Ethical Considerations

Before moving to consider the data gathered it is necessary to examine the ethical implications for this study. The British Educational Research Association (BERA) guidelines were used to inform ethics of this study, however, an additional level of guidance was required from HM Prison Service.

All research within prisons in the United Kingdom must be based within a sound knowledge of HM Prison Service and demonstrate a clear understanding of their guiding principles to ensure the safety and security of all those taking part; a significant level of detail is therefore required. At the time of my application HM Prison Service implemented its’ own research guidelines. However, with the introduction of NOMs, applications for permission to carry out research in the criminal justice system are now processed by NOMs

(http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research-and-analysis/noms). The

100

There are a small number of books and journal articles reflecting on researching within prisons (Bosworth, 2005; Davies et al. 2011; Liebling, 1999; Liebling and King, 2008; Noaks et al. 2004) but this often forms only one part of a larger work on research in criminology. In addition there are some small-scale research projects, for example, Boswell and Wedge (2002), Clarke et al. (2005), Earle (2012), Jarvis et al. (2004), McMurran et al. (2008), Meek (2007a and b), Walker,2005, 2010a, b) and which, when read together, provide some insight into the key areas for consideration. It is important however to note that often this element is removed or significantly reduced prior to publication in journals or book chapters due to word length or the prioritisation of other content. The most common topic is written informed consent (Clarke et al. 2005; Jarvis et al. 2004; McMurran et al. 2008) with the authors emphasising the importance of gaining from prisoners. Two highlighted the need for consideration of the guiding ethical principles for their academic institutions (Clarke et al. 2005, Meek 2007a) and one made reference to the possible literacy difficulties that may be faced by prisoners (Meek, 2007b) when agreeing to engage in any project.

‘because of the close personal interaction in qualitative interviews, and the potentially powerful knowledge produced, ethics becomes as important as methodology in interview research’ (Brinkmann and Kvale, 2005, p.497).

Brinkmann and Kvale’s (2005) generalised discussion surrounding interviews provides informative guidance relating to the sensitive nature of this research method. However given the nature and necessarily sensitive location (Cohen et al., 2007) of elements of this study, ethical considerations need to be addressed to ensure that ‘no harm should come to the respondents as a result of their participation in the research.’ (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009; Oppenheim, 1992). It has been argued that ‘the sum of the potential benefits to a participant and the importance of the knowledge gained should outweigh the risk of harm to the participant…and the larger group they represent’ (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009 p.73) As there are a number of ethical elements to consider, these will now be separated out and considered individually.

101 Anonymity

All participants who provided informed consent had to be protected from any possibility that their identity could be revealed either in the course of the research or otherwise (BERA 2004). However, anonymity could only be absolutely guaranteed if there had been no face to face contact with the researcher. Once I had met the interviewees, the information they were providing could no longer be said to be anonymous to me (Cohen et al. 2007). It therefore became a case of offering confidentiality on my part and anonymity when presenting the information to the academic community.

A rigorous system for anonymising was implemented from the outset and reviewed throughout the work and at the conclusion of the fieldwork. Headteachers were allocated a letter; mothers and prisoner participants were allocated a number for the purpose of my recording. I held (and was the only one able to access) the original records from which numbers could be linked with the real identities, thus using procedures which I hoped would prevent incidence of betrayal (Cohen et al 2007). Shaw (2008) highlights that the risk of betrayal is always higher in qualitative research due to the ‘emphasis on the details of how people live their lives’ (Shaw, 2008, p.409) and therefore it would be possible to further disadvantage those involved.

A small amount of personal data, in addition to the qualitative material was necessarily collected in the course of the work for example, in the case of the prisoners, number and age of children and length of current sentence. Again, I restricted access to this information to myself only as emphasised by Cooper and Schindler (2001) and ensured that only crude reporting categories were used, providing, for example, only age of child, not year of birth and ensuring this was collected and recorded in a general way rather than linking it to specific names (in the form of a tally) (Cohen et al. 2007). Overall, I took ‘reasonable precautions’ (Robson, 2002) to ensure confidentiality and anonymity.

Informed consent

Although informed consent is a central consideration whenever ethical deliberation is required, research with vulnerable groups such as prisoners, calls

102

for particularly close attention to be paid to informed consent (Davies et al. 2011; Mauthner et. al. 2002; Robson, 2002) ensuring that as far as possible, measures are implemented to ensure that consent is informed, remembering that that it is ‘incumbent upon the researcher to explain as fully as possible, and in terms meaningful to the participants the questions of what, who, why and how’ (Davies, 2011, p.166).

One definition of the term ‘informed consent’ is cited by Cohen et al. (2007) who refer to Diener and Crandall’s (1978) four elements of informed consent as ‘competence, voluntarism, full information and comprehension’ (Cohen et al. 2007,p.52). It was essential that all potential participants were aware of and understood, the study. A letter was sent to the headteachers and a leaflet detailing the project and outlining the information that prisoners were asked to provide during interviews, was distributed and those willing to participate were asked to sign to demonstrate their informed consent.

Although these practical steps were important and went some way to helping participants to understand their role in the study, ‘the inductive, emergent nature of qualitative design precludes researchers being able to predict where the study will take them’ (Malone, 2003 p.800). This raises the questions surrounding how fully informed participants can be as highlighted by Ruane (2005), Mauthner et al. (2002) and Kvale and Brinkmann (2009). Potential participants often want as much information as possible but this level of detail cannot always be provided (particularly I feel, with semi-structured interviews) as the nature of the discussion is partly led by the interviewee (Wiles et al. 2007). I felt that the potential participants could not fully know what they were consenting to (Mauthner et al. 2002) and were still not fully aware of the potentially distressing topics they would be asked to talk about. They were unaware of the emotional impact of this or how they might react to questions relating to their family and identity as a father (Arksey and Knight 1999, Malone, 2003). However, Wiles et al. (2007) point out that some interviewees found it patronising to be told the interview questions may cause distress, knowing that discussions of this nature would upset them. In the light of this debate, it was therefore important to continually renegotiate informed consent as the interviews proceeded to ensure that participants understood their

103

right to refuse certain questions or to step away from the process if they were found to be too distressing or inappropriate (Arksey and Knight, 1999).

Robson (2002) raises the debate surrounding advanced knowledge of the discussion topic. He argues that providing advanced notice of the topics to be discussed, allows participants time to consider their responses or alter them accordingly and this could significantly affect the reliability of the data collected. It is true that within the power relationship between the researcher and researched, the interviewee has the power to respond in any way they wish, whether it be to tell the truth, to provide answers they think the interviewer wants to hear or to intentionally deceive and their ‘accounts can be riddled with special pleading, selective memory, careless error, self-centredness, myopia, prejudice and a good deal more’ (Bridges, 2001, p.373). However, as a researcher I could not deliberately hide my intended topics for discussion (Robson, 2002). Participants had a right to know the type of questions they would be asked. Without provision of such information, many potential interviewees may have elected to withdraw in the early stages of the process.

A signature is often the most common way of researchers gaining consent and they must sign it to say they are personally willing to participate (BERA 2004, Denzin and Lincoln 2008, Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). This is also a method for participants to demonstrate comprehension of what they have been asked. However, Wiles et al. (2007) draw attention to the debate surrounding signing a document to provide consent. Requests to sign a document can be perceived to be very threatening and could have inhibited some potential participants (Wiles et al. 2007) and my relationship with them (Mauthner et al. 2002). Coomber (2002) adds that signatures can also compromise confidentiality and anonymity where protection of participants is a requirement (particularly in relation to criminal acts). Again participants may be concerned that the signed document could be traced back to them and potentially used against them in the future. However, I elected to include a section for the prisoner to sign if they were prepared to take part in the process. This was driven mainly by practical reasons. As I was unable to be present at the time of the initial leaflet distribution I could not find another effective way of recording likely participants. I did not feel it

104

appropriate to ask prison staff to use their time creating additional lists. It also meant I had a record of who had agreed to participate, should any queries or concerns be raised later in the process.

Institutional pressure

Institutional pressure can be closely linked to informed consent. This is particularly true in ‘situations of external control where consent becomes fragile’ (Shaw, 2008, p.405). Prisoners are particularly vulnerable to institutional pressures both real and perceived. A possible consequence was that some may have volunteered to participate in the hope of some benefit to them. Conversely, others may have decided not to take part, fearing that what they disclosed in interviews would be shared with those in authority. The final category relates to those who did participate but felt they needed to be guarded in their responses for fear of recrimination at a later stage.

These issues were addressed in the clearest possible terms in the content of the introductory material which was provided to possible participants. This stressed that agreement or refusal would not impact in a positive or negative way on the sentence or on any other aspect of their prison or rehabilitative experience. Both at the initial stage of the selection process and at the beginning of the interviews, participants were reminded that they were still able to withdraw at any time if they felt uncomfortable or unhappy to continue and that there would be no negative consequences relating to this decision (BERA, 2004).

Feedback

‘How can we give back to them the knowledge they gave us?’ (Shaw, 2008, p408)

Feedback will be provided, in written or oral format to participants at the end of the project via POPs to ensure they are aware of the outcomes of this research and the potential next steps. It may also be possible to disseminate this information via the prison newsletter.

This chapter has reflected upon the key methods used within this study and the ways in which these were approached. The next section of the thesis will now

105

consider the data that was collected using these methods, analyse the themes emerging from this and discuss these findings.