Part II explicates my attempt at implementing what is taught about methodology and the actual doing of it through the experience of the pilot projects Drawing from
12. Ethical Considerations
Miles and Huberman (1994) posit that qualitative research’s evolving and emerging quality with an “emphasis on multiple realities and researcher interpretation” requires a “personalistic, nonsystematic approach to ethical issues” (p. 289). The
inference made on their point is that ethical considerations of ethnographic research goes beyond the technical requirements of permission, approvals, privacy and data protection. They are relevant to construct a procedural researcher/participant relationship. But these contractual terms are limited in offering answers to the more slippery ethical questions that may surface in fieldwork. Miles and Huberman (1994) citing Deyhle, Hess and LeCompte’s (1992, cited in ibid.) offer five general theories, which I have adapted for this research:
1. Teleological: emphasising the presumed value of knowledge derived from the research as primary ends.
2. Utilitarian: weighs the cost, benefits and consequences of the research approaches.
3. Deontological: a reflexive take on the actions undertaken in the research, positioning self as one of the research participants.
4. Critical: questions the benefits the research offers to better the participants’ conditions and situations.
5. Covenantal: judges actions congruent with agreements made prior to the start of the research. The emphasis is on the trusted relationship forged between the researcher and the participants.
Of the five theories listed above, I took on board the deontological, critical and covenantal approaches to ethics, which I interpreted as conversations between reflexivity, criticality and integrity and an ethic of care. Rooted in the feminist research on ethics, the ethics of care is a normative ethical theory concerned with the transformative qualities and the achievement of a just community through sensitive interaction (Held 2006). The braiding of deontological, critical, covenantal with the feminist conception of an ethic of care outlines the connection ethics has with validity and knowledge construction in social science. As Lincoln and Guba (1993) observes “[t]he way in which we know is most assuredly tied up with both what we know and our relationship with our research participants” (p. 281).
Intersecting ethics and validity further echoes Lather’s position on validity as “a space of constructed visibility of the practices of methodology” (1993, p. 676). A constructed visibility that is reflexively aware of the socially complex ways in which
the participants and researcher are inextricably linked to the object of inquiry. Hence validity hinges upon ethical negotiations both the researcher and her participants make in the context of research. Effective negotiations rely upon a relationship of trust. However trust is not something that is a given within a relationship. Nor is it binding according to some a priori agreement to research participation within a stipulated given time. Trust, as Helen Nicholson argues, “is dependent on context and is continually negotiated and re-negotiated in action, as performative acts” (2002, p. 81).
An example of the negotiatory condition that ethics is based upon is found in the participants’ and my experience with issues of privacy, confidentiality and recognisability. On three occasions, the interviews encroached on sensitive topics surrounding gender, race and religious identities. The first participant was surprised when the topic of sexuality surfaced. While she continued talking about it she reflexively commented as a postscript: “I am sorry I am talking so much about this. We are digressing from the topic. This is not relevant to teaching (laughs).” The second participant broached the issue of religious affiliation of one school and how it curtailed her creative freedom. She explained how the school’s decision to ban a particular play script offered her no space for dialogue: “I mean when it’s a religious and its quite a . . . old school conservative standpoint, there is no point. You can’t argue with those . . . it is not logical (laughs).” While the third indirectly alluded to both these topics when they came up as something she wished not to dwell on. I weighed the value of rephrasing my interview questions to get a response from her, against what Patton states as, “potential distress for the respondent” (2002, p. 415). I chose to omit the question and protect her confidentiality, and attend to her remaining responses to track what she deemed were important.
I erred on the side of caution for the third participant because I doubted the efficacy of anonymity to ensure privacy. While pseudonyms were used, questions of recognisability still surfaced, especially for a research that examined lived experiences of practitioners within a small geographical population. How unrecognisable will they be to their colleagues? How much of the information can be reported and if so how do I report them to reduce recognisability? Are they aware of the implications of their revelations? Or perhaps they may feel empowered through
the recognition the revelation offers (Patton 2002, p. 411)? How would I know that? I acknowledge that these considerations may limit the variables added to the research. However, in all research there will be losses and gains. As Mauthner and Doucet (1997) write,
The best we can do then is to trace and document our data analysis processes, and the choices and decisions we make, so that other researchers and interested parties can see for themselves some of what has been lost and some of what has been gained (p. 138, cited in Lutrell 2010, p. 258).
I felt protecting them and the institutions they were working with was a more important consideration. In that respect, while gender, race and religion were culturally recognised out-of-bound markers within the educational context of one geographical site, there may be other issues which slipped both my and the participants’ attention. I felt it was the responsibility of the researcher to raise the complexities of confidentiality and anonymity to the respondents.
I chose two strategies to work through sensitive issues. The first was to offer the data to critical colleagues for analysis and interpretive reading to identify the level of importance the ‘sensitive’ information may have on the integrity of the data. For that I relied on supervisory support and a research colleague to lend a critical ‘feel’ and ‘eye’ to my data. The second strategy relied on member checks (Miles & Huberman 1994, p. 293; Cohen, Manion, & Morrison 2007, p. 149) where preliminary findings were extended to the respondents for checks on anonymity as well as validity of information. Reviewing the findings with the participants was an important process of respecting their positions as co-constructors of the research. I returned completed chapters of this thesis to the participants. I offered them time to read their interview transcripts used as data and invited comments on how they were analysed. Comments made on the data as a result of the feedback by some participants are then reflected in the thesis.
13. Summary
I began this chapter forwarding an argument that the essential tools in a qualitative research is an embodied understanding of being reflexive, dialogic, and iterative. I demonstrated how my understanding of these tools deepened through my dialogic negotiations with the theories; methodological challenges; ethical considerations; and engagement with the circle of critical friends and participants as co-constructors of the data. While I made explicit my position and identify the methodology and the philosophical framework that best suited my research (Patton 2002), in practice the reality of the fieldwork forced me to remain creative and improvisatory. I consequently traced how methodological amendments were informed by the reflexive considerations of the ‘insider’ role of the reflective practitioner. Finally I submitted my considerations on ethics, and its connections to validity in qualitative research.
Leaving methodology behind, I will present the findings from the fieldwork in the next three chapters. I begin with the findings from my research in Phase I in England. It will examine what it means to view the English theatre artists’ teaching practices through the lens of a Singaporean theatre actress and educator and discuss the impact it has on the research process in Singapore.