The field of ethics in research seeks to strike a balance between the potential benefits of research and the possible negative consequences it may have on its participants (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1992). In this section, I explore some of the key ethical considerations of this study.
3.6.1. The potentially sensitive nature of life history research
Given that my research involved exploring participants’ personal lives in detail, it may therefore be considered a “sensitive” topic (Lee and Renzetti, 1993). Indeed, in life history research, talking about certain life events may end up being an unpleasant experience for those involved (Goodson and Sikes, 2001). Whilst this may be unavoidable, I employed a number of strategies in order to reduce the likelihood of it happening. Firstly, when recruiting participants, I took the time to explain the aims of the study, stressing that there was no obligation for them to talk about anything which they might find upsetting or embarrassing. Secondly, I made it clear to participants that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time, without giving a reason and without there being any negative consequences (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1992).
Finally, as mentioned in previous sections, the final write-up of the data analysis was member checked, thus ensuring that nothing was published against any participant’s will.
3.6.2. Informed consent
Informed consent refers to “the procedures in which individuals choose whether to participate in an investigation after being informed of facts that would be likely to influence their decisions” (Diener and Crandall, 1978: 57). It is considered “a cornerstone of ethical behaviour, as it respects the rights of individuals to exert control over their lives and to take decisions for themselves” (Cohen et al., 2011: 77). Therefore, before the participants agreed to take part in the study, I provided them with a copy of the Participant Information Sheet, which outlined in detail what they would be expected to do (I have provided a copy of the Participant Information Sheet for both teachers and students in Section A.1 of the Appendices). I also explained to the potential participants what I was planning to do, and gave them the chance to ask any questions, which allowed them to weigh up the possible risks and benefits of taking part (Howe and Moses, 1999). As I have just mentioned, participants were under no obligation to take part in the study, and were free to withdraw at any time (before 30 December 2015, which was the earliest possible date that I could have realistically published the thesis). In fact, one of the participants, Josefina, withdrew from the study after a few weeks because she felt too overloaded with work. Although I would have liked her to finish the study for the benefit of the research findings, I did not make any attempt to persuade her to do so.
Of course, informing potential participants of every single detail of the study would have been unrealistic. For this reason, a more suitable term might be that of “reasonably” informed consent (Cohen et al., 2011). Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that the study did not include any purposeful deception. Although it might be argued that not informing participants of what I was looking for might have caused them to act more naturally (Mitchell, 1993), I felt that it was important to be as honest with them as (realistically) possible. This went a long way towards building trust with the participants, which as mentioned several times already, was an important part of my study design (de Laine, 2000; Crow et al., 2006).
3.6.3. Confidentiality
Cohen et al. (2011: 92) define confidentiality as “not disclosing information from a participant in any way that might identify that individual or that might enable the individual to be traced”. It is worth comparing this concept with that of “anonymity”, in which participants’ identities are genuinely unknown, even to the researcher (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007; Cohen et al., 2011). Given that I knew who the participants were, I was therefore in no position to promise them “anonymity”, but there were certain strategies I employed to increase the chances of “confidentiality”. Firstly, pseudonyms were used to substitute the real names of participants, as well as the name of the institution and some of its departments. In addition, any information which could make participants easily identifiable were removed or adapted (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, 1992). Furthermore, throughout the entire process of data collection, I made sure I did not share the data with anyone else other than my two supervisors. Finally, when I was abroad, I ensured the security of the data by saving it onto my encrypted laptop, or on the secure University of Leeds M: drive.
3.6.4. Ownership of the data
An interesting debate in life history research is the question of when “ownership” of the data passes from participants to the researcher, as well as what powers participants and researchers may have regarding the dissemination of the findings (Cohen et al., 2011). I made it clear to participants in the Participant Information Sheet (see Section A.1 of the Appendices) that they would be able to withdraw from the study until 30 December 2015, which I felt was the earliest possible date by which I might have realistically finished my thesis. As mentioned in Section 3.3.15, I also gave participants the opportunity to “member check” my interpretations of the findings, right up to November 2016, when I gave them the chance to review my first full draft of this thesis.
3.6.5. Responsibilities to the research community
Cohen et al. (2011) stress that researchers have an ethical responsibility to carry out competent and rigorous studies in order to protect the interests of future research and
researchers. Although I am still developing my skills as a researcher, I endeavoured to design and implement the research to the very best of my ability. Throughout this Methodology chapter, I have hopefully demonstrated how I attempted to do this.