RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.2 Research Design
3.2.6 Ethical Issues
The first rule of ethics is do no harm. As such I tried to ensure that as much as possible no harm came to the participants in my study. In so doing I followed the University of KwaZulu-Natal criteria and policies regarding ethical clearance and ensured that ethical clearance was obtained before I embarked on my study (see appendix). Provided that the data generated from the study can be used to benefit society “it is acceptable to ask questions, if you first obtain the respondents’ informed consent” (Kumar, 2005, p.81). As will be described later in this sub-section I did obtain the respondents’ informed consent.
Once ethical clearance had been obtained and before undertaking the research I first obtained the consent of the school’s headmaster. As this is an independent school, the Department of Education was not contacted. “It is important that the consent should also be voluntary and without pressure of any kind.” (Kumar, 2005, p.81). As most of the boys’ in the study were over 18 I asked them directly for their consent to be involved in my study. In giving their consent they were asked to sign a form indicating their
68
willingness to be involved in the study. This was deemed necessary since “Informed consent implies that subjects are made adequately aware of the type of information you want from them. Why the information is being sought, what purpose it will be put to, how they are expected to participate in the study, and how it will directly or indirectly affect them” (Kumar, 2005, p.82). The letter requesting consent outlined the reason for the study, the time that the interviews and personal narratives were likely to take up and the scope of the study. At no time were the participants threatened to provide information.
Although the provision of information is critical to the data collection process, had a participant not wanted to provide a response to a question, I endeavoured to respect the participant’s choice. Likewise participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any stage.
According to Walliman (2001) ethical issues involve two broad issues. One is responsibility to the subjects of the research and involves privacy, confidentiality and courtesy. Some of the information obtained through the written narratives and the focus group interviews was to some degree sensitive, particularly since it involved the masculine identities of boys as well as their personal and family histories. Although in the narration of their stories none of the boys alluded to overtly sensitive or even illegal practices that they had encountered at the boys’ school in which the study took place, nevertheless their narratives and responses in the focus group interviews were by their nature personal and as such respect for privacy was paramount. In so doing I decided to protect the identity of the boys’ school as well as the boys’ individual identities through the creation of pseudonyms for both the school and the boys. In addition every effort was made to accurately record and interpret the data received. The digital video recordings were safely secured and only taken out to be transcribed. Thereafter they were once again secured away from general access and in time will be destroyed in order to respect the boys’ privacy. Confidentiality was maintained at all times.
The other issue according to Walliman (2001) involves the values of honesty, frankness and personal integrity. Honesty is essential to illicit responses from the subjects but is also needed in order promote a level of trust and credibility in the promotion of debate and the production of knowledge. The worst case of dishonesty involves plagiarism. At
69
the beginning of this thesis I declared that this dissertation is my own work. It has not been submitted before, in whole or part, for the award of any degree at any other university. Where use has been made of the scholarship of other authors, they have been duly acknowledged.
Honesty is also required in the accurate descriptions of how the research was conducted; the data obtained; the methods used and analysis of the data. I have tried my best to be as accurate as possible in the descriptions in every stage of the research process. Every attempt was made to avoid bias as “a deliberate attempt either to hide what you have found in your study or to highlight something disproportionately to its true existence” (Kumar, 2005, p.82). Bias can also involve the selection of data. Silently rejecting or ignoring evidence that is contrary to one’s own beliefs is also a breach of honesty. It is difficult to be completely free of bias. However, every attempt has been made to not distort the data. Nevertheless, there was one aspect of this study which was a potential threat to this study and that was my conflicting role as both researcher and insider.
The term insider research is used to describe studies where the researcher has a direct involvement or connection with the research setting (Robson, 2002). This contrasts with the traditional notion of the researcher as being an objective outsider studying subjects external to him or herself. An insider is “someone whose biography (gender, race, class, sexual orientation and so on) gives him a lived familiarity with the group being researched” (Griffith, 1998, p.361). An outsider is “a researcher who does not have any intimate knowledge of the group being researched, prior to entry into the group” (Griffith, 1998, p.361). There are a number of ways in which a researcher can be categorized as an insider. For example a study that takes place in a researcher’s place of work or when the researcher him or herself is the subject of the research or when the researcher is partisan to the emotional, political or sexual affiliations of the subjects. I am acutely aware of the role that I, as researcher, played in this study. I am an insider researcher on many levels. Firstly this study took place in my place of work and specifically within one of the classes that I teach. Furthermore, the focus of this study is the learning of
70
history which is directly linked to my job which is teaching the boys of this study history.
Finally, the second focus of this study is masculinity and as a man I am aware that my own masculine identity was interrogated as well as impacted on the research process despite my attempts to try and avoid bias. As a result there were times when I too became both the researcher and the subject of this study.
With insider research the concept of validity comes into question as the researcher is intimately involved with the subjects of the study. Validity is associated with objectivity and as such some may claim that the research conducted by an insider researcher is invalid. Being an insider may influence both observations and interpretations. This is particularly true if the researcher’s relationship with the subjects impacts on the subjects’ behaviour or responses. A further negative is if the researcher’s inside knowledge leads to a misinterpretation of the data or if the researcher’s political or sexual orientation leads to distortions of the data. Being an insider may make the researcher uncomfortable to ask certain questions and likewise the subjects of the study might find it difficult to answer certain questions because of the researcher’s insider position. Familiarity with a group may lead to the researcher taking things for granted, developing myopia and assuming his own perspective is far more wide spread than it actually is (Mercer, 2007). Obvious questions might not be asked, sensitive topics might not be raised and assumptions might not be challenged (Hockey, 1993).
Others might argue that objectivity is impossible to achieve (Kvale, 1995). One can never guarantee the honesty and integrity of subjects or researchers. Researchers’
subjectivities always play a part according to the post-structuralists. However, it is important to the research process that in an attempt to minimize bias as much as possible that the researcher makes known his or her position in relation to the subjects of the study. This makes the research process as transparent as possible and allows the readers to construct their own perspectives.
In spite of the above, some point to the advantages of insider research. Tedlock (2000) argues that insiders have a wealth of knowledge which outsiders may not be privy to.
71
According to Hockey (1993) as an insider the researcher does not have to deal with culture shock, enjoys enhanced rapport with the subject, is able to measure the accuracy of the responses to questions and is seen by the subjects as empathetic.
Subjects might also be more comfortable with inside researchers and may talk freely.
One’s membership of the group provides a level of trust and openness. In addition an insider researcher has ready access to the group (Corbin Dwyer & Buckle, 2007). As a result insider research has the potential to add to increased validity due to the added richness, honesty, fidelity and authenticity of the information acquired (Mercer, 2007).
According to Wicks (2009) insider status helps more than hinders the research process.
Mercer maintains that the more we focus on insiderness and outsiderness as an
“either/or duality, the more we are tempted to judge one as better than the other”
(Mercer, 2007, p.13). Instead, Mercer (2007) argues, we should see insider and outsider research as points on a continuum that we should value equally. There are points in favour of being either an outsider researcher or an inside researcher. And there are also negatives. Ultimately the final word on this matter is succinctly summarized by the qualitative researchers Corbin Dwyer and Buckle (2009, p.56): “As a qualitative researcher I do not think being an insider makes me a better or worse researcher; it just makes me a different type of researcher.”
Every attempt has been made not to allow my insider status to cloud the research process. At the same time my role as insider, I believe, allowed me to gain easy access to my sample group and my relationship with the participants created a relaxed enough atmosphere to yield the data that I was hoping to obtain. In addition to counteract my insider status I made use of two methods of collecting the research data – namely narrative inquiry and focus group interviews. By using two different methods I attempted to validate the data that would have otherwise been brought into question had I made use of just the focus group interviews for example. Furthermore, I have made my insider status known to the reader from the beginning of my study.