There are a variety of scholarly opinions on ethical issues in social research. For instance, Sarantakos advocates making social research more systematic and accountable vis-à-vis ethical considerations by introducing “laws which regulate the access to information as well as the behaviour of investigators” (2005: 16). The ethics also “ensure that inquiry is conducted according to professional and ethical standards” (Sarantakos, 2005: 16). For Wassenaar, the “essential purpose of research ethics is to protect the welfare of the participants” (2006: 61). On the other hand, Adler and Lerman (2003), in their theory of relational ethics, pointed out that the researcher must actively care about and care for the researched and their rights, to ensure that the research participants are not adversely affected in any way by the research or publication of its findings.
Apropos of the considerations presented above, the protection of the research participants from any harm was a principal concern of this study. Sarantakos (2005) identified three types of harm that could be experienced by the research participants: physical, mental, and legal. It is also acknowledged that research ethics go beyond “the welfare of the research participants and extends into areas such as scientific misconduct and plagiarism”
(Wassenaar, 2006: 61).
Although the views on research ethics are varied, there are four widely accepted ethical principles to which I refer: nonmaleficence, autonomy and respect for the dignity of research participants, beneficence, and justice (Wassenaar, 2006). In conducting this research, every effort was made to comply with these principles where applicable.
First, the principle of nonmaleficence states that research should “ensure that no harm befalls the research participants as a direct or indirect consequence of the research”
(Wassenaar, 2006: 67). In keeping with this principle, the present study did not involve any physical harm (Sarantakos, 2005) on the part of the research participants. There was no instrument or procedure that could injure the participants. Furthermore, the study did not directly or indirectly subject the research participants to any mental harm. There was
54
no procedure that would cause the participants “discomfort, stress of some kind, anxiety, loss of self-esteem or embarrassment” (Sarantakos, 2005: 19). For instance, although the research was in the area of outstation congregations, I did not ask the research participants questions that would upset their private spaces of spirituality. In addition, personal questions relating to the research participants or significant to others were avoided. The questions were not formulated in a demeaning manner and research participants were treated with respect. Thus, there was no treatment that might have motivated the participants to harm themselves during or after the study (Sarantakos, 2005).
Furthermore, even with regard to the outstation congregation leaders, the study did not infringe on their private spaces of spirituality. It probed into the influence of public theology on public policy (see chapters five and eight). Public theology refers to an engagement between theology and politics in specific locations (de Gruchy, 2007). As such, asking for the outstation congregations leaders’ understanding was not of significant ethical concern, given that outstation congregation leaders were embedded in the public sphere. Furthermore, the outstation congregations did influence or contest what should be taught in their congregations. The interview schedules used were in the local language, IsiZulu. Though the participants were given the choice of language, the decision to conduct interviews in IsiZulu was made unanimously.
Second, in keeping with the principle of autonomy and respect for the dignity of persons, the research avoided any legal harm which could occur when the researcher violated any rights of the research participants, “such as their right to privacy, anonymity and confidentiality” (Sarantakos, 2005: 19). In observing these ethical requirements, I avoided deception or misrepresentation in my dealings with the research participants.
Permission and informed consent were obtained from Diocesan bishop, archdeacons, rectors and individual research participants (see appendix one to three). I explained to all participants the purpose of the research and the importance of their participation. They were also informed of their freedom to choose whether to participate in the research or
55
not, to omit some questions they were not comfortable with, or to withdraw from the research at any time without any negative consequences on them or their parishes.
Third, in keeping with the principle of justice which “in general requires that people receive what is due to them” (Wassenaar, 2006: 68), the study safeguarded the research participants’ confidentiality, anonymity and interests (Denscombe, 2002) by not disclosing their identities. Anonymity was achieved through use of code names when referring to or quoting research participants. The following codes were used: HOD (bishop), AOR (archdeacons), MPC (main parish centre), OC (outstation congregations), FG (focus group leaders) and GO (guilds and organisations.
Fourth, the notes and tapes were kept under lock and will remain under lock for a minimum period of five years5
To safeguard the interests of the research participants, I was mindful of the fact that participation in research can be both intrusive and obtrusive, involving personal interaction and requiring cooperation between the researcher and the research participants (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). In one case, the archdeacon had agreed to do the interview in the morning. However, on the day of the interview, the archdeacon had an urgent meeting to attend at the same time as the interview. This necessitated rescheduling the interview to the afternoon on the same day, but when time came for the interview in the afternoon, the archdeacon was not yet back from the meeting. After about an hour of waiting, the archdeacon arrived, called and told the researcher to postpone the interview to another day, as he was going to yet another urgent meeting. Thus, I finally cancelled it and did not make another appointment with him.
The example above demonstrate how obtrusive and intrusive research can be in general, since it interfered with the official and personal operations of the participants. Thus, I was ethically bound to respect the participants by behaving in a way that did not upset their
5 Also see Appendices 2 and 7 for further detail on how notes and tapes are kept.
56
private and public spaces. Commenting on the need for sensitivity to the adverse effects research can have on the research participants, Denscombe observes that,
social researchers need to be sensitive to the likely impact of their work on those involved. Whether research is done on people or whether it is done with them, there is the possibility that their lives could be affected in some way through the fact of having participated. There is a duty on researchers, therefore, to work in a way that minimizes the prospect of their research having an adverse effect on those who were involved.
(2002: 179).
The fourth ethical consideration related to what Wassenaar describes as “scientific misconduct and plagiarism” (2006: 61). One way in which these ethical issues were avoided in writing the thesis was by disclosing my research motivation, research design, methodology, methods and their logic. In addition, I acknowledged all the information used in this study directly or indirectly.
Finally, the principle of beneficence (Wassenaar, 2006) states that research should benefit in some way the research participants or the society. This study may not directly benefit participants, but the Anglican Church of Southern Africa in mission, ministry and worship in general. The study has implications for negotiations with the Diocese of Natal’s Acts (Diocese of Natal, 1995). The contribution, therefore, is to the understanding of Diocesan administration policy on outstation congregations’ theory and practice appropriate for a democratic and diverse society.