The question of access is central to qualitative research since the richness of the data collected ultimately depends upon what access is given to what sources of data (Akyeampong and Murphy, 1997). To grant interviews, people may need convincing that the research is of some value to them and assurances of the researcher's integrity so that they approach the interview situation in a spirit of cooperation. Similarly, Hammersley and Atkinson (1993) point out that:
the problem of access is not resolved once one has gained entry to a setting, since this by no means guarantees access to all the data available within it ... not everyone may be willing to talk, and even the most willing informant will not be prepared, or perhaps even able, to divulge all the information available to him or her (p. 76).
Access has, therefore, two sides to it: first, the official permission and once in the field, the negotiated aspect with potential informants. These two aspects were taken into account in this study and are discussed next.
In order to comply with the code of ethics developed by the University of East Anglia, I applied to the Research Ethics Committee of the University, and received ethical approval for conducting the study (see Appendix A)., The process continued by gaining official permission to conduct the study in schools in Malaysia from the Malaysian Economic Planning Unit (EPU) (see Appendix B), followed by an official
These consents were needed to gain complete access to all areas of the primary schools in the state in which I conducted my study.
For the recruitment of the participants, I first contacted the head teachers of five Malay-medium national primary schools that I had selected and explained the purpose of my study over the phone. Following these initial conversations, I sent each head teacher a letter explaining the study in detail and the characteristics of the English teachers required as participants, along with a tentative schedule for conducting the interviews and classroom observations. I then invited each head teacher to recommended one English teacher who was teaching in Year 1 to Year 5 (I was not given permission to include Year 6 because the students were preparing for their national examination) who met the criteria and would be willing to cooperate throughout the duration of the study. However, only four head teachers responded and gave me permission to conduct my study in their school.
Having obtained permission from the four head teachers, I went to the schools concerned to meet the head teachers. During my first meeting with the head teachers, I was introduced to the English teachers (except for ‘Rachel’ as she had class during that time) who had been approached and asked to participate in the study. As a result of this meeting, I was able to approach the teachers directly and briefed them about the purpose of the study and the data collection procedures, which they were going to be involved in. In Rachel’s case, I contacted her (the head teacher gave her contact number) and set a meeting with her the next day in her school, in the staffroom. As the study progressed, one of the teachers decided to withdraw from the study. Therefore, three teachers from three primary schools participated in this study. Given that the participants represented no other group but themselves (Cohen et al., 2007), and that there is no intention in case study to generalise to a broader population, I was not concerned about the small number of participants.
Having obtained permission from the gatekeeper, the next ethical principle is to obtain the informed consent of the participants (Cohen et al., 2007). Richards (2003) emphasises the importance of obtaining honest consent from participants, which is vital in order to ensure that they are aware of the activities and elements that the research will involve. Therefore, at the initial meetings before data collection began, I made great efforts to reassure teachers that they were not obliged to participate and explained that their responses would be anonymised in any subsequent written
reports. This was especially important since my first point of contact in each school was the head teacher, who recommended approaching specific teachers. The nature of the research was also explained to the teachers carefully and consent for interviews to be audio recorded and classroom observation to be video recorded, obtained (all three teachers agreed to these requests). Of course, I cannot be sure of the extent to which all the teachers participated in the research willingly, but based on the rapport I established with them and on their open communications with me, I would hope that they did not feel under pressure at any point during and after data collection. Initial verbal consent was obtained and they were then asked to sign a letter of informed consent as a declaration of their willingness to participate voluntarily in the study prior to the commencement of the research (see Appendix D). Participants were also assured that participation in the study was voluntary and they were free to withdraw at any time if they felt uncomfortable (Cohen et al., 2007). McMillan and Schumacher (2010) indicate that researchers have a responsibility to protect the participants’ identity from the general public. To adhere to this ethical obligation, participants were informed of their right to anonymity and in order to ensure anonymity, pseudonyms for participants and schools were used to protect teachers' identities and the identity of the schools (Simons, 2009). Participants were assured that information provided was to be kept safe and confidential. Data confidentiality was maintained by ensuring the data was separated from identifiable individuals. Written text, audio, and video data files and any digital recordings were securely locked and I was the only person able to access the files. I also safeguarded participants’ confidentiality by transcribing all the data myself. My academic supervisors were the only other people able to read the raw data.