Ethical considerations

Given the nature of this topic and my personal experience of it, it was vital that before volunteers were sought, all of the ethical issues were carefully considered. When designing this doctoral study, I consulted with, and received feedback from, a clinical psychologist who runs the psychology department in one of the UK’s leading universities. This contact was facilitated by one of my supervisors.

Furthermore, Aston University felt that ethics were so important; my application for ethical approval was referred up from the Business School Ethics Committee to the University Ethics Committee. It took four months to achieve ethics approval. My first application for ethical approval was rejected, and the Committee asked that several points be addressed before they would consider final approval for the study. In the first application, some of the concerns that the Committee expressed included how I would protect participants from any mental health issues that might arise; and how I would maintain a clear and explicit delineation between therapy and research. These considerations were made and final approval was granted (see Appendix A). In an email dated 27 September 2010, I was given the following feedback from the University Registrar:

“The Ethics Sub-Group has approved your response to its comments. Members were impressed with the considerable thought you had given to their feedback.”

I will now discuss each of the ethical considerations that were raised and how I addressed them.

3.9.1 Lone-working

The University Ethics Committee expressed concerns about the risks of being a lone female researcher off campus, working with participants who may become emotional and distressed during the interview and who are not known to me.

To address this concern, I consulted several articles and published guidelines on lone working (Social Research Association, 2004; British Psychological Society, 2005; Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen and Liamputtong, 2008; Paterson, Gregory andThorne, 1999). In order to build-in preventative strategies against the risks of lone researching, I shared each

interview time and location with my supervisor and family so that they were aware of my whereabouts. I also ‘checked-in’ with a family member by telephone at the end of each interview.

Furthermore, I telephoned all volunteers after their initial expression of interest to help build some impressions of them by phone. I conducted the interviews at Ashridge (Edgar, Bill and Peter) or at their place of work (Diane). I interviewed four of the nine workplace witness interviews in their homes (Felicity, Paul, Natalie and Nigel). In these cases, I shared their home addresses with my supervisor and family so that they were aware of the interview locations.

3.9.2 Protecting participants

The Committee expressed concerns that the research might trigger depression or other mental health issues in participants. I addressed this issue by organising a designated ‘back-up’ counsellor; (a qualified psychotherapist and BACP accredited supervisor of counsellors from Ashridge) should participants have needed to seek professional support above and beyond their own GP (whose details I also requested when gaining informed consent). This support was offered for free and at no cost. The ‘back-up’ support that was offered was for one de-briefing session post-interview. If participants chose to have multiple counselling sessions, or to go into longer-term therapy after the interviews; it was made clear when consent was given, and then again at the start of the interview; that this would be participants’ responsibility to organise and fund themselves.

I made it explicit in the information sheets that were sent out to participants that this was a research study and not a therapeutic intervention (see Appendix E). I also explained to participants when gaining informed consent, and then again before the interview began, that there was a possibility that the interview would be distressing for them (see Appendix F). In the information sheets and consent forms, I made it clear that I was neither a trained counsellor nor a therapist; therefore, I would not be in a position to diagnose or treat any distress that the interviews might cause. I also stated in the consent forms that should the individual wish to seek professional support after the interview, they had the option of using their own GP or to draw on the ‘back-up’ counselling support provided. No participant sought additional support after the interviews, either from their own GPs or from the counsellor supporting this study. I also communicated with each participant by telephone and email after each interview to see how they were feeling, and to ask if they were still happy to continue with the process. I approached consent as an ongoing, mutually negotiated process (Haverkamp, 2005:154).

However, as expected, all of the participants and some of the workplace witnesses did become upset during the interview process. In these instances, I sat quietly for a few moments, offered them tissues and water, and then I asked if they felt able to carry on with the interview. I did not need to offer to terminate any of the interviews, and no one required counselling support after the interviews

I also used the beginning of session 3 (which took place at least four weeks after sub-sessions 1 and 2) to follow-up on the previous interviews. In this session, I asked participants how they were feeling about the process, and if that had any reflections following the first interviews.

3.9.3 Delineating research from therapy

The ethics committee also asked me how I would ensure that the research interview process would be clearly delineated from the delivery of any therapeutic counselling. This, I made explicit at all stages in the interview process. First, in the information sheets that were sent out to initial volunteers for the study; second, in the consent forms that were signed by each participant; and third, the point was made verbally before each interview began. Before each interview, I ran through the consent form again with participants and on this point I said:

“Please be aware that this is a research interview and not a therapeutic intervention. I am neither a counsellor nor a therapist, therefore I am unable to diagnose or treat any issues that may arise as a result of the interview.”

Participants were advised to contact their own counsellor or GP, or to draw on the ‘back-up’

support provided in this study should they need to do so after the interview.

Given the body of research that discusses the therapeutic benefits of communicating stressful experiences (e.g. Neiymeyer, 2006; Neiderhoffer and Pennebaker, 2005;

Pennebaker, 1993; Smyth, True and Soutou 2001) some of the research interviews were cathartic for some of the participants. When reflecting on their experience of the first two sub-sessions, some of the participants said that it had been helpful for them to talk through their experiences. I saw this as a positive outcome. For me as the researcher, I felt that I had succeeded in creating a safe space so that these personal revelations could take place (Birch and Miller, 2000).

In the recruitment letter, I raised the idea that participants may experience changes to the way they view themselves and others as a result of the study (Haverkamp, 2005), so it may not have been a complete surprise to them that this happened.

3.9.4 Participant anonymity

The call for participation was sent to past participants of the Ashridge Leadership Process (ALP), a leadership programme at Ashridge. Since Ashridge is also my place of work, there was a risk that I might end up interviewing people who are known to me. The University Ethics Committee highlighted that this may change the interview dynamic and potentially impact on my future relationship with them. This was a concern that I tackled by declining any offer of participation from individuals who were known to me within the Ashridge network.

I had to decline offers from three such individuals, one faculty member who was known to me and two professional coaches, one who I knew directly and one who I did not know.

In the consent forms, I asked all participants if they were happy for me to audio-record their interviews and I also asked if their interviews could be transcribed by me or a third party transcriber. Reassurances were also given in terms of their right to withdraw from the study at any time. I agreed with participants that I would not publish any narrative extracts or interview material without their prior consent. I also replaced all names with pseudonyms and changed the names of any towns or organizations that were mentioned.

At the recruitment stage, some of the volunteers raised concerns about protecting their anonymity, because the study involved them talking about the impact of their trauma on their work life. One of the initial volunteers decided not to participate because of her concerns about anonymity. Her employing organization was not aware of her trauma. She was a senior leader in a sector containing very few female leaders, so she was concerned that even with steps taken to protect her identity, she might still be identified by industry peers.

3.9.5 Issues of power

I had to consider whether my work at Ashridge placed me in a position of power. However, since I am not involved in any teaching on the programme from which participants were recruited, I did not feel that I would be perceived to be in a position of power. I made it clear at the recruitment stage that this research was doctoral research at Aston University and not related to my job as a researcher at Ashridge. In my call for participation, however, I did explain that the outcomes of this research might inform Ashridge work with individuals and organizations.

3.9.6 Reflecting on my own experience

During the interviews and through into data analysis and write-up, I found some of the trauma accounts particularly challenging and emotionally draining. However, in the main, I found the stories to be incredibly inspiring. I had arranged for my own counselling support during the interview process, which was separate to the ‘back-up’ counsellor offered to participants. However, I did not need to draw on this support. Instead, I used my research diary as a way of voicing some of the emotional challenges and I also drew on the support of my family and supervisory team. Some scholars have acknowledged that emotional

responses to sensitive and emotionally-charged research can both help and hinder the research process (e.g. Guillemin and Gillam, 2004; Haynes, 2006; Woodthorpe, 2009), which is why I have worked reflexively throughout this study.