Ethical considerations 92

Ethical considerations were paramount throughout all three studies within the present thesis. I was acutely aware that the students and lecturers in all three studies needed to be supported and empowered in order for the research to reflect their experiences. To this end, I incorporated the British Educational Research Associations (BERA) code of ethics into the design of the studies. Further, I also ensured that the requirements of data protection were adhered to. The following section will outline the ethical considerations I made throughout the thesis.

Ethical considerations are an extremely important part of the research process. Central to such considerations are the intentions to minimise or even prevent potential detrimental effects upon research participants. In this regard, the participant’s privacy and informed consent were pertinent for me to maintain. Mauthner, Birch, Jessop & Miller (2002) argue that ethical problems can arise within research when “private lives and personal accounts are placed in the public arena”

(p.1). I therefore ensured throughout all the studies that suitable pseudonyms were used for all participants and that all data was securely saved on a password protected hard drive. I also ensured that the research data was only shared with the supervisory team after such measures had been put into place. Doloriert & Sambrook (2009) argue that a deontological view should be taken within research and as such I operated within this framework. I also ensured that I demonstrated academic integrity and honesty throughout the research process (Punch, 2000) in order to create and ethic of care (Heath, Brooks, Cleaver & Ireland, 2009).

One area that was especially ethically sensitive was the fact that I was a member of staff at the university in which the research took place. In this sense the literature would suggest that I was an insider (Mercer, 2007). In this regard, Hammersley (1993) has argued that:

“there are no overwhelming advantages to being an insider or an outsider. Each position has advantages and disadvantages though these will take on slightly different weights depending on the particular circumstances and purposes of the research” (p.219)

One area which I considered an advantage was that of familiarity. As an insider I had a better initial understanding of the social setting as I knew the context and therefore was able to follow particular lines of inquiry (Griffiths, 1985) producing richer data. Some researchers, such as Hockey (1993) have argued to the contrary suggesting that insiders don’t ask obvious questions or challenge assumptions so the data becomes less rich. But equally as Hockey (1993) also suggests, insiders have credibility and rapport with subjects and can engender candour in participants. Arguably given such concerns participants could think they will be judge by what they say and therefore not say it (Shah, 2004). However, as Mercer (2007) argues it’s like a double edged sword. What the researcher gains from their intimate

knowledge of the context could be lost as Hawkins (1990) argues by their inability to make the familiar strange.

Drever (1995) argues that “people’s willingness to talk to you and what they say to you is influenced by who they think you are” (p.31). This seems a pertinent issue to highlight given that I lectured at the university where the research took place and therefore in terms of the power balance in studies one and two I was a lecturer and they were a student. This was of course different within study three where I was a direct colleague. Either way, I was still an insider and thus I had to ensure that I did not voice my own opinions within the interview, rather I needed to let the participants tell their stories freely. However, that is not to say that I did not engage with the participants during the interview. Hawkins (1990) identified that when researchers offered minimal responses during interviews this was interpreted by participants as a lack of interest in what they were saying. I was therefore extremely keen to ensure that the participants felt I was interested (as I was) but at the same time I was careful not to influence the responses they gave. In this regard, I constantly referred them back to their original drawings or the videos they had watched. I was also very keen to avoid what Griffith (1985) identified as, incidental data; that is data derived from informal chats over coffee or meetings. This was particularly the case with the lecturers that I interviewed, as I felt this was unfair due to the fact I had not negotiated such data collection with them. Being an ‘insider’ would have not only compromised the trust I had with my colleagues, as it would have been an abuse of access, but also undermined my own integrity with regards to data collection within the thesis.

I was aware that the potential for participant discomfort was a distinct possibility within my research. I requested participants to reflect upon their emotional reactions to situations which they may have perceived as stressful (assessment & feedback situations in HE) and potentially these could cause discomfort. I was very much prepared and willing to offer advice if such occurrences presented themselves. Some students did appear visibly upset and when this did occur I indicated that counselling services were available if the participant needed to talk to

someone in more detail about their experiences. Further, participants were also informed that if they felt it necessary, they could cease the interview at any time. This did however not occur within the research. I exercised a duty of care throughout the research process striving to treat the insights the participants gave me with dignity and respect. In this regard I gave the participants an opportunity to tell their stories within my research and attributed such stories.

I was granted ethical approval for the research within this thesis by the Educational Faculty ethics committee (see appendix seven) prior to commencement of data collection. I ensured that voluntary informed consent was granted by all participants prior to engaging in any data collection with them (BERA, 2011). This was facilitated through a participant information sheet (see appendix eight) which detailed the nature and process of the research study alongside the fact that their participation was voluntary. The consent form (available on request) outlined that the interview would be recorded, all data would be kept securely, only viewed by the researcher and pseudonyms would be used to protect their identity. I explained that the pseudonyms would be utilised throughout the thesis and in subsequent publications, conference presentations or any other discussions relating to data derived from their transcript. Prior to the commencement of the interview I also reminded the participants that they could withdraw at any point if they so wished. A further measure I employed was to allow all participants the opportunity to keep the drawings they produced (I took photographs to use in the thesis) and also to view the transcript from the interview. Allowing the participants the opportunity to check the transcripts minimises the potential for misrepresentations to occur (BERA, 2011). In practice all participants did not take up the opportunity to view the transcript but many opted to keep their drawing.

The main part of collecting the data in relation to the sensitive issue of emotions was carried out through the use of drawings. The students were asked to visually represent their emotions and then asked to talk about their drawings. The quality of their drawings was not a consideration for the research, more a tool for fostering

student reflection and subsequent discussion of themes emerging. I was fully aware that many people have a latent dislike of drawing, due mainly to a fear over the quality of their drawing ability. However, structured support in entering into the drawing process was provided in the form of several warm-up exercises to ease the students into the process. Ethically I was aware that if the students indicated that they were uncomfortable with this they could withdraw from the process immediately. However, all of the students continued with the drawing activity throughout to the end.