Ethical and Political Issues

Protecting the Participants

There are a number of ethical and moral dilemmas that face any researcher. Researchers have a responsibility both to safeguard the proper interests of those involved in or affected by their work, and report their findings accurately and truthfully (BSA 2002:2). It is important to consider the effects of the researcher and the consequences of their work or its misuse for those they study and other interested parties (ibid.). Although criminologists and sociologists, like other researchers ‘are committed to the advancement of knowledge that goal does not, of itself, provide entitlement to override the rights of others’ (BSA 2002:2). The rights of those that are involved in the research must be respected. Researchers have the responsibility to ensure that the physical, social and psychological wellbeing of research participants are not adversely affected by the research (ibid.) and it was thus important to consider strategies required to protect them (Liamputtong 2007).

This involved going through each gatekeeper, and allowing sufficient time for this to be executed properly. It also involved gaining informed consent from the respondents and ensuring confidentiality, and emphasising that participation or non-participation in the research would not affect their access to Second Chance, treatment or their key workers. I kept interviewee data, and interview materials locked in a filing cabinet. I received written agreement from the transcriptionist that she would destroy the interviews once transcribed. It was important to gain the participants’ trust, and make it clear they could withdraw from the research at any point. Withdrawing from the field was also an important part

included recapping after the first and second interview that there were three in total which helped keep an ‘end point’ in mind. At the end of each interview, but particularly the last, I appreciatively thanked the respondent, and emphasised again how valuable their contribution and time was to the research. Where interviewees were still attending Second Chance, I told them I hoped to see them at future tournaments and I did continue to attend occasional regional tournaments for several months. Where participants were no longer attending Second Chance I told them they would always be welcome back. When they were interested in doing this I gave them the contact details of the SDO, and asked if they wanted me to ask the SDO to contact them. This happened regularly.

Researcher Safety

It was important to also consider my own physical safety during the fieldwork (Neale et al. 2007). The fact that I was often carrying vouchers around with me accentuated this further. I ensured all interviews took place in a public area (such as quiet coffee shops) (Appleton 2009). During the first round of interviews the location of interview was always at the Second Chance session or the respondents’ treatment centres. The follow-ups interviews often took place in quiet coffee shops as respondents who were no longer on Second Chance or in treatment, for example, said they felt more comfortable in a setting outside of these locations. On these occasions I ensured a supervisor knew of my whereabouts and I called them afterwards to let them know the interview was completed successfully.

It is also important to consider the researcher’s emotional safety during research (ibid), this shall be discussed subsequently.

Research vs. Involvement

Rhodes and Coomber (2010) call for addiction researchers to stand back from their engagement in the research process to reflect upon how their interpretations shape the knowledge they produce, and there is an increasing emphasis for researchers to be reflexive in their roles (Brackenridge 1999). Brackenridge (ibid) cites Pearsall (1988:1559) in defining reflexivity as ‘(a method or theory in the social sciences) taking account of itself or of the effect of the personality or presence of the researcher on what is being investigated’. Kleinman and Copp (1993:46) warn that when the interviewer-

interviewee relationship is good we need to be most conscious of how this may affect the interview. They discuss how qualitative researchers often hear “mixed messages” about developing close ties with interviewees but also remaining detached. Using their experiences of research they suggest the key things to make “sociological sense” involves thinking, talking and writing about their own feelings throughout the research process. With this in mind I tried to remain aware of “over-rapport” (Liamputtong 2007), and of the difficulties sometimes associated achieving the correct level (ibd). One potential problem is that the researcher can become so adjusted to the views of the subjects that they become unbalanced in how they receive other sources of information or perspectives (ibd).

In addition to my two university supervisors, I also had a third ‘field’ supervisor, who agreed to voluntarily provide further support. With his considerable experience of work in the field of substance misuse and recovery, his role was to help me to keep the research grounded and meaningful. He was also my point of contact should any issues of concern arise. In terms of systematically managing and analyse the data this was the most useful support I had. During the field work and initial stages of analysis I met with him monthly or bimonthly, in order to discuss what I was finding and whether I had any particular concerns. This helped me to know the line between ‘research’ and ‘involvement’. For example, one participant was increasingly struggling with an alcohol problem but reported consistently that he could not find support. Although this was the case with others also, this respondent appeared to be in increasingly troubling circumstances. In his last interview he told me that he had tried to commit suicide because he had become so desperate with waiting to go into detox. Again, while other respondents also had described trying to commit suicide since their previous interview, those individuals also stated that they had support which was helping them, to varying degrees, manage. This respondent did not however. My field supervisor suggested that I gave him some information for a support service which might be able to help him. Other examples included participants telling me they were planning to go back to prison, return to crime or relapse, and in several instances this did happen. It was clear at these times the respondents were very distressed. At the same time as wanting to encourage the participant to feel comfortable talking openly to me, I knew

something. Speaking to my field supervisor helped me to deal with these situations and this usually involved encouraging the participant to speak to their key worker, in a small number of occasions in the absence of this support finding relevant information and support that might signpost them to help. A great deal of gratitude and thanks is owed in particular to my field supervisor for his time, advice, and experience. This role helped me to tread the line between research and involvement, and manage the data objectively and systematically. Overall, his support and guidance helped me to stay focused, positive, enjoy and have a sustained enthusiasm for the research study.

Kleinmann and Copp (1993) note that regardless of gender, or whether one is a stranger or familiar, it is inevitable that during the course of fieldwork, relationships are formed, and that if any length of time is spent in the field, then it is more than likely that the nature of relationships and roles in which the fieldworkers find themselves in will change. Relationships in fieldwork are fluid over time and attitudes change and can be ‘multidimensional’ (Reinharz 1992:70) at any time. As the research progressed, I was aware of my own feelings of attachment growing towards participants and my concern for them increased. This was a dilemma I struggled to make sense of, within myself, at many points and I personally found this the hardest aspect of the whole research process. Simply, I did not understand or know what to do with these emotions. Pollner and Emerson (1983) note that while most fieldworkers expect to develop close ties to those they study but also retain some distance, they often concern themselves more with closeness than with distance, and favour intimacy over analysis. For Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) the solution to the complex problem of objectivity is the acceptance of the rationale and process of reflexivity. They state that it is ‘futile’ to ‘isolate a body of data uncontaminated by the researcher’ (ibid.). The researcher is limited by his or her upbringing, gender, age and status and their social and political situation will certainly condition any findings (ibid).

However, even in the knowledge of the material which I read, I still often felt confused and isolated by my own feelings during the research. I became concerned and acutely conscious about how this could potentially affect data analysis. I also found, particularly towards the end of each round of interviews, I was more tired than I had anticipated. I was often upset following interviews especially when respondents were having problems that recurred during the follow-up interviews, and my internal

reactions were very difficult and sometimes impossible to shake off. These feelings stayed with me. Jagger (1998:158) points out that “lacking awareness of our own emotional responses frequently results in being more influenced by emotion rather than less”.

My reading of the literature on emotions and sensitive research kept bringing me to two tools for protecting the researcher and participants. These were reflexive diary keeping and talking to family, friends or colleagues. I did keep a diary but while this was useful in some ways, rather than making sense of my thoughts it internalised my feelings of confusion. While my field supervisor and a clear process of data analysis helped me to keep the data unbiased and objective, his role was not the sort of clinical supervision I think I may have found useful. Following the fieldwork I began to seek counselling and for the first time I began to understand and objectify my experiences (White and Popovits 2001). I wanted to avoid this happening in the future and my counsellor suggested that I contact a drug and alcohol agency to learn about how and why they supported their staff who worked with ‘emotionally scarred people’. Sharing with them my experiences I learned about the package of support which is required of staff and why,

If we did have researchers we would ensure that we would have a package of caring for that individual, for the emotional wellbeing of them and the clients and it would look exactly the same as every other staff, whatever their role, we offer them a package of support with 12 modules, transference, assertive behaviour, boundaries for example, and regular supervision to keep them safe as workers, because it is very emotional, traumatic, demanding work and it does affect you. [Manager, drug treatment service]

It is important to note that I certainly do not think that the research I was doing was in any way especially ‘difficult’, nor the data collected more disturbing than other research. It is recognised that doctoral research is often a solitary task, also, research is naturally full of ‘highs and lows’ and often emotional, solitary journeys in themselves (Brackenridge 1999). I also collected more data than I had expected, so again I had anticipated some tiredness. Also, perhaps this experience was just my own inexperience. It is more than likely that it was a combination of all of these reasons. But in reflection I realise that, at the time, knowing and anticipating these factors associated with doing research made

of seeking clinical supervision from the outset. So, despite feeling that this experience has made me a more knowledgeable researcher in some ways, I still feel that much time and energy could have been saved if I had have ensured this measure was in place during the field work, to protect myself and the client's wellbeing, and to remain systematic during the data collection and analysis.