DEDICATION
4.3 Part three: Ethical Considerations and Data Analysis Strategy
4.3.1 Ethical Considerations
were considered when the focus groups were used in this study, where the idea was to see how the rhetoric (from teachers and parents) was influenced by the group context as opposed to when the participants were interviewed individually.
Palomba and Banta (1999) argue that small numbers in focus groups tend to limit the generalisation of results. These limitations were addressed by clearly explaining the ground rules of interaction at the beginning of the focus groups which highlighted that participants ought to respect each other’s views, and politely redirecting the discussion to other members where I realised that one individual was taking too much time in talking about one issue. This study’s focus was not on generalisation of the findings or the representativeness of group views, therefore the use of small number of focus group members did not impact on the study’s credibility since the data that were produced assisted in providing a deeper rather than a wider understanding of the teachers’ and parents’ rhetoric about teachers’ work. Furthermore, the focus group method was used in conjunction with follow-up one-on-one semi-structured interviews.
appointments to visit the principals and explained the purpose and nature of my study and that it was not going to disturb any functioning of the school, or teachers for that matter.
I gave them the letter in which I was seeking permission. When the principals were satisfied, permission was granted. They signed and stamped the letter with the school stamp (see Appendices C1, C2 and C310). This initial exercise was necessary as one of the requirements from the research office that the researcher must provide evidence that she has obtained permission to conduct research from the gatekeepers of the potential participants. Although my study was not going to be conducted in any of the school premises, contacting and seeking permission from the school principals was also in line with the Department of Basic Education’s rule which requires researchers to seek permission from the schools if they are to do research which involves teachers, regardless of where the research will occur.
In addition to the permission from the principals, I also sought permission from the Provincial Department of Basic Education; the gatekeeper for schools. I had to complete a standardised application form which required a brief description of all the elements of a research proposal, such as the rationale for the study, potential participants, methods of data production, ethical issues and the promise to submit the thesis to the Department of Education when the research is complete. Permission was granted (see Appendix B11) Obtaining permission to conduct research from the institution’s research office was the next step undertaken. I had to complete an application form in which the purpose, nature and background of the study were explained, as well as my declaration that I understood the ethical requirements and expectations from me as a researcher. Although my study was not characterised as a sensitive study, I waited for over four months for the application to be approved and permission to be granted; protocol reference number:
HSS/1427/014D (see Appendix A).
Once the permission was granted by the research office, I started to contact the potential participants for this study. In this initial contact, I had to explain briefly, what the study
10 The names of schools were strategically blocked out (from the school stamp anywhere else in the letter) in order to keep to the promise of anonymity of participants.
11 Names of schools purposefully blocked out from this permission letter in order to adhere to ethical expectations or rules.
was about and why I chose them as participants, and that participation was purely voluntary.
4.3.1.2 The Informed Consent
Informed consent is a requirement where the researcher recognises and shows respect for the prospective participant’s autonomy and discretion to participate in the study. In essence, informed consent is about researchers giving participants the responsibility to make decisions of whether or not they want to participate in a study (Roache, 2014). For this study, both the teacher and parent participants were contacted either telephonically or through personal communication. Informing the participants about the study’s purpose and the methods that were going to be used to conduct the study and the possible duration ensured that the participants were well-informed before they could make a decision whether they wanted to participate or not. Informed consent is considered by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2011) to be a well-calculated decision which is taken by individuals when they have considered all the facts about participating in a study.
Informed consent letters (see Appendix D) were given to participants to read further and familiarise themselves with the study’s information and their rights as participants. Once the participants had indicated their willingness to participate in the study, I then requested them to suggest the convenient day, time and place for the individual interviews. The informed consent letters were only signed on the day of the one-on-one interview after I had again reminded the participants about the purpose of the study and asked for permission to audio-record the conversations.
4.3.1.3 The Right to Privacy (Confidentiality and Anonymity)
Since this study was about individuals and not institutions, the concern was about the privacy of the individual. Lichtman (2013, p. 54) asserts that any “individual participating in a research study has a reasonable expectation that privacy will be guaranteed.” The guaranteeing of privacy would mean that certain information about participants would be concealed, and pseudonyms used in the data presentation and analysis to identify the participants in this study in order to not reveal their identities (anonymity). In addition to anonymity, privacy entails confidentiality with the participants’ personal information (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). Participants tend to provide researchers with confidential information with the hope that it will remain as such. For this reason, participants were given the assurance that any information that was shared by the participants during
individual interviews would not be given to anyone. However, as a researcher, I could not guarantee the same confidentiality with the focus groups since they involved a number of people.
4.3.1.4 Data Interpretation - Honesty
Lichtman (2013) cautions against misinterpretation, over-interpretation or fraudulent analysis of data with an intention to channel the data into a different course. These false representations have also been labelled as ‘fabrication’ or ‘falsification’ of data, whereby data are either made-up or altered for the purpose of sloping the results (Office of Research Integrity, 2011). In this study, attempts were made to represent the data fairly and not to impose my own judgement of what the participants were saying. This process was done rigorously by transcribing the audio recordings verbatim. Printing out the transcripts and reading them, going back to the audio recordings when necessary, ensured accurate capture of participants’ responses. The interview transcripts were then sent back to the participants through emails (mostly for teachers) and hard copies (mostly for parents) for the purpose of verifying (member checking) whether the text captured or represented the participants’ views as they were intended.
4.3.1.5 Personal Orientation as a Researcher
Researchers are all bound by ethical rules to protect the participants in their studies from any form of harm. In addition, the participants enter into an agreement of participating in the study because of the trust they have in the researcher. This, therefore, called for integrity on my part in terms of how I interacted with the teacher and parent participants.
I ensured that I showed and treated the participants with respect at all times. I understood that they were an important part of this study and that without them, the study would not exist. There was therefore, need for me to create an enabling environment built on trust.
I treated all participants (teachers and parents) as valuable in the production of knowledge because I understood that because of their experiences they had a wealth of experience and knowledge in relation to the phenomenon that was studied. I opened the platform for them to share their stories while I listened attentively. A relationship of trust was built on the basis that whatever we discussed would stay between us. So much so that when the worst happened, and I lost the data on the parents’ focus group, I was able to go back and plead with the parent participants to secure a day for another group discussion. They all empathised with me and what I was going through and hence, they were very willing to
help. Consequently, we had a second seating of a group discussion, although it was not as robust as the first one.