70
findings reflect the true responses of participants and not the preconceptions of the researcher.
The findings will also be shared with the research participants if they chose and they will be able to confirm the research findings to determine that they are a true reflection of the information that they provided. According to Siegle (2006), a qualitative study cannot be transferable unless it is credible, and it cannot be credible unless it is dependable.
71
parties involved”. The following ethical measures were adhered to on this study as specified by De Vos et al. (2011):
4.8.2 Informed consent
Informed consent refers to the right of the participants to know what the research is about, how it will affect them, the risks and benefits of participation, and the fact that they have the right to decline participation if they wish to (Bless et al., 2006). It is a mechanism for making sure that the participants understand their role of participating in the study to enable them to decide in a conscious, deliberate way whether they are willing or unwilling to participate (Marshall &
Rossman, 2011). The researcher obtained informed consent from all the participants. The main purpose of the study, the objectives, the sampling procedures, the data collection tools, and the advantages and disadvantages that the study might hold for the participants were thoroughly communicated with them before the study commenced. An informed consent letter was issued to each participant for the one-on-one and focus group discussions, and also requested their permission to audio record the interviews (Annexures E and F). Although all the participants indicated that they could read and write, the researcher still explained the contents of the consent form to them after they had read through it. This was done to minimize the possibility of misinterpretation of the form. They signed the consent form after having understood the content and the process of the interviews. An opportunity to ask questions and seek clarity was provided.
4.8.3 Avoiding deception
The participants were informed in writing and verbally about the purpose and the nature of the study and all other pertinent aspects of the research. The participants were informed that the FCG would not be put at risk by their participation in and/or withdrawal from the research.
4.8.4 Voluntary participation
Voluntary participation implies that no research participant must participate in a study by coercion or with a feeling that he/she does not have a choice. The researcher ensured that the participants were aware that their participation was subject to their voluntary consent and that
72
they could withdraw from the study at any point if they wished without any further repercussions.
4.8.5 Violation of privacy/ anonymity /confidentiality
Confidentiality refers to the rights of the client/participant to ensure that personal information shared in confidence is preserved (Johnson & Yanca, 2010). According to de Vos et al.
(2011:114), “every individual has the right to privacy and it is his or her right to decide when, where, to whom and to what extent his or her attitudes, beliefs and behaviour will be revealed”.
Anonymity refers to when people who read the research findings cannot identify the participant, while confidentiality refers to when the researcher can still identify a specific response by a participant, but guarantees confidentiality so that the reader of the document would not know where the data came from (Babbie, 2007). The researcher was explicit in that confidentiality would be maintained at all times and that the data was collected merely for research purposes;
therefore, no information would be shared with colleagues from the Department of Social Development pertaining their contributions .However, the researcher explained to the research participants that the research project was to be discussed with a senior experienced colleague for the purpose of peer debriefing. This concept was also explained to them in order to ensure that they fully understand its implications .The data would be shared without revealing the identities of the participants and specifically because the Department of Social Development requested to be informed of the results of the study for the purposes of improving their service delivery. The researcher was also explicit that the research supervisor would also have access to the data and lastly that the data would be reported anonymously in the dissertation. During the focus group discussion, confidentiality was emphasized and the researcher reiterated that the participants should respect each other and not disclose any information outside the group.
As a professional social worker and skilled researcher, the researcher was always cognizant of the significance of maintaining the privacy and anonymity of the participants. The researcher had to be mindful of confidentiality and the participants’ right to anonymity in the study and did not in any way detract from her responsibility to protect the participants concerned. The identifying details of the participants were kept anonymous throughout the study. The names of the participants are therefore not indicated in the text so that the responses can never be linked to
73
individual participants. All the data and relevant information were treated with utmost confidentiality.
4.8.6 Avoidance of harm
De Vos et al. (2011) emphasized the importance of the researcher being competent and well equipped to “evaluate all possible risks” and to undertake the study in an ethical manner. As a practicing social worker, the researcher was constantly mindful the social work code of ethics that should not only guide, but also govern her interactions within the research space. Moreover, Marlow (2011) reiterates that research ethics, particularly within evidence-based practice, should emphasize proficiency and honour no harm. It was critical for the participants not to be subjected to any harm during the study. To avoid such, the researcher arranged with another social worker to render counselling services at the end of the interviews and the focus group discussions with participants who might present distress or discomfort. There were no occurrences of trauma; nevertheless, the researcher offered such a resource to any participants who might require debriefing.
4.8.7 Competence of the researcher
The researcher had acquired the necessary knowledge on the topic and the necessary skills in qualitative research to conduct the study ethically and to avoid potential harm that might arise.
The researcher is a qualified, registered and practising social worker and thus possessed sufficient interviewing and group facilitating skills to competently manage the data collection processes. The researcher is also guided by the Policy guidelines for course of conduct, code of ethics and the rules for Social workers which prescribe social workers to behave in an honest manner and also seek to promote integrity in the practice of the profession (SACSSP :2009).
4.8.8 Release or publication of findings
The researcher assured the participants that they will be made aware of the findings and results of the study. De Vos et al. (2011) suggest that studies be presented to society in the form of a written report in order to enhance its value to be considered as a research study. The findings of this study will additionally be published in a local journal that will be made accessible to the
74
participants as well as to relevant welfare organisations. The researcher will present the findings of this study at local conferences and community meetings in isiXhosa where appropriate.