Ethical considerations 86

Every research study has ethical issues related to its conduct. These research ethics are concerned with the “extent to which the researcher is ethically and morally

responsible” for the research populations (Kitchin and Tate, 2000: 35). This is not limited to the research participants but expands to the research sponsors and funders, the public, and the researcher’s own beliefs. In the UK higher education, research ethics are increasingly important because the Research Excellence Framework (REF) outlines the need for research impact in wider society (HEFCE, 2016). Regardless of personal views on such metric measurements, ensuring that research is conducted not only ethically but responsibly should be a key tenet of all research projects.

Ethical considerations must be considered throughout the research process from initial considerations about the study design to dissemination practices. As such all aspects of this study involving human participants was passed through the

Loughborough University Ethics Committee procedures. These local committees act as a safeguarding for the four populations outlined above as well as the researcher. They aim to ensure through protocol that those involved in research are not exposed to unacceptable risks and practices (Savulescu, Chalmers and Blunt, 1996). The next section of this chapter considers the potential risk and harm involved in this study. Different research projects will by necessity entail contextual process-based ethical decisions. This is highlighted in a study of community-based participatory research (CBPR) that raised questions about the suitability of local ethics committees’ regulatory frameworks for social research (Banks et al., 2013). However, whilst in broad agreement with these critiques of ethics, broad applications of research ethics comfortably apply to all fields of academic research. As noted by Hay (2010), the need for ethical practice falls into three main categories. Firstly, ethical behaviour should ensure the rights of individuals, communities, and environments involved in, or affected by, the research. Secondly, ethical behaviour ensures a favourable climate for the research community and its continued conduct of scientific inquiry, both through a lens of the researcher and the researched. Thirdly, growing public demand and interest for the work of the ‘expert’ (Menon and Portes, 2016) means institutions must protect themselves from unethical research. Throughout the

research process, it is the responsibility of the researcher to be sensitive to concerns regarding risk, harm, consent, privacy, confidentiality, anonymity and withdrawal. These seven considerations along with what I term here the ethics of the flâneur are considered in the following sections of this chapter.

4.4.1 Risk and harm

Ethics requires that researchers do not bring themselves or their participants in a situation where they may be at risk of harm because of their participation in the study. Personal harm can be discussed through the binary of physical and mental damage (Dowling, 2010). It is unlikely during the process of social science

investigations that participants will be placed into a situation where they could

have been upsetting or dangerous. Illustrative here is an example of potential

psychological harm from the visitor survey. Chapter 2 illustrated the displacement of humans associated with the changes of the built environment through London 2012. Visitors to the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park were from a variety of backgrounds but reasonably it could be expected that former residents who had been displaced would visit. Research practices needed to consider these possible issues. No upsetting topics were directly discussed during the visitor survey. Questioning routes for semi- structured interviews were not seen to contain emotionally taxing questions so that psychological harm was not considered to be a significant issue.

The most important health and safety concern noted by Bullard (2010) is lone working. Safety protocols for lone working were developed for dealing with

emergencies and research issues as they arose. These protocols were developed for the visitor survey, interviewing and the flâneurism as these were the three phases of the study that saw the researcher working alone. This was particularly necessary at moments when visitor survey data collection was conducted alone. When working alone, it is important to know the field environment including: weather or climate, local customs, religious beliefs, political issues and possible issues such as crime levels (Bullard, 2010). The Park Boroughs have seen increasing rates of crime aimed at personnel (except for Waltham Forest), and increased levels of crime overall (Metropolitan Police, 2016). This presented concerns, but ensured that safety was of paramount consideration during risk assessments conducted as part of the ethical process. Steps taken to ensure safety were both researcher-led (e.g. informing people of location and expectations) and involved different safety measures (e.g. high levels of closed circuit television within the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park). The conduct of this research was at all stages informed by Loughborough University’s health and safety regulations, involving a comprehensive risk assessment as part of all ethical submissions.

4.4.2 Confidentiality, anonymity and withdrawal

Confidentiality, anonymity and withdrawal are important ethical considerations when conducting any form of research because studies often involve invading someone’s privacy (Longhurst, 2010). This is particularly relevant to situations where sensitive or personal information is collected. In this study, this often related to the experiences of asking for postcodes as people were cautious about the future use of this

information. As part of the confidentiality process, surveys and interviews were stored in locked filing cabinets within a restricted access office. Electronic storage of the data sets used password protected files. Only the researcher had access to computerised copies of the raw data. Verbal permission was sought from all

participants in the visitor survey, with assurances given regarding the confidentiality and anonymity of the data. Participants were often reassured by names not being collected. I suggest that this had the advantage of depersonalising the survey, allowing for more openness in answering the questions. Confidentiality and

anonymity were more relevant for the interview process. Interview participants were assured that their identity would not be revealed during the research process or in the dissemination of the results. All participants were made aware that they remained free to withdraw from the research at any time and could end their participation with no explanation if they so wished. No participants chose to withdraw from the

research.

4.4.3 Informed consent and voluntary participation

Informed consent for participation in surveys and interviews is not just about

participants agreeing to partake, they must be made aware of exactly what they are agreeing to, or acknowledge that they are ‘informed’ (Dowling, 2010). All participants in all phases were made aware of exactly what the research entailed. This was done in two manners. Firstly, for the visitor survey this information was delivered verbally. Secondly, the postal survey and interviews included consent forms and information sheets for all participants. The opportunity to ask questions about any aspect of the research was offered at all parts of the study via email. This was not limited to the face-to-face data collection period but extended both pre- and post-collection. Participation in all aspects of the research was entirely voluntary and confidential. This was made clear in all emails and personal approaches, and this was repeated during the data collection where appropriate. This was important because people were being asked to comment on the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and were quite often within the space at the time. This made apparent material power relations of the space so that ensuring voluntary participation in the research was thus very

important. If individuals did not want to participate, then it was possible for them to withdraw from all data collection phases.