Ethical considerations have been described as ‘a matter of principled sensitivity to the rights of others’ (Cavan 1977, cited in Cohen et al. 2000: 56). In the current study, the researcher was sensitive to her position in the research as a ‘guest[s] in the private spaces of the world’ (Stake 2005: 459). Ethical complexity was compounded as ethical considerations were apparent at two levels, although there was an explicit interface between the two: participation of the case study institutions, and participation of individuals. In essence then, the researcher was a guest in two overlapping worlds.
The University of Lincoln holds the ethical ‘principle of beneficence’ which requires researchers to maximise benefits from research and minimise possible harm to individuals (University of Lincoln undated: 1). With regard to this study, the researcher aimed to ensure that this principle was also applied to both the institutions and the
individuals who participated. This standard is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), who state that as a principle ‘social science research should be conducted in such a way that it minimises harm or risk’ and ‘research designs should consider potential harm to respondents’ organisations or businesses as a result of the work’ (ESRC, undated: 25).
The significance of context to this study, previously highlighted, meant that it was important to undertake the research with the full knowledge, agreement and participation of each case study institution, rather than, as may have been possible, working with individual academics separately from their employing institutions. Therefore, the first stage in developing the relationship with the two institutions was one of discussion and negotiation in respect of access, with recognition that the whole study was heavily dependent upon their goodwill. This negotiation could only take place within a framework of clarity about expectations and commitments from both parties, particularly related to issues of confidentiality, anonymity, data protection procedures and intellectual property rights. Furthermore, with regard to the interface between negotiation with the institution (or its representative managers) and the individual academic participants, a paramount ethical concern was to ensure that employees experienced ‘freedom from coercion’ (Walliman 2005: 345). Thus, at the institutional level, the researcher visited each institution to present the research proposal, meet with key informants, discuss commitments, and outline the intended research process and ethical procedures. A significant factor here was to address overtly how the research findings would be reported and disseminated, particularly with regard to whether the institutions would be identified within this. The process of ‘access and acceptance’ was a significant stage of the project as it afforded ‘the best opportunity for [the] researcher[s] to present their credentials … and establish their own ethical position
…’ (Cohen et al. 2000: 53). These meetings culminated in the researcher drafting a letter of agreement that set out the boundaries and commitments of each party in writing (see Appendix B). Each of the participating universities signalled their commitment to the research by signing the letter of agreement, which was then countersigned by the researcher. One institution processed this through their legal department, the other chose to table it for agreement at a formal, university-level committee meeting.
At another level, ethical considerations in respect of participation of individual academics and key informants within the case study institutions largely focussed on the principles of confidentiality and informed consent. At the point of negotiating their involvement, and again one week prior to each arranged interview, participants were provided with an ‘Information Permission Form’ (see Appendix C) that set out in writing information about the research project, issues of confidentiality, information handling and storage, and the rights and responsibilities of both the researcher and the contributing individuals. Within this the researcher also clarified that there could be no expenses or payments made for contributions to the research and that participants could withdraw from participating in the project at any point prior to the publication of the research results. The proforma document was also made publicly available on the project web pages (Crawford, undated). This form, which also incorporated a formal consent document requiring the signatures of both parties, was then discussed and signed before each interview began. As stated, confidentiality was afforded the highest priority throughout the research work, with no individual interviewee being identified or identifiable within the publicly available written materials to anyone other than the researcher, at any stage of the study. Importantly, this is clarified within the agreement forms at both institutional and individual levels.
The pilot study, as described earlier, was undertaken within the researcher’s own employing institution and therefore additional ethical issues related to being an ‘insider’, as discussed in Chapter 1 (pages 27, 33-4), were pertinent. Tickle (2002: 46) describes how the position of the practitioner researcher can both ‘open windows and close doors’ with the micro-politics and relationships within institutions leading to complexity with issues of access, consent and confidentiality. The researcher’s experience in this pilot work could be likened more to ‘opening windows’, as trust and openness (Tickle 2002) were features of the research interactions throughout. Furthermore, as an ‘insider’ the researcher experienced a feeling of ‘safety’ when trying out different approaches during the data collection processes and requesting honest feedback from participants in order to further develop, not only the consent and information documentation, but also the research instruments.
The ethical considerations and processes detailed here were all made explicit at the outset of the study which received formal committee approval to proceed within the auspices and guidelines of the University of Lincoln’s ethical research policy (University of Lincoln undated).