Ethical considerations

During the design stage of this study I considered the ethics of the fieldwork and continued to reflect on ethical concerns raised throughout fieldwork, data analysis and

62 writing up. I questioned whether the design was likely to produce good quality learning and whether the contribution this study might make to knowledge about the lives of mothers apart would justify any ethical problems that might arise. Within this chapter I illustrate some of the ethical considerations which have underpinned this study. I do not view ethics as a discrete element to this study and so while taking time here to define and explore some ethical debates, notions of ethics are present throughout this dissertation.

Robson discusses distinctions between ethics and morals, both seen as linked to what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’. He describes ethics as usually “referring to general principles of what one ought to do, while morals are usually taken as concerned with whether or not a specific act is consistent with accepted notions of right or wrong”

(Robson, 2011, p. 66). An ethical principle can be seen as a “general standard or norm that promotes what is regarded as worthy or valuable for the flourishing of humans and/or the whole ecosystem” (NCCPE, 2012, p. 6).

Central to my ethical considerations were the contexts in which this study took place, the dynamics of power present and the extent to which we can be aware of the impact of these dynamics. Miller et al (2012) recognise the shifting landscape of qualitative research suggesting researchers’ approach to ethics must account for context and situation. Taking a feminist perspective, I employed a reflexive approach to ethics in which the “negotiation of ethics moves beyond a model of reasoning and rationality and enables the acknowledgement of feelings and emotions” (Miller et al, 2012, p. 6). Thus relationships and the reflexive-self have been “key to supporting ethical reflection within the research relationship” (Fraser, 2000, cited in Miller et al, 2012, p. 6).

Theoretical models and guidelines direct qualitative researchers through ethical

considerations but have been recognised to be “static and increasingly formalized” and

63 Miller et al call for an approach of “thinking ethically” (Miller et al 2012, p. 1). Key to ethical considerations is the researcher-participant relationship and the need to ensure that the study design does not harm or create risk for participants. More recently this need to take care has extended to research staff (Miller et al, 2012, ESRC, 2010), please see section 2.5.4. Before progressing to the fieldwork stage of the study I submitted an outline proposal to the University of Huddersfield School of Human and Health Sciences School Research Ethics Panel (SREP) for approval which was agreed on 20^th March 2014 (reference: SREP/2014/011)

2.3.2 Power

Kesby recognises participatory approaches aspire to “reduce and circumvent the power relations normally involved in research and development and to take the notion of giving the marginalized a voice to new levels by facilitating their involvement in the design, implementation, and outcomes of programs” (Kesby, 2005 p. 2037).

My awareness that the power that I hold is instrumental (Finlay, 2008, p. 2) in my lone worker role within the specialist project deepened as I considered notions of choice and agency. As outlined in section 2.1.2 my role as a practitioner is a shifting one and my transition into a researcher further extends the fluidity of roles. Having presented a study outline to the working group (see appendix 9) I felt drawn to consider possible limited choices which working group members may have had in giving informed

‘permission’.

As observed by Kinden,

Research is only likely to become intrusive when consent is not fully-informed consent. If participants/respondents are given adequate information then research should not feel like an intrusion into their lives, but rather a welcome

64 opportunity to reflect and learn in a supportive process (cited in Banks and

Armstrong, 2012, p. 26)

Finlay (2008) reminded me that in trying to ‘empower’ participants is implicit acceptance of researchers maintaining a position from which we can empower others. Finlay

questions that power is exerted in one direction, suggesting “Power comes in different guises, inhabiting structural dimensions such as class, race, gender, ethnicity”,

reminding me to remain “alert to how different types of power cross-cut each other and impact on the research relationship” (Finlay, 2008, p. 3).

Kesby’s interrogation of power in the context of participation heartened me with his optimism that through research, opportunities for change are created by opening up spaces for participation, which can “bring about positive transformation in ordinary people’s lives” (Kesby, 2005, p. 2043).

Alongside the fluidity of my own role I have become aware of the evolving nature of the roles of participants in relation to the specialist project. Each participant had been through initial referral processes as a ‘service user’, most then morphing into a group members. A number of participants had been involved with the peer involvement programme in a relationship to myself as lone worker on the project and the wider organisation but also to their own peers and then finally as participants in this study.

In terms of the cross-cutting of power as discussed by Finlay I have been aware of the power which many of these women are able to wield in different circumstances. One participant holds the kind of power which comes from longevity of involvement, much like my own. Her presence in a group can enable, unite and welcome and conversely obstruct, divide and disregard. I have witnessed her hold me to account, standing firm to her beliefs, been inspired by her formidable clarity and instinctive comprehension of power structures. I have equally been reduced to exasperation as her self-defeating

65 actions make her life, and witnessing it, at times almost unbearable. To view this as a relationship in which I, the researcher/practitioner holds all the power would be

negligent. I recognise however it would be remiss not to account for the privilege and power I hold.