A Foucauldian perspective on service-learning
Chapter 5 Methodology
5.10 Ethical considerations
The ethics of the research can be considered at three different levels: post-structuralist ethics, the ethics of practitioner/insider research, and lastly, pragmatic ethical
considerations.
Post-structuralist ethics and a Foucauldian concept of ethics require that the researcher practices self-mastery through technologies of the self (Macias, 2012). Foucault (1994, p.
286) proposed ethics as “a way of being and of behaviour”. Rabinow (1994, p. xxxv)
explained it as “a distinctive form of intellectual practice, a singular form of critical thought”.
Thus, ethical practice requires that the researcher recognise herself as a subject, and that she is in the process of becoming both in and through the research process. The recognition of this subjectivity foregrounds the situatedness of the researcher and her account.
Foucault also recommended a commitment to égarement, or intellectual wandering, and self-detachment (Rabinow, 1994). These concepts require the researcher to accept that she does not have a god view, and that her knowledge claims are bound up in power/knowledge regimes, where other power/knowledge regimes may be equally as plausible. Foucault (1994) advised trying to detach oneself from the regime of truth through which the
researcher is currently constructed, and to detach from oneself the same regime, in order to consider other possible discourses, explanations and ways of being. Employing these tactics does not render one outside of a power/knowledge regime, but it reminds us to be mindful of how we are being constructed through that regime, and it therefore offers possibilities for things to be understood otherwise. The ethical Foucauldian researcher therefore makes tentative claims about her observations and reflects on the power effects that are part of the research process.
Power effects are also the most salient ethical issue in practitioner/insider research. Authors in this area express concerns regarding dual relationships and coercion when one conducts research on one’s own practice (Holian & Coghlan, 2013; MacLean & Poole, 2010; Mercer, 2007). In the current research, the researcher was both instructor/lecturer and researcher and participant, and the students were learners and participants. Given the power effects inherent in student-teacher relationships, I needed to be aware of the possibility of coercion where students felt compelled to agree to participate. Fortunately, the course was an elective course, where students had many other options to consider to complete their honours degree. Secondly, the students were given the option of completing the course requirements without participating in the critical reflection discussions, which were the source of data for the study. As the students were not asked to participate in individual interviews or a focus group discussion about the course, the effects of coercion or bias as a result of dual roles did not relate to these kinds of data collection. I do recognise, however, that the students’ responses may have been tempered by the knowledge that the sessions were being recorded and used for research purposes. The power effects of my role as researcher are intertwined with those invoked by my role as instructor and are part of the focus of this study. Guidelines for insider/practitioner research advise the researcher to try to create some distance during the research process, by hiring a research assistant to
conduct interviews, for example. This was not possible or desirable in this research, firstly, because of my role as instructor and the nature of the data, and secondly, because, from a post-structuralist perspective, any notion of ‘distance’ would be an illusion.
In terms of pragmatic ethical considerations, Wassenaar and Mamotte’s (2012) principles and their application to the study are discussed below.
• The principle of collaborative partnership was not employed in this study, as the participants were not consulted in the development of the study. As this was a
conceptual project, the student participants were not involved in the design. They were, however, participants in the implementation of the study, as without their collaboration, data collection would not have been possible.
• The principle of social value was addressed in the study, as the research aimed to assist in developing the service-learning field by offering a conceptual lens for practice that may help practitioners and researchers to reflect on their own practices. Should this reflection bring about improvements in course design and delivery, future students would benefit from these changes.
• Scientific validity – every attempt has been made to ensure rigour in the
conceptualisation and design of the study, through using a sound conceptual and theoretical base and recognised research methods.
• Fair selection of participants – the sample for the study was those students to whom the research question could be applied. The offer to participate was extended to all the honours students. Those who self-selected to be on the course became the participants.
• Favourable risk/benefit ratio - there was no benefit to the participants as a result of their participation. At the same time, there was equally very little risk of harm, as the focus was on an already existing educational process. The issue of beneficence extends to future service-learning students in courses, not only in South Africa but internationally, as has been indicated above. It is hoped that some small benefit to the service-learning community will derive from the study, including raising the profile of South African research in this area.
• Independent ethics review – the proposal for the research was submitted to and approved by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee at UKZN (Protocol reference number HSS/0450/011) (Appendix 3).
• Informed consent – the participants were consulted regarding their involvement in the research process and the recording of the reflection sessions. The purpose of the study was made clear to the students and no deception was necessary. Students signed informed consent forms (see Appendix 4) and did not indicate a difficulty with the process. At no stage was there a request that the recording devices be turned off.
• Ongoing respect for participants – the participants were informed that they could withdraw at any stage and an alternative to the group discussion sessions would be put in place in that instance. Confidentiality was maintained by allocating the participants pseudonyms and removing identifying information from extracts cited. The participants were also informed that the focus of the study was on the nature of the interactions between us, and not on them as individuals. It was explained that reporting of results would be on the group processes, and thus no individual person would be the target of the research. Informed consent forms were stored separately from the recordings and transcriptions. The data is stored in a password-protected file on my laptop, and on a backup drive.