CHAPTER 8 TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP
4.6 RESEARCH ETHICS
112 Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this study contain the final presentation of the data collected during the fieldwork period. The data in these chapters has been collated and reorganised so as to provide a cohesive and logical story in accordance with the voices and actions of the respondents that were consulted and observed and as interpreted through my own analysis.
The data assembled has been so aligned as to offer a deeper understanding of the prevailing conditions that were garnered from the collected data.
Ever present in my mind was an awareness of the potential pitfalls and problems that exist when one is reporting on others’ voices in a document that is subject to the researcher’s own analysis and interpretation. A constant (and sometimes insurmountable) challenge was how to use the words of another in quotation so as to contextualise meaning for the reader, who cannot witness the intonation, pauses, facial gestures and other non-verbal cues. Constant reference to the written transcriptions of the interviews and observations, in conjunction with the video recordings, assisted to attempt to capture mood, tone and meaning.
113 confidential, and nobody’s identity has been mentioned in any reports or divulged without having first received the relevant permission in writing. The right of all the respondents to be treated with equality, dignity, courtesy and gratitude was respected to the best of my ability.
Respect for the truth demands integrity throughout the process of collecting, synthesising and analysing the data, as well as when presenting the report. The researcher’s predisposed life experiences need to be guarded against as they could prove to be an undue influence when it comes time, throughout the process, to interpret the nuances of teaching and leadership. Every care was also taken in all the other aspects of the research process to conduct myself with the integrity and honesty that research both demands and deserves and that is consistent with my own preferred lifestyle.
“In value-free social science, codes of ethics for professional and academic associations are the conventional format for moral principles” (Christians, 2008, p. 192). Christians (2008) further defines four aspects of such a code: informed consent, freedom from deception, respect for privacy and confidentiality, and accuracy of data. When individuals are involved in research by way of interviews or observation, they have the right to privacy, respect, and freedom from violation, anonymity, confidentiality, and the full disclosure of the intent behind their involvement (i.e. informed consent).
The concept of ‘informed consent’ in social research implies that the subject of an inquiry is fully informed of the nature of that inquiry, of what is to be researched, and of the possible effects or ramifications of his/her involvement. “Social Science in the Mill and Weber tradition insists that research subjects have the right to be informed about the nature and consequences” (Christians, 2008, p. 192) of the research in which they are involved.
This presupposes that those involved have agreed to be involved on a voluntary basis (i.e.
there was no coercion) and that they are doing so having first received and understood all the necessary information regarding the research. “The articles of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Declaration of Helsinki both state that subjects must be told the duration, methods, possible risks, and the purpose and aim” (Soble, 1978, p. 40) of any research in which they take part.
114 The practice of obtaining informed consent from research subjects was initiated so as to prevent experimentation within the fields of medicine and biological science that may in any way violate individuals’ human rights (Beauchamp, 1982) or disrespect them as human beings. The practice of obtaining informed consent has since applied to all forms of social research. Participants in this inquiry were presented with an ‘Informed Consent’
document (see Appendix A) that outlined the nature and purpose of the inquiry as well their right as volunteers to anonymity. Furthermore, after obtaining this consent, I clarified for them the importance of providing truthful answers to the questions. It was also clarified that what was being sought was their own views, perceptions and thoughts rather than any
‘correct’ answers they believed the researcher might want or expect. The process involved in obtaining informed consent appeared to be a trivial administrative procedure in the eyes of most of the respondents, but it appeared to reassure some on aspects such as anonymity and the formality of the research control procedures that were in place.
The adoption of an ethic of informed consent means there can be no deception involved.
Numerous social science research experiments that took place in the mid 1900s (for example, the famous Milgram studies of 1964) were based on the deception of the subjects involved. Bulmer (1982, p. 217) takes a firm line, commenting that deception is “neither ethically justified, nor practically necessary, nor in the best interests of sociology as an academic pursuit.”
Safeguards need to be in place to protect the identity of subjects and organisations (in this case, schools and kindred organisations). The maintenance of confidentiality in all reporting and discussion is a first step in safeguarding against unwanted exposure. “The single most likely source of harm in social science enquiry” (Reiss, 1979, p. 73) is for potentially damaging or particularly sensitive material to be attributed to a source.
Christians (2008, p. 194) describes the difficulties involved in maintaining confidentiality, and consequently highlights the need for vigilance in this regard:
Despite the signature status of privacy protection, watertight confidentiality has proved to be impossible. Pseudonyms and disguised locations often are recognized by insiders. What researchers consider innocent is perceived by participants as
115 misleading or even betrayal. What appears neutral on paper is often
conflictual in practice.
It is a matter of personal honour to this researcher that the confidentiality that was promised is maintained. Care has been taken in the presentation of data to ensure that the identities of the respondents have been kept confidential. The use of pseudonyms for both the schools (e.g. Amethyst) and the respondents (e.g. Sapphire 1) will ensure that there is no easy path to any attribution of statements.
“Ensuring that data are accurate is a cardinal principle in social science” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005, p. 145). It is the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that – as far as is humanly possible – no data or reporting is fraudulent, contrived, inaccurate or contains omissions. Such assurances are paramount if one is to produce research of worth and credibility.
The matter of ethics is raised when the researcher engages in in-depth interviewing as a method of obtaining data. Johnson (2001, p. 114) discusses this matter as follows:
In-depth interviewing commonly elicits highly personal information about specific individuals, perhaps even about the interviewer. This information may include participants’ personal feelings and reflections as well as their perceptions of others. It may include details about deviant or illegal activities that, if made known, would have deleterious consequences for lives and reputations [of those involved…]. Collecting this kind of information raises some specific issues.
Johnson (2001) goes on to examine such questions as ‘How far should an interviewer go in seeking information about participants’ answers, particularly with unstructured questions where the respondent is leading the direction of the interview?’ and ‘To what extent need researchers protect individual or groups when there is potential harm to reputations, social standing or prestige?’ An interpretation of the guidance given by professional bodies in this regard is that the researcher needs to do all that is possible to provide protection to any individual who has assisted in the research. The guidance is, however, unclear with regard