individual rights and responsibilities, is the authorisation of church leaders. For Rossman and Rallis (2012), every field research has to be formally authorised even if it is about observing a public setting (:154). In this regard, the Bishop of the FMCSA was approached who gave formal permission to conduct the present research in the FMSKZN.62 In addition to his agreement, he also introduced the researcher to the superintendent of the FMSKZN who, in turn, introduced him to the circuits‘ leaders.
As with the theory of ethics of justice, two aspects were taken into consideration. For Wassenaaar (2006), justice in research generally ―requires that researchers treat research participants with fairness and equity during all stages of research‖ (:68). This requirement was met in two ways. One way concerned the choice of participants Sampling methods recommended in qualitative research were strictly adhered to and secondly, in every category of informants, participants answered the same questions.
The other aspect considered in the theory of ethic and justice is the beneficence. Rossman and Rallis (2012) state that there must be reciprocity between researchers and participants (:158). As they explain, while researchers obtain the data, participants need to ―find something that makes their cooperation worthwhile, whether that something is a feeling of importance from being [studied], pleasure from interactions with the [researcher], or assistance in some task‘ (Patton, 2002, p. 312), or actual changes in life circumstances from action research‖ (:158). In this regards, the findings of this study have been shared with the church leaders and caregivers during the 108th Annual Conference of the FMSKZN held from 20 to 24 February 2013. During that Conference, they viewed their cooperation in the study as worthwhile in helping to improve the response of the Church to HIV and AIDS. Likewise, during the data collection one pastor expressed how the interviewing process had helped him:
60 See appendix 2.
61 See appendix 3.
62 See appendix 8.
110
I just want to thank you for this interview and it is interesting. It helped me a lot to think why in the Church we have not to preach only but to do other things also. So, it encourages me to do more (CL20:10).
Another added that,
The Church hasn‟t done anything really deliberate to encourage that [HIV status disclosure]. But I think it‟s a point that is noted that maybe we can discuss about this first in the leadership and then come to a point where we really make a decision to go forward and to encourage people (CL37:4).
Therefore, it is expected that other church members, including PLWHA, will benefit from their involvement in addressing HIV and AIDS as one of the ways of caring for the community and living a Christian life.
Besides considering theories of research ethic as suggested by scholars, the policy defined by the UKZN as an institution was also taken into account. UKZN requires that students and staff undertaking research must have ethical clearance as proof that they have predefined the conditions of the research and are ready to respect all ethical prerequisites (UKZN, n.d). These conditions were therefore defined as part of this research‘s proposal and ethical clearance was granted.63 The university‘s policy relating to plagiarism was also taken into account. According to the UKZN‘s Plagiarism Policy and Procedures approved in December 2009, all the academic documents and publications must avoid plagiarism which includes attempts to present others‘
ideas, words, and works without appropriate acknowledgement (UKZN, 2009:3-4). In order to meet this requirement, the motivation of the study and the methodology followed in collecting, analysing, and interpreting data were defined. In addition, all the sources of information, whether primary or secondary data were properly acknowledged