Ethical Considerations

3.5.1 Ethical considerations: Pre-Data Collection

An ontological position has been stated which regards both the practice of supervision and the research interview to be socially constructed phenomena. The researcher is therefore cognisant of ethical dimensions which apply both to the interpersonal dynamics of the research interview and to the potential content of interviews relating

83 to AHP supervision experiences. While it is unrealistic to anticipate all possible eventualities, some sense of each aspect was considered in the approach to this inquiry.

The need for researchers to be aware of the ethical dimensions of sensitive research in health and social care research is widely acknowledge, (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Bryman, 2008; Dickson-Swift et al, 2008). Three dimensions from the contextual review of literature for this report seem particularly relevant for ethical consideration: the place of supervision in governance, related perceptions of supervision as either surveillance or confessional and debate regarding the extent to which supervision extends beyond professional practice to include a personal dimension.

Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) notion of the peer relationship is helpful in providing a focus to consider the interpersonal dynamics of the research interview, mindful of the potential surveillance and confessional dimensions of supervision and reflective practice proposed by some, (Gilbert, 2001; Beddoe, 2010). Information to potential participants was constructed to state that the researcher is interested in experiences of supervision and associated meaning but that the research does not seek to judge good or bad practice or supervision process. However, the research undertaken in this inquiry had the potential to touch on topics which can be considered sensitive for participants;

interprofessional relationships, challenging aspects of clinical practice, professional and personal wellbeing. It was conceivable that the very measures adopted to ensure the productivity of a research interview, such as developing rapport (Bryman, 2008;

Dickson-Swift et al, 2008), also create an atmosphere in which unexpected disclosures are made such as a seemingly bullying supervisory relationship or instances of apparent clinical risk. Lincoln and Guba, (1985) have highlighted that the peer relationship of in-depth interviews relies on the interview being fully overt. For this research, there was a need to communicate clearly during the recruitment process how such occurrences of disclosure would be managed and where exceptions may apply to anonymity and confidentiality.

Recognising the personal and professional dimensions of supervision practice, it was also possible that topics explored during interviews have the potential to be unsettling

84 or distressing. Again, the recruitment process sought to indicate how such an event would be supported, with participants aware of their right to withdraw from the research should they decide to. At times, as illustrated below in section 3.5.2, it was important to restate the participant’s rights during an interview, either in the context of a sensitive account shared by the participant or in reassuring the participant that there was no obligation to answer questions which the interviewer posed.

As recruitment of participants was not via a specified employer or conducted in employer time or premises, approval was sought from the Kingston and St George’s, University of London Joint Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education Ethics Committee and granted on 07 May 2015 (Appendix D).

3.5.2 Ethical Considerations: Data Gathering and Beyond

As anticipated, some participants shared experiences of supervision which had been difficult either for the supervisor or the supervisee or which related to practice circumstances which had been unsettling. These instances further illustrate the importance of entering the field to gather interviews having considered the possible range of scenarios which might be shared by participants, any potential consequences or impact for either interviewer or interviewee and for the researcher/interviewer to have considered ahead of time how she would handle such circumstances. There were moments across the interviews which required sensitive and empathetic navigation by the interviewer. In some instances, a participant may begin to recount an instance or example of supervision and then hesitate to continue. In such circumstances the researcher was careful not to press the participant to continue but to encourage the participant to take her time and to remind the therapist that although anonymity would be maintained, there was also no obligation to share any information with the researcher if she, the therapist, was not happy to do so. In separate instances, having shared a sensitive or distressing account of supervision the participant sought reassurance that it would not be possible to identify her in any subsequent publication arising from the research. In such instances the therapist participant was offered reassurance and reminded of her right to withdraw, up to a week following the

85 interview, any part of or whole of an interview which she did not wish to have included in the study.

In due course, although in the writing up of the thesis all participant names have been changed to pseudonyms, the researcher has remained vigilant when including quotations from transcripts to ensure it would not be possible to identify the participant or a work place, regardless of how benign the researcher judged the quotation to be. It also transpired that the pseudonyms suggested by some participants matched the given names of subsequent participants. In such instances an alternate pseudonym was assigned by the researcher. Where a quotation makes sense without specifying the profession, the terms ‘therapist’ or ‘therapy’ have been used and the participant pseudonym accompanies the excerpt. If stating the specific profession is crucial for the context of the quotation, the pseudonym does not accompany the quotation to ensure anonymity of participants is preserved.

A further consideration has been that the AHP community and the subsets of professions participating in the research is a relatively small and highly networked group of professions. This has prompted two further considerations. In addition to ensuring anonymity in the writing up of this thesis, the researcher has ensured any presentations or associated public discussions have adhered to ethical principles. The need to be thoughtful in this regard has been amplified in some contexts when the researcher has recognised someone in an audience who has been a participant in the study and when, on occasion, in the course of her own clinical or education practice the researcher has subsequently encountered a participant.