Ethical Considerations

The ethical considerations and issues explained in this section summarize those which were explained and discussed in applications to two different institutional ethics review boards prior to commencing the research, whose approval of the research plan are included here as

appendices A and B. These have to do with the researcher-participant relationship and its implications, issues and procedures concerning participant privacy and confidentiality, and ensuring the acquisition of fully informed consent from participants.

I enjoy a collegial relationship with the participants in this study, a situation which may convey benefits, such as participants feeling more comfortable and being more open to discussion, as well as challenges, such as participants using the research interview as a form of “confessional” (Williams, 2009). This risk was realized, in part, as participants in this research revealed

different kinds of compromising information to me, from complaints about specific individuals within our shared higher education network, to reports of unethical or possibly illegal

information behaviours. Having been aware of this as a possibility prior to commencing the research, I took care to adhere to procedures for protecting the privacy and confidentiality of the participants and the data generated. Participants in this research are drawn from a relatively small community of IBC institutions, and for that reason I have been intentionally vague about demographic and institutional details which might allow the identification of participating individuals through any process of elimination. One such measure of vagueness is

my selection and use of the common pronouns she/her to refer to individual participants and their quotations when necessary, even though the study does include both male and female participants. Another which readers will observe is the practice of generalizing specific nouns and place names in participant quotations. For example, a participant who talks about the rare book room at Hogwarts University near Dufftown, will be quoted as talking about the rare book room at [university] near [city]. The research design reflects a concern for participant privacy and confidentiality as well. For instance, it would have been convenient and beneficial, possibly resulting in a greater number of research interviews, to use participant referrals or “snowball technique” as a means of identifying potential participants. This approach was rejected,

however, as its use could generate a cloud of knowledge within the IBC environment about who may have participated in the research and who may have been the source of any individual quotations.

A unique challenge with the ethical considerations around this research was meeting the requirements of institutional review boards in two, or potentially three, different jurisdictions. This research was subject to review boards based both in the UK, by the University supervising this research, as well as one based in the USA, by the University providing the material support to carry out the research, but influenced by the requirements of MOUs with foreign hosts. These jurisdictions have many similar and overlapping requirements, but with some distinctions where the protection and preservation of research data are required. For instance, one

regulatory environment preferred for hard copies of signed information and consent forms be digitized and preserved electronically for a minimum time period, with all hard copies

destroyed as soon as possible; the other jurisdiction required any hard copy materials

generated to be preserved in hard copy for a minimum time period. Competing concerns and mandates from both review boards had to be addressed and satisfied with this research design. I also anticipated that some faculty member participants, being experienced and

knowledgeable researchers themselves, might give a less than full consideration of the study’s consent form and information sheet before assuming that it was fairly standard and agreeing to participate. In the interest of ensuring that participants were informed about the details, risk

and benefits specific to this study, I took time to reiterate the main points of these forms verbally before initiating each interview. This action did not result in any withdrawals from the study, nor did it generate additional questions or concerns from participants.

In recognition of the ethical duty I have to the respondents, potential research audience, and to my community of peers to be as faithful and dutiful to a careful consideration and

interpretation of evidence as possible, I have laid out in as much detail as possible in the

relevant sections the steps I have taken in terms of research design, data gathering and analysis procedures, actions related to reflexivity and minimization of unrecognized biases, and

procedures for ensuring validity and reliability.

3.7.1 Political Considerations

A discussion of ethical considerations related to this research is not complete without a special mention about political considerations, which are difficult to escape in the context of social and practice-based research (Babbie, 2013), and which I have touched on briefly in the discussion of researcher positioning in chapter one. There is no doubt that the LIS profession has a vested interest in demonstrating and proving its own worth and value in the context of higher education. Research in this area which is political in nature, in the sense of power-preserving, can be difficult to distinguish from research which is activist in nature (Hale, 2001); with activist research having a lengthy and often commendable track record for stimulating social change, for instance Paulo Freire’s work which has underpinned different types of educational reform. It can be difficult to distinguish yet again from research which is really open to the possibility that the academic library, in its traditional form, is of little to no value to the modern faculty

member teacher-researcher in the context of higher education. It is also true that, in the same way that a research audience would be reasonably sceptical of medical research which

demonstrates the safety of a drug whose maker funded the research, the audience for research into the value, impact and identity of academic libraries must be sceptical of favourable

conclusions from researchers whose salaries are paid by academic libraries. It is my hope that effective and transparent data gathering and analysis procedures have resulted in an accurate and faithful portrayal of the academic library experience as understood by the research

participants, and not as understood by me, the researcher; and that the conclusions have not been swayed by such political concerns.