Ethical Considerations

Several ethical strands run through the research and include general ethical principles of research in education, ethics as applied to PAR and ethical concerns in online research.

4.9.1 Ethics in Participatory Action Research

The depth of participant involvement in PAR is perhaps greater than that encountered in other research methods. Clear guidelines were established around what data was inside (recorded) and outside (unrecorded) the research. The proximity of action to research meant distinguishing each was potentially difficult. To clarify the distinction, interviews, group discussions and specific online discussions were made explicit as research spaces through verbal, written, or online reminders. I also sought permission for some additional material that was not necessarily from these designated encounters. Examples include some social media postings and forum posts on the CP platform.

McNiff (2013) defines ‘sins of omission/sins of commission’ (p.113) in what we decide to leave in (plagiarising, pedantry) and what we leave out (undisclosed

ideologies, ignoring conventions). I was unaware of anything that was omitted (undisclosed ideologies for instance), although through rich discussion personal values proved to be important sources of data. Over the cycles of the research it was clear that views and motivations changed and through continual dialogue it is hoped that such shifts are represented. As main author, I may have omitted some individual changes in opinion occurring across cycles. If this occurs the ‘sin’ was not of manipulation but a reflection of key themes in any given period moving across individuals. Participant involvement in analysis reduced the danger of subjective selection. Stringer (2007) describes PAR research as one where participants are ‘in effect engaging in mutual agreement about the conduct of the study’ (p.55). This is certainly how it felt in terms of the research, notably in Cycles Two and Three, once relationships had developed.

Ethical Procedure

The research was conducted in accordance with general research guidelines defining ethical practice (British Educational Research Association, 2011). I also followed Lancaster University’s own ethical guidelines in the development of the research materials (Table 4-5).

Action Resources Appendices

(where relevant) Ethics submission made to

University Ethics Committee at proposal stage

Ethical submission paperwork

Ethics Committee agreement received

Confirmation paperwork Participant information material

distributed to potential participants

Participant

Information Sheet

Consent Forms distributed and returned

Consent Form Appendix 3 Research conducted throughout

each of three cycles following ethical process (recorded material stored securely)

Analysis stage: ethical process followed related to material and reporting of participant views Writing of thesis: maintain security of the stored data Table 4-5: Ethical procedure for the project.

Throughout the process continual contact with my supervisor informed decisions of data collection and analysis. Community Project (CP) is used throughout the thesis as a pseudonym for the actual portal following advice from the Department’s Ethics Panel. Although all participants said they were happy to be named, the thesis has ensured anonymity by using pseudonyms for all participants.

4.9.2 Ethical Concerns in Online Research Spaces

The discussion around ethics in online spaces is emerging as an off-shoot of more established research practices rather than beginning as an entirely new approach. I was wary of a lab rat experimentation (Mackness, et al., 2016) in applying new technologies with little concern over how this impacted on ethical responsibilities. I agree with the authors that technological innovation may lead to new practices but that ‘established ethical principles also persist’ (p.33).

The CP involved both online and face-to-face encounters and where online data collection occurred it acted as an accessible follow-up of face-to-face discussion, and as primary interaction for geographically distant participants. Dawson (2014) argues that online research might lead to a situation where

confidentiality and anonymity may not be possible. He concludes that, ‘If we can no longer deliver on promises to provide anonymity, we should stop making them’ (p.436). In response, I have been transparent in stating the procedures used and the possible concerns over courses linked to participants being visible. I have referenced only those courses that participants agreed to be included in the thesis. A tangible threat to anonymity comes as social media quotations can be accessible via browser searches (ibid.). As a result, only direct quotations not searchable through search engines are included. Some social media posts have been included as they occurred in private spaces not visible to browser searches. Online material, such as courses, uploads, forum posts or other activity by a project user, but not a participant, have not been included.

Identity in online space can be more difficult to verify and in cases where this has been the only form of engagement, triangulation of multiple identifiers (email/social media/course information) has been considered. The Participant Information/Consent process was identical to face-to-face participants with consent accepted via email signatures. The overall aim was to maintain the safety and security of all participants and remain commensurate with the values of participatory action research. It was of equal importance to represent the ethos and values of the community as they engaged with the Project and each other to ensure a safe environment.