ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This section discusses how ethical issues were handled during the research. Ethical issues that were considered relevant to this study were: seeking permission, informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity, voluntary participation, providing incentives, preventing harm to the participants, exercising reflexivity and deception of participants. However, it is necessary before discussing each ethical consideration to give some definitions of what ethical issues are

80 Each profession has its set principles that change according to the expectations of the particular society it serves (Corey and Callanan, 1993). Research, as any other profession, has its principles. Kumar (2005) notes that ethics are the accepted principles of the code of conduct for a particular profession to accommodate the ever changing ethos, values, needs and expectations of that particular profession. In a similar vein, Leedy and Ormrod (2005) note that ethical issues involve looking into the implication of focusing on human beings in the research or investigation. The principles of the code of conduct were considered when the participants were interviewed (Kumar, 2005). My ethical responsibility was bear in mind the overarching principles of honesty, integrity and respect as well as sensitivity towards the people affected by the study (Punch, 2006). It has been indicated above that ethics should accommodate the expectations of the profession. Whenever human beings are the focus of investigation, the researcher should look closely at the ethical implications of what he is proposing to do (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005 and Corey and Callanan, 1993). Ethical issues that were considered are discussed below.

3.7.1 Seeking permission

Negotiation of entry or permission seeking occurs when the researcher seeks permission to conduct research in a particular community (de Vos, 2002). Furthermore, the research site must be negotiated beforehand and the researcher should introduce himself to the people in the organisation in which the research will be conducted (Ibid, 2002). Hennink et al (2011) further note that permission may be sought at different levels of the organisation in which the research is to be conducted. It is important that the researcher seeks permission from different stakeholders within the study community. “Seeking this local endorsement for your study involves providing information about your research objectives, how the data will be used, who will have

81 access to the data, how you will ensure anonymity of the study participants and how you will minimize harm to the participants” (Ibid, 2011: 67).

In this study permission was sought from the Provincial Department of Education to conduct a study in the selected districts and this permission was granted (see appendix N). Requests for permission to conduct a study were also written to the District Directors of the selected districts (see appendix H). The District Director from district A requested a copy of the letter of permission received from the provincial head office, which was presented to him.

3.7.2 Informed consent

Informed consent involves seeking permission from participants to participate in the study (Kumar, 2005). After permission was secured from the provincial department of education, Letters were written to individual participants requesting interviews with them (see appendixes I to L). In all the letters written to participants, the purpose of the research was stated and a supervisory introductory note was attached to each. During the interview stage, I carried informed consent (see appendix O) forms, which also explained the purpose of the study. In the consent form the format of the interview was outlined, and consent to tape record the interviews was sought from the participants, All agreed and signed the consent form.

3.7.3 Confidentiality and anonymity

Confidentiality involves the manner in which the information is safe guarded and the identity of the people and the institutions involved are protected (Punch, 2006). “Sharing information about a respondent with others for purposes other than research is unethical” (Kumar, 2005:214). This means therefore that the researcher collects or

82 identifies a person’s responses and does not essentially do so publicly. In this research the interviewees were assured that their names and the names of their districts and schools would not be publicised. Confidentiality and anonymity considerations are not only concerned with participants in the research, but also concerned with the responsibility of the research with regards to publicising the information. May (2002) noted that,

Even in those cases where the subjects say they don’t care about either, or they request their names be made public in the report, both anonymity and confidentiality must not be compromised. If they are compromised, then there exists the potential for increased feelings of internal conflict about what the proper position of responsibility should be. Such conflict can lead to confusing issues of loyalty to the data themselves. This has been called the problem of invoking one’s values into the research process (May, 2002: 153).

In this study issues of confidentiality were taken care of. Codes or keys were used to ensure maximum confidentiality levels. Instead of naming the district offices, they are labelled District 1 and District 2. The participants were referred to by their occupational titles and numbers were allocated to distinguish them. The information given by individual participants was not exposed without the participant’s consent. This means that I was always careful about disclosing information that might embarrass the participants. Kumar (2005) states that the dissemination of information must not endanger lives, or jobs.

3.7.4 Voluntary Participation

In social research, people are often required to reveal personal information that may not be known to their friends or relatives. For this reason, no person should be forced to participate in the research process (Kumar, 2005).

“Informed consent implies that subjects are made adequately aware of the type of information you want from them, why the information is being sought,

83 what purpose it will be put to, how they are expected to participate in the

study, and how it will directly or indirectly affect them.” (Ibid, 2005: 212).

In this study, this ethical principle was observed since the participants were not forced to participate in the research. Consent forms (appendix O) which also explained that they were not forced to participate were given to the participants and their attention was drawn to the voluntary participation clause to make sure that they understood it. No pressure of any kind was applied to the participants to take part in the research. As de Laine (2000) advised, this was to ensure that their participation was strictly voluntary and those who did participate had the ability to make such a decision.

3.7.5 Providing incentives

No inducements were offered as a means of persuading participants to take part in this study. I did explain to the participants the significance of their participation and how this study would, upon completion, suggest recommendations for the improvement of the situation. The participants were informed that the study sought to develop a research based framework that would assist district officials to support teaching and learning in schools. According to Kumar (2005) it is unethical to offer inducements to respondents. The aim is to make the participants realise the importance of the study and the benefits that would be realised (Ibid, 2005). The District Directors and principals of the selected districts and schools were informed that it was anticipated that the study would identify gaps. It was further anticipated that in the event that gaps in the system existed and were identified, a workshop would be arranged to assist the district officials in a benevolent manner.

Terre Blanche et al (2006) note that, benevolence consists of affirmative undertakings in response to human needs of well-being. It is a philosophical principle that obliges the researcher to maximize the benefits that the research will afford the participants as beneficence. It is a principle that advocates that participants benefit through knowledge

84 gained during the study and these benefits should not be in the form of a payment of money (Ibid, 2006). Kumar (2005) argues that giving the participants small gifts as a token of appreciation is not unethical. Participants should not be given gifts before the research as this is unethical.

3.7.6 No Harm to the Participants

The study did not harm the participants in any way. The information gained was used for the purposes of the study only. When the interviews were conducted, questions that could tamper with their emotions were avoided. Interview questions were directed to how they support teaching and learning in schools. Kumar (2005) argues that, social research should never injure or harm the people being studied, regardless of whether they volunteer for the study. The participants should not regret having participated in the study. Information that could lead to anxiety and harassment was not requested (Ibid, 2005).

3.7.7 Exercising Reflexivity

This aspect dealt with managing subjectivity through reflexivity. In carrying out this study, I was aware of my dual identity as ‘insider’, in the sense that I am a district official although not in either of the districts under study; I was also an ‘outsider’ as a researcher attempting to detach myself from my practice in order to research it. It was therefore important to manage subjectivity through reflexivity. Every effort was made to remain as objective as possible. This was achieved by using a technique described by Vagle et al (2009) as “bracketing” (committing oneself to putting aside one’s own pre- understandings and assumptions and values while studying the phenomenon) and recording the participants’ life experiences Ibid , 2009). Ahern (1999) and Jootun (2009) assert that reflexivity is the capacity of any system of signification to turn back upon itself, to make itself its own object by referring to itself. It involves the realization

85 that researchers are part of the social world that they study and that this realization is the result of an honest examination of the values and interests that may impinge upon research work. “It is not possible for qualitative researchers to be totally objective, because total objectivity is not humanly possible” (Crotty, 1998; Schutz, 1994 in Ahern, 1999).

3.7.8 Deception of participants

Deception of participants is deliberate misrepresentations of facts, aimed at making persons believe what is not true (De Vos et al, 2002). Deception involves the deliberate withholding of information in order to ensure participation of participants or subjects when they would have decided otherwise had they been made aware of such information (Corey et al, 1993 in De Vos et al, 2002).

No misinformation was used to ensure the participant’s participation. Everything pertaining to the aims of the research, the reason for their selection and the choice of districts was explained. In the introduction, I was open and honest about myelf, my name, occupation and home town. The purpose for conducting the study was also clearly explained.

3.8 CONCLUSION

This chapter presented the philosophical bases of the research. It covered different ontological and epistemological orientations. Although mainly anchored in the interpretivist paradigm, the chapter attempted to show how each paradigm, in different degrees, influenced the study. The chapter then went on to outline the research design, methods of data collection, data analysis and ethical considerations.

86

CHAPTER 4