List of Acronyms
Chapter 2: Research methodology
2.6 Ethical issues
Nevertheless, most writers in the field of research methodology consider face validity/’member-checks’ as a minimum requirement for trustworthy research.
In my study, I gave the participants my transcriptions of their stories so that they could add/change/delete, and edited the transcriptions as they appear in Chapter 10 accordingly. In point of fact, these related almost entirely to typographical errors.
2.5.3.4 Catalytic validity
Lather’s (1986, 1991) final requirement for rigorous research is catalytic validity -
documenting that the research process led to insight and activism of respondents, “the degree to which the research process re-orients, focuses, and energizes participants in what Freire (1973) terms “conscientization”, knowing reality in order to better transform it” (Lather, 1986, p.67). Lather recognises that this is an extremely unorthodox guideline for validity, because it is so clearly contra the idea of researcher neutrality, and rather insists that good research must necessarily lead to emancipatory action. I am not aware of other writers
accepting this guideline, except in so far as those within an emancipatory approach argue that emancipatory research must deal with the issue of praxis (as discussed above). Whilst
Lather’s writing appeal to me on many levels, this is one area where I have a problem with her. In her argument for catalytic validity, Lather assumes that people need the researcher/me to help them ‘re-orient, focus, and energize’ them (‘conscientize’ them); and they do not. My study is premised on this assumption.
However, above and beyond this general issue of research ethics, there are a number of ethical issues related specifically to a life history approach; although “as yet there has been relatively little discussion of the specific ethical issues that are raised by the use of narrative in research” (Elliott, 2007, p.134). Elliott (2007) suggests that we need to look at two aspects - ‘ethical’ (the impact the research may have on participants); and ‘political’ (the impact the research may have on society or a specific subgroup in society) - although these are often linked.
Nearly all writers on the subject emphasise that although ethical issues might be most evident in the data collection stage, we need to think about ethics in relation to analysis and
dissemination as well (Elliott, 2005), since “ethical matters shift and change as we move through an inquiry” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p.170). Bond and Mifsud (2006) argue that the very nature of narrative research means that one cannot anticipate many of the ethical issues that may arise, so these need to be dealt with continuously as they arise throughout the research process.
Webb (2006) says that being ethical is not straightforward - in fact it is messy and emotional, and it can take a researcher time to realise that there is an ethical dilemma. “The qualities needed for all this are humility, openness to seeking and receiving feedback, transparency, self-awareness, sense of perspective, sensitivity to others’ needs, sense of humour and patience” (Webb, 2006, p.237), and empathy, respect and genuineness.
Webster and Mertova (2007) cite Miles and Huberman’s list of things researchers should consider with regards to ethics:
• informed consent
• harm and risk
• honesty and trust
• privacy, confidentiality and anonymity
• intervention and advocacy.
I discuss these in more detail below.
2.6.1 Informed consent
A number of writers have suggested that the notion of informed consent does not sit easily with the narrative approach. Clandinin and Connelly (2000) argue that the notion of informed consent arises from a particular (traditional) view of research and research participants, in which “participants are seen as subjects in need of protection in research undertaking” (Ibid., p.173), and Elliott (2005) agrees with this. However, in the narrative approach, you develop a relationship with the participants; this means the real guide is your conscience, not informed consent (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
Bond (as cited in Webb, 2006) also argues that it is trust, rather than informed consent, that sits at the centre of ethical research practice. This is because more than most approaches, narrative research “requires on-the-spot decision-making between participants and researcher” (Webb, 2006, p.222). Thus participants need to be well-informed, and researchers need a strong sense of ongoing responsibility and competency.
In Webb’s view, the necessary fluidity of narrative research problematises normal ‘ethical’
procedures:
Institutional procedures, such as applications to ethics committees, risk working against an understanding of the organic nature of the narrative process, given that the exploratory nature of such work tends to lead to a fluid research design (Pugsley &
Welland, 2002, quoted in Webb, 2006, p.225)
There is also a danger that once the ‘obstacle’ of the ethics committee has been cleared, the researcher sees ethical issues as resolved (Webb, 2006).
In this study, I obtained ethical clearance as per the usual procedures of my university.
However, before I even submitted my proposal to undertake this research, I consulted Abahlali about what I was thinking of doing. I only proceeded with my proposal after they had discussed it and agreed. As per the requirements of UKZN’s ethical procedures, I did
2.6.2 Harm and risk
Webb (2006, p.233) argues that to be truly ethical requires a commitment not to do harm to participants or the context under study; and the principal of doing no harm is generally considered a basic principle for all research. This issue is somewhat heightened in narrative research because, in the narrative approach, you develop a relationship with the participants (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). In some respects, this might make it harder for researchers to act in ways which are harmful or put the participants at risk; but, as Elliott (2005) points out,
“the potential for exploitation is just as great” (p.135). Whilst many have argued that the life history approach can be empowering in allowing people to talk about their lives, because interviews can become like intimate conversation between friends, participants may reflect on things they have not thought about, or talked about, before. “Once interviewees are given the space to provide stories about their experiences some unexpected distressing accounts can emerge” (p.136). This can be therapeutic for participants, but can also be stressful for both the participant and researcher. Researchers need skill and experience to deal with these kind of situations (Ibid.).
Outside of the interview itself, “the way in which the researcher interprets and analyses the narratives produced in the interview also may have an impact (positive or negative) on the interviewee” (Elliott, 2005, p.141). Presentation and distribution also carry the potential for harm. Webb (2006) argues that interpretation is a key issue in narrative research if the researcher is attempting to value and equal relationship between the researcher and the researched, and Cortazzi and Jin (2006) give an example of white researchers distorting local stories by imposing their own cultural frame of reference, ‘using the language of the colonial narrator to sustain hegemony” (Trahar, 2006, p.15). When participants see what has actually been written by the researcher, they may see elements of dishonesty or duplicity. Thus handing over a transcript of an interview that has been taped needs to be handled with particular care (Webb, 2006). Discussion of the transcript thus needs to be encouraged. In addition, extracting pieces of transcript and placing them in an academic text also needs to be handled with care and respect, with research participants being warned beforehand. Finally, the distribution of the research may put people at risk, particularly if they are identifiable in the research - an issue which is discussed in some depth below.
Most writers insist on clear communication with the participants about the research process throughout, including explaining to the interviewee what research is about before beginning the interview, and how you plan to analyse the data. Above all, researchers need to consult their consciences (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000), and to be empathetic, because this ensures that participants’ interests are safeguarded (Webb, 2006).
I find many of the ethical issues involved in undertaking research troubling. In this case, I already had a relationship with all of the participants, and this was important to me. Indeed, I valued the continuing relationship more than the research, and thus tried to act in ways that would be true to that relationship and ensure its continuation after the research. I was helped in this by my political convictions - that everyone matters, that everyone counts, that
everyone must be treated as if they were already equal (which they are). As already
mentioned, I discussed my research plan with Abahlali before I even submitted the proposal for this study, and also explained what the research was about, and what it was for, with each participant before the interview began.
2.6.3 Honesty and trust
As already discussed, some writers have proposed that trust lies at the heart of ethical research practice. Because narrative research rests to such a degree on the relationship between the researcher and the participants, the issue of trust becomes even more pivotal.
The process of communicating in depth, at length, creates a bond. Participants can disclose information or attitudes they normally would not, because they like the person who is
listening to them, and they trust them. They are not usually thinking in terms of someone else reading what they have said (Webb, 2006). Thesis writers in particular can feel like they are co-opting/using participant voices for researcher ends (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).
Webb (2006) argues that because narrative research asks and takes a lot, there needs to be some kind of reciprocity. This means in the first instance that the research must be useful to the participants, and, for example, a copy of the research report should be given to the participants.
It was clear to me that the people who agreed to participate in this study do indeed trust me, and believe that the research will be useful. As already mentioned, I will present this study, the stories, and my analysis, to Abahlali in January 2013.
2.6.4 Privacy, confidentiality and anonymity
Whilst ensuring anonymity and privacy of participants, and guaranteeing confidentiality, are basic tenets of research ethics, many writers have raised concerns about the possibility of this within the narrative method. They argue that it is not at all certain we can guarantee
anonymity in any meaningful way (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Webb, 2006), since “once a combination of attributes and experiences is ascribed to a particular case in a research report it can be very difficult to ensure that the case does not become recognizable” (Elliott, 2005, p.142). Even if names and details are changed, participants are likely to be recognized at least by family and friends.
For this reason, there is general agreement that it is very important to discuss the
dissemination of research with participants, and to gain explicit approval for stories to be made public (Elliott, 2005; Webb, 2006). Such a discussion needs to include not only the risks that the participant could be recognised, but what this might mean for others (Webb, 2006). However, Trahar (2006) asks “Who decides what may disclosed to whom? How can one be respectful to the storyteller and at the same time mindful of the audience for the story?” (p.21).
Some writers have also suggested participants may in fact want to be recognised. They may ask to be named. This can be ethically troubling, if the researcher believes that there may be repercussions for them (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). However, as Mishler (1986, cited in Elliott, 2005) suggests, enforcing anonymity and confidentiality might make people feel that their voices have been taken away.
I complied with the ethical requirements of my university’s ethical committee by discussing this issue with each of my participants both prior to and after the interview. The fact that they would usually be provided with a pseudonym was discussed with them, as was the possibility
that I would change details within their stories in order to disguise their identities. I did, however, make it clear that this was a choice; their choice. In the event, one participant chose to be given a pseudonym at the time of the interview; and one other asked that s/he be
allowed to make this decision after the interview. The remainder were quite clear that they did not wish to be ‘hidden’. When I gave the participants the transcription of my interview with them, I again checked whether they would like a pseudonym - none of them changed their minds. I did, however, remove all references to the names of other people they had mentioned, unless these were the names of other participants who had specifically requested that they not be hidden.
2.6.5 Intervention and advocacy
Miles and Huberman used the term “intervention and advocacy” to refer to the issue of whether or not a researcher should intervene at any point; but I would suggest it also refers to what Elliott (2005) calls the ‘political’ aspect of ethics, as discussed above. Clearly, within critical research with it’s emphasis on praxis, this is an important ethical issue.
As I have already discussed, the narrative approach is often popular because it can give voice to the most marginalized, and because of its political potential: “The popularity of narrative approaches among many social scientists may also lie in its potential to be subversive and transformative” (Elliott, 2005, p.144). This is why, for example, it has been so heavily used in feminist research. However, as we have seen, Elliott argues that the method is no less exploitative than other methods, depending on how it is used. Exploiting participants for political purposes remains unethical.
Grumet (1987), drawing on his analysis of how stories are about power, reminds us that “an interrogation tactic of the police state is the refusal to tell the one who is questioned what the questioner is looking for” (p.324). This is something researchers are also often guilty of.
In a research paradigm that denies the agency of the subject, researchers are often afraid to announce what they are looking for because they are afraid of prejudicing
belong to the researcher and the subject of the research is merely the medium through which the question finds the answer. (p.324)