Ethical Considerations: Negotiating Access, Facilitating Voluntary Participation and Informed Consent

Ethical approval was sought from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) o f St. Patrick’s College. Once attained, the ethical protocol set down by the College was carefully adhered to during all stages o f the research process. A formal letter outlining the nature o f the study was sent to the selected schools inviting participation (see Appendix C). The schools’ principals were then telephoned, the

70

nature o f the study was again outlined and assurances were given regarding strict adherence to the ethical protocol o f the College. Principals discussed the research study with the teachers in their respective schools and indicated that participation was open to interested teachers. These teachers were given a Plain Language Statement and Informed Consent Form (see Appendices F & G). I visited all schools prior to data collection and teachers and principals were given the opportunity to discuss participation and to ask questions. The principal and six teachers from each case study school participated. As soon as consent was negotiated, the three schools were assigned pseudonyms - Rushgreen, Seven Oaks and Clarepark - in order to ensure anonymity as far as possible. The following table (see overleaf) provides a profile o f the participating teachers in the three case study schools.

Table Is Profile of Participating Teachers

Kathy Tuohy Female 4th Class 6

In recognising students as competent social actors, it was deemed essential to consult them about their interest in or willingness to participate in the focus group sessions prior to contacting their parents/guardians. Following negotiation with the school principal in each school, students between the ages o f 9 and 12 were invited to participate in the study. As I did not know the students, they were invited to participate in the focus group interviews by their teachers. Teachers were spoken to in advance and asked to select a focus group that represented the school in terms o f gender and ethnicity. They were also asked to select students who would feel comfortable in an interview context. In one o f the schools, the students were drawn from the Student Council. The permission o f parents was also sought and they were furnished with a Plain Language Statement and an Informed Consent Form (see Appendices H & I). In each school, the focus group students were met, the nature and purpose o f the research explained and assurances given about voluntary nature o f the research and right to withdraw at any time. Protocols were agreed with regards

72

to the practicalities o f withdrawing consent and the use o f audio recording devices.

Students were furnished with Plain Language Statements and Informed Consent Forms (see Appendices J & K). Five students from each case study school participated. The following table (see overleaf) provides a profile o f the participating students in the three case study schools.

3,6

Inform ed Consent

As guided by the ethical protocol o f the college, permission to conduct the study in each case study school was sought from each school’s Board o f Management (BOM) and school principal (see Appendices B). As previously stated, participating teachers, principals and focus group students were provided with Plain Language Statements and Informed Consent Forms. The provision o f these forms helped to overcome possible ethical concerns relating to matters of coercion, deception, encroachment on participants’ privacy and exposure o f participants to mental stress (Bell, 2006; Punch, 2005; Denscombe, 2007; Creswell, 2007; Robson, 2005; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). These forms did so by clearly stipulating the nature and purpose of the study, the voluntary nature o f participation and participants’ right to withdraw consent at any time, the steps taken to protect participants’ privacy and the possible benefits and potential risks associated with participation. These forms also explained that interviews would be audio-recorded and observations electronically recorded on a laptop computer.

To ensure anonymity and confidentiality as far as possible, the Informed Consent Forms stated that the names o f participants and schools would not appear in any documents either published or unpublished and that schools, principals, teachers and students would be assigned pseudonyms. They also stated that a key which linked the pseudonyms to the original names, all audio recordings, transcripts and field notes would be safely locked away in my office in St. Patrick’s College, would be only accessible to me and would be appropriately destroyed and disposed o f after four years. At all stages, my commitment was to the welfare o f my participants and they were prioritised above “the advancement o f knowledge” (Miller & Boulton, 2007, p.2209).

74

In addition to gaining the consent o f teachers, principals and focus group students from the outset, given the qualitative nature o f the study, a reflexive approach was adopted and consent was regularly renegotiated during the research process (Haggerty, 2004). Moreover, at all times, I endeavoured to demonstrate ethical sensitivity in all decisions taken (Miller & Boulton, 2007). I had regular informal meetings with the principals and regular informal conversations with teachers prior, during and post observations o f teachers’ practice. I also discussed and negotiated participation again with students prior to each o f the focus group sessions. During these informal dialogues, I again reminded teachers, principals and students about the voluntary nature o f participation, discussed and addressed questions pertaining to the research process and negotiated dates and times for interviews and observations. This on-going renegotiation and dialogue helped to build mutual understanding and to make informed consent more democratic (Miller

& Boulton, 2007).

Given the ethnographic nature o f the study and the complex and fluid nature o f school environments, it was not possible to attain the consent o f every individual observed during fieldwork as it was impossible to delineate who would be encountered or observed during the course o f each school day. In this regard, Murphy and Dingwall (2007) note that during the research process ethnographers

“will have many casual encounters with people who pass through” the research setting (p. 2230) and that “obtaining written, or even oral, informed consent from all who pass through [is] impractical. . . .[as] fully informed consent would mean that the ethnographer was so occupied in negotiating consent that she would have no time to carry out the research. . . ” (p.2229). The general student body, while providing context, was not central to the study’s focus and as such its members were not

conceptualised as research participants. As they were tangential to the research questions and the risk o f harm deemed negligible, their individual consent was not sought. Rather, general consent was sought from the school principal and the BOM o f each school. In addition, I remained vigilant to maintain the distinction between the research participants and others throughout the research process.23