Ethical considerations and practical challenges

Research, as a systematic process of intentional inquiry, is characterised and governed by certain amount of rigour and sets of principles and guidelines (Bryman, 2008).

Furthermore, as I used psychosocial and critical ethnography as methodology, it was very crucial and obligatory to begin with an ethical responsibility to address processes of unfairness or injustice that show up in my relationship and interactions with the fishers.

By referring to ‘ethical responsibility,’ I mean an undeniable sense of duty and commitment based on moral principles of human freedom and well -being, and hence a compassion for the suffering of living beings (Madison, 2012). Before the commencement of this study I had to explain and justify how the study was to be carried in conformity with the research ethical standards of University of Sussex, which requires the protection of the best interest of research participants. I also had to ensure that my research purposes, contents, methods, reporting, and outcomes abided by professional principles and practices (Cohen et al., 2011) like the 1964 Helsinki research standards, amended in 1996 (see Adzahlie-Mensah, 2013). Prominent among the areas of concern are informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, data protection, and doing no harm to the fishers and their children. There were ethical issues surrounding the use of psychoanalysis and psychosocial. I will address this in my reflections in Chapter Nine.

Ethical issues arose from the nature of my research project itself, the community setting for the research, the procedures and methods adopted for data collection, the type of data collected, the nature of the participants, and what is to be done with the data and reporting the data (Oliver, 2003). I negotiated access as an on-going multi-layered process owing to the fact that the setting for the study is a postcolonial fishing community demanding my sustained interaction and observation of fishers and how they related with their working children. Therefore, it was not a one-off achievement negotiated with gatekeepers like chief of the community and the chief fisher

(Adzahlie-Mensah, 2012). In my attempt to seek for oral consent from the gatekeepers (Community chief and his elders), they argued that formal education and schooling are the means through which the West controls it former colonies. They suggested that because I am an educated person, I was only in the community to work for ‘outsiders’. I felt this was an attack on me as an educated person. At this point I had to demonstrate to the chief and his elders that I identify myself with them, and prove that I am sensitive to their needs even though I am an educated person. After long deliberations about the purpose of the study and duration of the study, the gatekeepers consented orally. They were made aware that I could be asked to leave the community at any time. The community’s chief consented by given his verbal approval:

My son I am so happy that you have this big idea for this community, especially our children. This problem you are coming to study can be found in all the fishing communities in this country. We need your assistance to deal with them. Honestly, I am so happy to have you here as one of us. You are welcome. I have always had problems with the youth and their love for gambling and smoking. Most of these children do not have any role models in this community these days. As you coming to stay here with us for your research, I know the children would see you differently and learn from you. My only challenge with people like you is that because of your interactions and dealings with whites, you tend to think like them. But don’t worry my linguist is gone to call the chief fisherman and women’s leader…

I made some payment instead of the provision of some alcoholic beverages for the pouring of libation, even though this was against my religious beliefs. This act, for me, resonates with Ruch’s (2013, p. 3, emphasis original) explication of beneficence as

“generally understood quite restrictively in terms of ‘hard’ intentional and tangible outcomes or benefits for research participants, such as some form of reward/payment for participation or improvements in or access to service provision”. By making such a payment, I thought I could be experienced by the fishers as equalizing the relationship or as having the material power in terms of finance which could be used to coerce them for information (Hollway & Jefferson, 2013). For me, this was tantamount to influencing their decision to grant me access and allow the fishers to participate in the study.

However, the fact that the chief expressed his willingness to assist anybody who has intention of helping the community to deal with child labour encouraged me to move on.

I met the chief fisherman and woman (Konkohene). I read and explained in the local dialect the purpose of the study and process of data collection as well as my stay in the community. The chief fisherman gave his verbal approval:

Well gentleman before I welcome you, may I know where you come from?

{Referring to me} I asked this question because of the way you speak the Fante dialect with ease. Anyways you are very welcome. This very problem you are trying to contribute to solving has been with us for ages.

We need a solution to it. I wish you a happy stay in this community. If you face any challenge just inform me. We will help you to help us. I will ensure that you meet all the fishers and explain everything to them

The leader of the women gave her verbal approval by supporting what the chief fisherman said. She said: You are welcome my son. As a woman I don’t have much to say but to support what the chief fisherman said. We will help you to help us.

The linguist of the chief introduced me to the fishers. I read and explained in Fante dialect (local dialect of the fishers) an information sheet and consent form stating the research purpose which contained their rights and my responsibilities. I also informed them about the duration of my stay in the community, and the process of data collection.

The chief’s gong-beater informed the rest of the community members of my presence in the community as a researcher, so that there would not be surprises if I peer into the social life of the community as a whole (Cohen et al., 2011). I continuously negotiated access by securing day-by-day consent. I ensured that the fishers understood that being part of the study is voluntary and that they have the right to choose whether to be in the study or not (Adzahlie-Mensah, 2013). I explained and guaranteed them my obligations and commitment to anonymity and confidentiality. Fishers were made to understand that I would use aliases or pseudonyms, code for identifying people, and the use of password protected files (Bryman, 2012) to secure their identity as individuals and the community’s identity.

Fishers selected for the study asked questions with respect to the research purpose, the process of data collection and their rights and responsibilities as participants. I recruited

the participants after they had given a verbal consent to be part of the study. The chief fisher was not selected for the study and he did not have any hand in the selection of the participants. This was to ensure that selected fishers feel free to express themselves without any fear or favour. Even though children were not selected as participants, I read and explained the purpose of the study and the process of data collection to the children of the selected fishers. This was so because the study was about them from their parents’

perspective. I observed and interacted with their parents as they were working together.

Therefore it was ethically right for me to seek for their consent. I explained to the children their right to stop me from discussing anything about them with their parents. I was sensitively aware of the unequal power relations that existed between the fishers and me; the researcher and the Ghanaian.

One of the practical challenges that nearly stalled this study was when two of my initial participants communicated to me their desire to stop participating in the study because of the attitude of their husbands. They explained to me that their husbands felt that they are married women who should not be seen with another man in the name of research. To address this issue I met their husbands and they explained to me their worries and reservations. They later on agreed with me to always ensure that I interacted with the women in an open space for everybody to see us. They disagreed with the initial arrangements of holding the interviews in the sheds of the women.

I anticipated the need to ensure that none of my method of data collection constituted any emotional or physical harm to the fishers. I repeatedly kept reminding the fishers of their right to refuse to talk to me or to stop me from participating and observing them at any time they deemed fit. Each interview session, for example, began with a reminder to the fishers’ that participation in the research was voluntary. These were brought about based on my reflections on the fissure of distance between me and the fishers related to age, education, and idiom which I had to negotiate well and build platform for mutual trust and respect to bring about cordiality in our relationship. I provided feedback to participants by reading and explaining in the local dialect the transcripts, and a summary of the report in a focus group briefing session. This formed part of my debriefing session.

I approached my ethical issues with an attitude of compassion, respect, gratitude, and

common sense without being too effusive (Bryman, 2008), yet I was not spared of ethical challenges.

4.8 Reflexivity

The start of this study saw the convergence of all the factors that made up my multiple selves. These were my Ghanaian-ness; my childhood experiences as a child labourer;

Being a principal research assistant; social commentator on radio/television; political activist; and a student-researcher from the United Kingdom (see the Preface). I was, and played most of these roles (Apart from studying in the UK) in the Central Region of Ghana. All of these contributed to my study. But also made it an extremely challenging process. All of these highlight the fact that researcher subjectivity and identity cannot be excluded in the research process. It also highlights the place of intersubjective dynamics (see Hollway, 2009). Thus being reflexive becomes imperative in this study. The analytic stance I employed was a concentric reflexivity approach (see Saville Young &

Frosh, 2010). This means I had to continuously disclose myself throughout the research process, and also share same centre with the fishers without necessarily sharing same radius. Through this process I constantly reflected on my interactions, observations and dialogues with fishers. This also involved the analysis of the way data and text are put together, the use of intonations, stresses and the rhythmic patterning of words so as to interrogate effectively (Frosh, 2007). This approach therefore required of me to pay attention to the details of the spoken word as well as the broader cultural discourses (Saville Young & Frosh, 2010).

My personal beliefs, values, experiences as an ex-child labourer, interest, and socio-political obligations as a Ghanaian influenced my choice and understandings of this study. As a Ghanaian I spent time reasoning about how the whole fieldwork and data collection process had affected my understandings of fishers, children and their way of life in terms of their inner and outer circumstances. This includes my appreciation of the fishers’ traditions, values, feelings, and anxieties as a Ghanaian from the North studying a fishing community in the South. I was also concerned about how being an ex-child labourer could affect my understandings of the narratives of the fishers, my emotions and

my representation of this in a textual form as a researcher. I was also concerned about how to negotiate my relationship with the fishers to ensure that the operations of power relations were well managed. All of these had to do with my personal choices in keeping a research diary and journals, writing one thing at a time while thinking about how the study was to be framed for my purpose. I had the aim of ensuring that the study brings about a change in both myself and the fishers and their children through personal and cultural growth to be delivered by social work interventions.

These show that my words and feelings are included in the analysis so as to reflect on the joint narrative work that emerged during the interview. From my perspective, this facilitated an accountable and transparent approach to my contribution to the material.

According to Wetherell (2008) doing so recognises the specific context in which the narrative material is produced, a context that comes with its own pressures to narrate a coherent self. This among others explain why I kept journal and reflexive diary in which I kept track of activities of my multiple selves and how I felt about the happenings in the community. As a result I used my subjectivity to assist in my data analysis as part of my reflexive approach (see Hollway & Jefferson, 20013).

I became the measuring instrument in the analysis by going back and forth through a process of reading, re-reading and constructing and reconstructing the data. This helped me to make sense of the data. Drawing on concepts and ideas from psychoanalysis, I developed complex reasoning as I tried to link all the loose strands of the data to identify themes. The final product or thesis is considered as a reconstruction of the fishers’

perspectives drawing on my previous and personal experiences with child labour in Ghana. Premium is placed on how my being the researcher influenced my interpretation of the data, and the construction of the final text (Burawoy, 1998). My Ghanaian-ness (Speaks the fishers’ dialect, Fante), and an ex-child labourer suggest that I have previous experience with my study of child labour. This meant I could influence the entire study.

However, I am also a student studying in the United Kingdom (Acquired Western values and maybe taste), and I am Ghanaian from the Northern part of Ghana. This meant I could act as an outsider as well even though I was born in the Central region of Ghana

and could speak the fishers’ dialect as discussed in the preface. Varying my methods of engagement, putting people at ease and triangulating the information through the complementary research methods all helped to provide a more accurate research data and final text.