4.7 Ethics
4.7.2 Nonmaleficence
Wassenaar (2006:67) explains that this principle of nonmaleficence “supplements the autonomy principle and requires the researcher to ensure that no harm befalls research participants as a direct or indirect consequence of the research”. In this study I guaranteed the respondents‟
anonymity. This was done by not publishing the participants‟ real names, and removing information about their occupation, political alliance, and relationship to a public figure and so on. The respondents were given a copy of the consent form to keep and, at the beginning of the interview, the consent form was read aloud to them. The verbal consent was then tape recorded.
In doing this I made sure that the respondents understood the aims of the study and that they
95 would be making a time commitment and that they were also agreeing to reveal their experiences. The written consent form was left with the respondents to ensure that they could read it later if they had any questions about the process after I had left the site.
The language used in my interview schedule was simple and direct. As explained previously, respondents chose whether they wanted to be interviewed in IsiXhosa or in English. The respondents were also free to code switch between IsiXhosa and English at any time during the interview. This was done to ensure that language did not become a barrier to their participation.
This code switching happened a lot during the interview; some respondents preferred to be interviewed in isiXhosa but used English whenever they used the language of politics. Some chose to be interviewed in English but used isiXhosa or Zulu words and expressions. This seemed to be the case when they wanted to refer to their cultural practices like lobola and masiko (traditions and culture).
The first part of the interview entailed a written aspect, which involved writing an overview of the respondent‟s life story. The respondents were allowed ten minutes to think about and to write down their stories of being black in apartheid and post-apartheid South Africa. They were not asked whether they could write or not, but I observed the hesitation in their body language, for example, some would try to hide what they were writing and some would look nervous about writing regardless of the fact that I explained that I was not going to read their written responses.
Consequently, I then decided to encourage them to just think about the outline of their stories and to talk to me when they were feeling ready. I emphasised that it was not necessary to write it down; what was important was to spend time thinking about the question. I realised that this made the environment even much easier and more comfortable for all the respondents before the interview conversation started. This first question was important to me as it prompted their thoughts before the oral interview began.
However, what I had not anticipated were some of the respondents‟ reactions to the interview.
The three most difficult issues that I encountered were, firstly, the anger of one of the respondents towards white people in the moment of the interview, secondly, one respondent‟s monetary compensation issue, and thirdly, an office space problem with two interviewees.
96 One of the first problems I encountered related to the fact that I was asking respondents to share their experiences of being black in South Africa. At times respondents spoke about personal traumas related to racism and I found myself under pressure to act as a counsellor. This happened on two occasions when respondents became very upset about recent experiences of racism. These emotions surfaced immediately after I had read them the introductory comments to the interview. I then realised that I could not continue the interview until we had cleared the air. I asked if they would like to reschedule the interview, or to withdraw from the study if they thought that it would make them feel uncomfortable in any way. As none of the respondents decided to withdraw from the study, I asked them if we could deal with the traumatic events after the interviews, explaining that this suggestion did not mean I was asking them to withhold these experiences from the interview if they felt they were part of their story of being black in South Africa. After they had agreed to continue with the interview, I reread the introductory comments.
When the interview upset the participants, I recommended that they seek professional help to deal with their anger and frustrations. For example, I referred two student-participants to the counselling unit of their universities.
The second unanticipated problem occurred at the beginning of an interview with a woman who worked as a sex worker. I was explaining that the interview would take an hour or more and she responded by asking me how much she was going to be paid because the time she would spending with me was time she could be spending making money to feed herself. As this was quite unanticipated, I really did not know what to do. I was worried that paying her would be unethical, as it was not part of the plans I had submitted to the ethics committee. I was also worried that committing myself to pay her after the interview would limit the interview conversation. I decided to offer her an incentive after we had finished with the interview. After the interview I gave her a hundred rand and she was quite happy. The interview had gone well and did not appear to have been affected by the promise of an incentive.
The third problem was experienced with three respondents who held prominent government positions. Access to one of them was quite difficult and, as I readied myself to do the interview, I was interviewed by security officers about the nature of the study. I had not anticipated this and
97 with hindsight see that, because of their senior portfolios, I should have sent them more information in advance. I was then asked to write an affidavit declaring that the information obtained in the interview would not be used to defame them or the positions they held. I wrote the affidavit addressing their concerns and, once the security officers were satisfied, I was allowed to conduct the interviews. One of the three senior government employees told me after my introduction that he could not participate because of his portfolio. I accepted this explanation and as he was taking me to my car he told me that there were cameras in his office and that the Minister had access to his conversations and because he was going to be revealing some private stories about his life he was not comfortable in his office. The other concern he raised was the fact that I had come with a tape recorder which was not allowed on the premises. He asked if we could meet at his house that evening and I agreed to do so, and the interview proceeded smoothly there.