76
writing became more expressive, demonstrative, and emotional. Borich (2013) had similar thoughts when she described creative nonfiction as a type of writing that can be from memory, especially with autobiographies, when the author takes snatches from her world. Despite the fact that she agreed with Gutkind (2008) that creative nonfiction can take the form of poetry, stories, a memoir, or an essay, Borich was quick to add that in creative nonfiction, writing that is selective, the “I” who is the author is vividly present in the writing whilst at the same time facts are also present. She explicitly mentioned this point because she explained that creative nonfiction can be public or private writing.
In writing my thesis, my aim was to explore and depict the profound experiences of my life that have shaped the person and teacher educator I have become so that I could better understand them.
When exploring literature on how I could use a creative nonfiction device for doing this, I found that different writers use creative nonfiction writing for different reasons. For instance, Gutkind (n.
d.) explained that he writes in this way to spread information that can be understood, and the feminist writer, bell hooks, explained that she wrote her creative nonfiction memoir, Bone Black (1999), in order to bring her past to the front.
During my writing process, I found that a feeling of uncertainty, and the ambivalent nature of presenting fact and fiction together, gave me a particular edge of expectancy and ambiguity, a thrilling feeling of being animated and stirred to write. Barone (2008) reassured me that despite long-standing traditions of representing research data in more conventional ways, many researchers in the social sciences have championed the challenges they faced in representing their data in creative ways by aligning facts alongside fiction. I was further comforted by Barone (2008) who added that the improbability of presenting fact and fiction together is what gives social science research the excitement that is now being embraced in research studies instead of being avoided.
Borrowing the analogy from Gutkind (n.d.), I delightedly imagined my writing to be a jazz ensemble and in this way managed to juxtapose fact and fiction as I represented a version of myself in my context at certain points.
77
researcher should then deal with each ethical problem as it arises, and document the procedure in order to assist other self-study researchers. They called this “ethical praxis” (2012, p. 183).
Firstly, Samaras (2011) emphasised that all participants in self-study research must be protected and informed of their rights. As soon as my research proposal was accepted, I had to submit an application to the ethics committee of the institution where I was registered for my doctoral studies, to conduct this study. I also had to seek consent for my students to be part of the study from the head of the school of education at the institution where the study was enacted. She was referred to as the
“gatekeeper” because her job was to protect the students.
In my application to the head of the school of education, I had to ensure that the following conditions would be adhered to. Firstly, I had to make sure that confidentiality of the students would not be breached. Confidentiality meant that no student’s personal information would be revealed. I therefore undertook to disregard any personal information that was not closely related to my research questions (Sanjari, Bahramnezhad, Fomani, Shoghi, & Cheraghi, 2014). I also confirmed that that the students’ identities would be protected at all times by not using their names but referring to them as students in dialogues and conversations in which they participated. In certain circumstances, pseudonyms were given to students.
My critical friends in my department at the school of education were informed about the research by the head of department that I will be conducting research in the school of education which will require their input and feedback., authorising me to audiotape and videotape our conversations and discussions. I agreed to also maintain confidentiality and anonymity of my critical friends. Their names were not used, but pseudonyms were given to them instead. However, I did use the real names of some of my critical friends in the TES project group because this was agreed by participants in this project.
Another issue that I was wary and mindful of was manipulating my student participants to try to get the results that I desired in my research. This was a difficult ethical issue to address and, when generating my data, I ensured that I kept detailed records and videotapes of the raw data that was generated—which could be produced to indicate no manipulation of data occurred to reach the desired results. This was a strictly qualitative study and detailed accounts of data generating tools were provided.
78
Alongside the exploration of my pedagogic practice, I delved into an exploration of my personal history to fathom how my personal lived experiences could possibly have influenced my professional development. This “intimate scholarship” (Hamilton 2005, as cited in Hamilton &
Pinnegar, 2014) refers to certain intimate and highly personal aspects of my life that previously were undisclosed. According to Warusznski:
The relationship and intimacy that is established between the researcher and participants in qualitative studies can raise a range of different ethical concerns, and qualitative researchers face dilemmas such as respect for privacy, establishment of honest and open interactions, and avoiding misrepresentations. (2002, p. 152)
Ellis (2007) referred to the ethical responsibility we have to close others who we include in our work about ourselves as relational ethics. Relational ethics calls for researchers to “think from our hearts and minds, acknowledge our interpersonal bonds to others, and take responsibility for actions and their consequences” (Ellis, 2007, p. 4). Ellis also highlighted some of the ethical issues involved in writing about those whom we have a close relationship with—relational ethics should pay attention to regard for others’ feelings and should respect their confidentiality while at the same time paying careful attention to the relationship between the researcher and the person or persons being researched.
Despite keeping these precautions in mind, when I generated data with my students and my close family members, sometimes questions were posed that placed me in very awkward positions, for example, when students asked me whether I was using them for my own personal research by videotaping the lectures. This happened when I involved students in an online discussion board activity but did not grade students (see Chapter Nine). They were initially angry with me, and claimed that I was using them; but my intentions were also to offer them an improved pedagogic experience. I explained that I wanted them to engage with this online activity because I wanted them to improve their use of technology-mediated learning.
When students questioned me about videotaping my lectures, I started a practice of videotaping the lessons they presented to each other in class. I asked them to bring along a memory stick, download the video, and then view themselves teaching. On questioning them about the value of videotaping their lessons, students informed me that it was a very valuable exercise because, for the first time, they viewed themselves teaching. They said that the videotapes made them aware of their strengths
79
and limitations in the classroom and it was an excellent learning experience for them. I then explained that, for me, it was also a very good learning experience because I could watch myself and focus on areas that needed improvement in my teaching. I emphasised that my improvement would make me a more effective teacher educator which, in turn, would benefit them as my students.
Asking my family for old photographs and engaging them in discussions about my childhood posed a few ethical dilemmas for me. Initially, when I explained to my family about writing my thesis, they were excited and went out of their way to send me old photographs. My family do not live in the same town as me; half my family live in Gauteng, another province in South Africa, and the other half live in the Eastern Cape, also another province in South Africa. So eager were my family in supporting me, they actually sent me the photographs with a courier. However, at a family gathering during the course of my data generation process, members of my family asked me what I was going to write about them. One family member said, “I hope you are not going to say bad things about us, because then I will be upset.”
I did not answer that person but said that when my thesis was almost complete, they would all be welcome to read it because I wrote about my personal history, knowing that my family were potential readers. That seemed to have placed some of them at ease because I had sensed discomfort when the question was asked. I told them it is a self-study and it is all about my learning. I explained that I included my childhood stories to see whether my childhood experiences could have influenced the person I have become. Furthermore, like Ellis (2007), I was keeping the memory of people alive by writing about them. I reassured my family that, in writing about them in my thesis, I would keep their memories alive and maybe, years from now, the younger children in the family would read my thesis and learn more about the family.