Ethical consideration dilemma

Ethical conduct is not just the simple matter of avoiding placing at risk those whom in our research projects we variously call the researched ‘other’ and ‘respondents’. It is the infinitely more complex challenge of doing good, a consideration that places researchers at odds with one another as they raise entirely different questions about the location of good in the conduct of research. (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990, p. 243)

Ethics clearance was obtained from the Faculty of Education Ethics committee at the teacher education institute where this study was conducted (Ethical clearance number: Sem 2 2018 – 024, see Appendix A). In the ethical clearance application, I agreed to adhere to three ethical concepts of research namely; informed consent, avoidance of potential harm and risks, and confidentiality (see Appendix B, for informed consent form). These three ethics concepts have their roots in human subject research in the medical science; specifically “in the area of new drugs and experimental treatments” (Flinders, 1992, p. 102), and was adopted by social science research. Flinders (1992) further explains that each term is associated with different stages in the research process. Informed consent is associated with the recruitment of the participants; and has its roots in the principle of respect for persons (Sowder, 1998; Marshall & Rossman, 2011). The principle of respect for persons recognizes the “individual’s personal dignity and autonomy” (Sowder, 1998, p. 435).

Generally, in educational inquiries, researchers recognize an individual’s personal dignity and autonomy by taking into consideration four elements of informed consent. Sowder (1998), listed these four elements as (i) participants are fully informed; (ii) they are competent to give consent; (iii) have a clear understanding of the conditions of consent and (iv) participants give consent voluntarily. Furthermore, researchers undertake to minimize potential risk or harm to participants. This ethical concept is associated with conduct in the fieldwork. In other words, the researcher assures the participants that she will minimize the risks of, for example, physical harm, psychological stresses and professional standing and identity (Flinders, 1998). Finally, confidentiality, which, is associated with the writing up of the research report, aims to protect the identity of the participants and possible risk factors of stress and embarrassment. Factors of confidentiality are normally addressed by the use of pseudonyms.

84

Now that I have explained the three ethical concepts of qualitative research, I want to return to Eisner and Peshkin (1990), and agree with them that ethical conduct is just not a simple matter of avoiding placing the participants at risk. I want to add that in the initial stage of conducting the study, when one applies for ethical clearance, it seems like a simple matter, but once you conduct fieldwork and write up the research report these three ethical concepts raise certain concerns in qualitative studies especially. The three ethical considerations lead me to reflect on aspects pertaining to ethical conduct in practitioner inquiries. For instance, in the consent form the participants in the study are informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time. However, in this study it is not that simple for student teachers to withdraw from the study, as the mathematics content course is a compulsory part of the qualification. By withdrawing from the study will mean that student teachers will not complete the course and possibly place themselves at risk of not meeting the required credits needed for the qualification. On the other hand, as a collective, the student teachers could have refused to participate in the study from the outset but they did not; they consented to participate. This made me consider why they consented to participate in the study, why they agreed to be the researched. Was it because of power relations, where they felt obliged to participate in the study because the lecturer of the course asked them? Alternatively, was it because they either fully understood or thought about potential risks or because they had not or were equipped to. Throughout the process of the study, I kept these tensions in mind.

With regard to avoidance of causing harm when conducting field work it is indeed a substantially complex challenge of doing good. As both a practitioner and researcher, I have the moral obligation to do good to my students, as participants in the study and as students enrolled in the course. These dual roles can cause internal conflict within the researcher, because on the one hand the educational needs of the student teachers need to take priority and on the other hand the research goals. Although the research goal was theoretically underpinned, and as the practitioner I decided from the onset that I am the teacher educator during the lectures and a researcher when I make field notes, I was still faced with considerations of potential risk factors, such as deciding at times when it would be justifiable in the interest of the research goal to leave student teachers who struggle to solve a mathematical problem. As incidence of this nature could cause further harm to a fragile mathematics disposition in the case of student teachers with math anxiety, low self-efficacy, and so forth.

The ethical consideration of avoidance of causing harm does not only refer to ethical conduct in fieldwork, but is also evidenced in how the researcher reports the findings, in other words

85

how the researcher protects the confidentiality of the participants. Flinders (1998) warned that it is more difficult in interpretivist research to protect the confidentiality of participants than in other types of studies. The difficulty to protect confidentiality in interpretivist studies is ascribed to the ‘thick descriptions’ and detailing the lives of the participants in their natural settings (Flinders, 1998). Drawing on James (1982) argument, Flinders (1998) further explained that the difficulties to protect confidentiality can lead to problems, such as:

 Participants may become upset at how they are portrayed;  Individuals may be subjected to unwanted publicity

 Information about participants may be disclosed to people who have the power to use that information for exploitive purposes

 People may be depicted in ways that are embarrassing to their local communities, professions, or families

 Sensitive reports may foreclose on future research opportunities (Flinders, 1998, p. 105).

Here I was faced with the dilemma of how to describe the development of the student teachers’ mathematical problem-solving proficiency as suggested by the findings without causing stress, embarrassment and unwanted negative publicity about the student teachers who agreed to participate in the study in good faith. Once again, I was faced with the dilemma of doing ‘good’ to the student teachers as a teacher educator and as a researcher. Taking an ecological position on ethics (Flinders, 1998) as a practitioner researcher in this study aided me in working through these ethical dilemmas.

From an ecological position on ethics, the classroom is viewed as an ecosystem. Flinders (1998) explains that ecology does not necessarily refer to an environment but to a set of interdependent relationships. He therefore, likens classrooms as biotic environments filled with living beings, such as children and teachers. In other words, the classroom is “consciously designed as a cultural milieu – populated not by foliage, insects and fungi, but by language, relationships, and ideas. These cultural dimensions of the classroom – its curriculum and norms of interaction – are what connect it meaningfully with the world beyond its four walls” (p. 108). By viewing the classroom as an ecosystem, Flinders (1998) points out that no part of the ecosystem, neither the researcher nor participants, can gain control over the entire system. In

86

this sense, the notion of informed consent is a matter of cultural awareness, being aware of the cultural differences between the researcher and participants. Flinders (1998) refers to the cultural awareness of the differences in respective roles, status, cultural norms and language that makes communication possible. Thus, when I asked the student teachers if they would participate in this study, I asked them to collaborate because of our interdependent relationship. Ecological ethics directs our thinking beyond cultural sensitivity, as individuals should be recognized as a larger system, the environment; therefore, we should shift our concern about avoiding harm of the individual to avoiding harm of the environment (Flinders, 1998). For instance, in this study, I had to be mindful of how I report on the student teachers development of mathematical problem-solving proficiency. More specifically mindful of the language I use because the student teachers are part of a larger environment or community and I may not only cause harm to the student teachers but the entire education system. In reporting on the findings I had to mindful that words not only convey information about the student teachers and ideas but also about the relationship between myself the student teachers and where our relationship stand in terms of “power, status and privilege” (Flinders, 1998, p. 112).