Chapter 3. Methodology: Contexts, Concepts, and Methodological Processes 3.1 Introduction and Overview of 1 Introduction and Overview of Chapter
3.6 Ethical Considerations
3.6.1 General ethical principles
The autonomy of research participants is usually ensured through respectful and considerate engagement, and the recognition of participants’ right to make decisions for themselves during the research process (Wassenaar, 2006). Autonomy can be exercised by an informed consent process, voluntary participation in a research project, as well as voluntary discontinuance.
Importantly, discontinuance should not result in any negative effects for the participant. At the start of the focus group discussions for this study, the participants were guided through an informed consent document (included as Appendix 7). In addition to signing the informed consent document, informed consent was understood as a continuous process and dynamic negotiated state between researcher and research participants for this study. In recognition of this continuous consent process, each stage of the qualitative phase of the study (i.e., focus group discussion, auto-photography induction, and photo-elicitation interview) sought to confirm the participants’ comfort with the research process, and to re-establish their consent and autonomous participation.
Participants were invited via email to attend the focus group discussions, and so their appearance at the allotted times indicated some level of voluntary and free participation. In addition, during the focus group discussions, it was reiterated that participants were free to leave at any point (see Appendix 5). Although the informed consent documents were discussed early in the focus group discussions, the participants were only asked to leave these behind at the end of the focus group discussion. This strategy allowed the focus group participants time to think about whether they wanted to consent to participate in the study or not. There was also no social pressure to consent given that time was not spent by the researcher in the focus group discussion collecting the consent forms. As identified earlier, one participant opted to stay and participate in the focus
group discussion, but then did not return the informed consent form at the end of the focus group discussion. This particular participant’s contributions to the focus group discussions were
subsequently removed from the study.
Respecting the rights, dignity, and diversity of research participants is another ethical principle that can be partly achieved through an informed consent process (American Educational Research Association [AERA], 2011). Some of the ways in which the rights, dignity, and diversity of the participants were respected during the data production processes for this study included the researcher’s awareness of interpersonal processes while facilitating the focus group discussions and interviews. Participants were respectfully invited to contribute to the group discussions, diverse opinions were encouraged, and aspects of the photo-elicitation interviews that evoked emotions in the participants were sensitively managed. Appropriate referrals to student support services at UKZN were suggested where necessary.
Another way in which the ethical principles of autonomy and respect for the rights and dignity of research participants can be maintained is through confidentiality and anonymity (Wassenaar, 2006). In general, confidentiality implies that information pertaining to research participants is kept private and anonymised in the reporting of the study. Iphofen (2009) differentiates between anonymity and confidentiality by identifying the latter as a continuous variable and the former as dichotomous. In qualitative research, a participant is either anonymous or not, whereas levels of confidentiality may be applied and observed in research processes. Although all research data should be treated confidentially,48 confidentiality implies that information provided during a data production process should not be divulged without the permission of the participant to whom that information pertains. As a default ethical standard and practice, most researchers assume that participant anonymity and confidentiality would be desired by research participants to prevent stigmatisation and the potential for harm (Giordano, O'Reilly, Taylor, & Dogra, 2007).
48 For example, data should be securely stored, focus group participants should be reminded not to divulge details that other participants reveal during discussions, and certain details should not be included in research reports (Iphofen, 2009).
In contrast to the default position of confidentiality and anonymity, it is relevant to note that some research participants could wish to exercise their right to be identified. This is a
particularly critical perspective, which may argue against paternalistic assumptions of needing to protect research participants from their own identities and stories. For some research, it may be politically, socially, and individually relevant to match the voice and name for those who are disempowered or underrepresented in social phenomena (Cresswell, 2009). In effect, the above dilemma represents a tension between an assumed position of enforced confidentiality and anonymity in research, and an elective identity disclosure accompanied by negotiated levels of confidentiality. In light of this dilemma, it was decided in this study to offer the research participants the opportunity to reveal their identities should they so desire (see Appendix 7). Of the eighteen students who consented to participate in the study, fifteen signed a separate specific consent to have their identity revealed in the study. Within the group of eight research
participants who went on to complete the auto-photography and photo-elicitation interview components of the research, only one had originally requested to remain anonymous. Throughout the qualitative data production process, I continued to check on the status of the participants’
consent to disclose or conceal their identities. In managing this disclosure, some elected to request that certain photographs or aspects from the data they produced were removed from the data record. One participant, who initially consented to her identity being disclosed,
subsequently opted for anonymity and a pseudonym. In contrast, the participant who initially opted to have his identity remain anonymous subsequently requested his identity be disclosed in the final write-up. Necessary changes in data records were made throughout the data production, analysis, and write-up processes to accommodate these negotiated changes in informed consent.
The ethical principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence can be conceptualised concurrently.
Whereas nonmaleficence involves not doing any harm, beneficence involves an awareness of and attempt to enhance the well-being and positive benefits accrued to research participants as an outcome of their participation in a research study (Wassenaar, 2006). In an attempt to avoid any potential harm to the research participants’ academic performance in this study, all data
production activities that involved meeting with the researcher were always scheduled outside of formal lecture times (e.g., evenings, Saturdays, or during individual student’s free periods). I was
also acutely aware of mid-year examination schedules, and repeatedly checked that research meetings did not clash with the research participants’ academic commitments or academic preparations. The principle of beneficence was potentially manifest through offering meals and refreshments during the focus group discussions. In addition, nine of the participants who were inducted into the auto-photography components of the study were provided with entry-level digital cameras which they retained after the study had been completed. Moreover, it was anticipated that the participants’ involvement in the study could have positive academic and psychological benefits for them. For example, by focusing on the actions and behaviours that enhanced their academic performance, it was hypothesised that this may reinforce adaptive academic behaviours as well as assist with academic motivation. This did in fact happen for some of the participants, who commented via email or in person with the researcher that their involvement in the study had helped maintain academic focus, re-clarify their academic and personal goals, and reflect on the personal and academic histories that had contributed to where they were at that stage.