Ethical Considerations

This research was granted approval by the DCU Research Ethics Committee. In this section, we look at the central ethical considerations pertinent to this study and how they were accounted for over the conduct of the research.

i. Voluntary Involvement & Informed Consent

As mentioned, participants were recruited primarily via recruitment advertisements appended to their parked bicycles across Dublin city. Cyclists who were interested in taking part would then email (or call – although no one did) to confirm their interest in the study having read the recruitment advertisement. This enabled potential participants to reflect on the project and make a voluntary decision to take part without any identifiable external pressure to do so. Following the confirmation of interest, I would send the plain language statement via email so potential participants could further inform themselves about the project and the potential risks and benefits of

94

getting involved. This was an extra measure to ensure voluntary, un-coerced involvement in the study. Following this follow-up email, to those participants who expressed interest, a date, time and place convenient for both the participant and I was arranged for the interview to take place. At the interview, I would brief participants about the study, what I was interested in for the interview, stress their right to withdraw from the interview at any stage with no negative consequences and offer them a chance to ask any questions. Following this, I would hand them the informed consent form and offer to explain any aspect of it if required. Generally, participants would not be very interested in the plain language statement or the informed consent form and simply wanted to get on with the interview in an informal way as the majority seemed happy to take part and excited to begin talking about their experiences. In this way, both voluntary involvement and informed consent was achieved.

A small number of participants were recruited face-to-face whilst they were either locking or unlocking their parked bicycles. In order to ensure voluntary consent and prevent undue pressure for taking part in the interview, having explained the study, I left the recruitment advertisement with the potential participant and requested that they call or email me if they were interested in taking part in the study. Two individuals followed up with emails and I followed the same process of organising the interview and ensuring informed consent within the interview as with interviewees recruited via the appended recruitment advertisements. Accordingly, both methods of recruitment enabled genuine voluntary involvement for interviewees and procedures before the interview ensured informed consent.

ii. Mitigating Vulnerability

In considering the ethical implications of conducting the study, no major issues of participant vulnerability were identified since the participants were active commuter cyclists and were not being interviewed regarding sensitive, personal information. Nevertheless, one possibility of participant vulnerability was pre-empted: namely, that through interviewing, some interviewees may be reminded of or recall traumatic road traffic incidents that they were personally involved in or had witnessed. It was judged that since this study was initially motivated by an interest in issues of risk and cycling, such participants may provide valuable data if they have witnessed or experienced, among other things, some sort of minor collision or near miss with a passing vehicle. To mitigate this vulnerability, it was stated in the informed consent form and plain

95

language statement that if a potential participant had experienced a traumatic road incident that there was a risk that they may become distressed by recalling it and that they may withdraw from the study at any stage with no negative consequences as their involvement is entirely voluntary. In this way, it was made transparent to participants that there was a potential risk involved in taking part in the study and they were made aware that they may withdraw at any stage without question. Furthermore, it was advised that participants were to consider not taking part in the study if such distress was a possibility.

In the case that the participant voluntarily took part in the study and became distressed having recounted a traumatic road incident, three means of mitigating vulnerability were employed. First, during the interview, I was sensitive to the possibility that the participant may become distressed and was prepared to ask the ‘Risk Management’ set of questions present in the interview guide (Appendix C) that directly checked if the interviewee wished to stop, pause or continue the interview. These would be asked at the point of distress. Second, regardless of whether the participant seemed distressed are not, if the participant had recalled what seemed like a potentially traumatic event that led the interview into the exploration of potentially disturbing content, I asked the interviewee positive questions about cycling as a means to end the interview positively (see ‘Risk Management’ questions Appendix C). Third and last, a free psychotherapy service was made available in the event of participant distress resulting from the interviews that was not alleviated by the ‘risk management’ questions. While waiting for an appointment, the contact details for Samaritans would be given to the individual as a way to provide a useful service at the onset, as this service is free and does not require a face to face meeting or appointment.

iii. Respecting Confidentiality & Anonymity

In order to protect the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, various measures were taken. First, audio recordings of the interview along with the completed informed consent forms of participants were stored in a locked cabinet in the principal investigator’s office in the DCU School of Nursing and Human Sciences. Following transcription of the interview audio recordings, the recordings were deleted and the transcripts were stored on a password protected and encrypted computer and backed up on the principal investigator’s private DCU Apps Google Drive account that was also

96

encrypted. Any written records from interviews (e.g. observations, notes on potential main concerns) were stored in the aforementioned locked cabinet. In public presentation of the research and within the transcripts, personal details were significantly altered to protect anonymity; furthermore, specific addresses which the participant accounted for during the interview were omitted from transcripts if they were thought to compromise the anonymity of the participant. In sharing data stored on the Google Drive account, the documents shared were encrypted in advance to ensure they cannot be shared with others beyond the individuals specified (i.e. only the PhD supervisor and/or PhD examiners).