Ethical considerations

Smith, Flowers & Larkin (2009: 53) describe ethical research practice as a ‘dynamic constant process which needs to be monitored throughout testimonial collection and analyses’. Although this study achieved the minimum ethical standards required by the ‘start up criteria’ of De Montfort University, it was also undertaken with sustained critical reflection, to ensure that it promoted the highest possible ethical standards. In an attempt to create social research that was rigorous and ethical, Shaw’s (2008) recommendation that this cannot be achieved by a superficial appeal to an existing code became very important. For him, general discourse regarding research ethics, such as those proposed by Butler (2002) and Dominelli & Holloway (2008) are guilty of implying an impression that ethical practice is essentialist, and as such, should only be applied to social work research in a fairly standardised and prescriptive way. He suggests that many social work researchers are guilty of restrictive ethical rhetoric usually as a preface to the research task which becomes isolated within a separate subheading as an afterthought to a methods chapter. Shaw (2008: 401) therefore challenges this approach and asserts that ethical considerations can never be said to have been ‘sorted and settled’, by a tokenistic gesture. Instead, he argues, that the only way to deal with, and demonstrate ethical quality, is to ensure that ethical awareness is ‘contextualised in distinct forms' throughout the whole methodology. In recognition of this recommendation, ethical practice was

77

demonstrated as an entwining coalescence that informed each stage of this systematic enquiry, and ultimately, in the mind of the author, enabled its success.

4.2.1 Designed through consultation

When conducting research with Travellers and Gypsies, Greenfields & Home (2006) advocate the need for an approach that is based on a relationship of collaboration. They call for the inclusion of Travellers and Gypsies as ‘co-researchers’ or co- producers in the research process, which, in contrast to other forms of social research, should work with people to enable full participation in all operational decision making aspects of the study. If achieved, they advise that the research task can become more ethically sensitive in a way that promotes equality and reduces discrimination.

In light of this advice, the task of establishing the focus of this research began in 2008, twelve months before a research proposal was submitted for ethical appraisal. The work undertaken during the first twelve months of this project, involved visiting (under invitation) Traveller and Gypsy community groups, fairs, conferences and other social events. The purpose of these visits was to engage with members of the Travelling community so that the intended research focus could be explored. On reflection, these visits were essential to establish people’s views and opinions on the research idea, including the methods for collecting information. This constant interaction also enabled the development of essential networks with individual community members who took a keen interest in the project.

On a number of occasions, the researcher was required to justify the research aims and objectives. Although no claims could be made with regard to the outcome of the study, it was essential that the project be seen to be working for the community. At the outset, a number of people were highly sceptical about the researcher’s intentions and motivations. Echoing McDonagh’s (2002) concerns regarding the use of social research, they explained that research was often seen as being oppressive, and for this reason suggested that it gave minimal motivation for participation. Expediently, sustained face-to-face contact during community events provided an

78

opportunity to allay some of these apprehensions in a way which may not have been possible in any other way.

Reason (1994a; 1994b), Heron (1996), Greenfields & Home (2006) and Levinson (2010), assert that co-produced research usually requires a researcher to work alongside 'co-researchers' who are involved in the research process. For them, the effort to engage the community on the research focus should be just the start. Once these networks have been established, they advocate that the researcher should then design the set procedures that may be used to investigate, analyse, and present the findings in complete and open collaboration. Similarly, Brown & Scullion (2010) suggest that co-production with Travellers and Gypsies needs to be meaningful and mutually acceptable if it is to be ethical.

Reflecting on a systematic review of research that has been co-produced with Travellers and Gypsies, Brown & Scullion (2010) argue that studies which treated community members as research assistants tended to have less success, and fewer benefits, than those studies where community members were able to guide and inform the whole research process. Reflecting specifically on co-production, Temple & Steele (2004) comment:

‘...research has shown that when engagement with communities is based on the long-term, is adequately resourced and leads to observable change, communities become less hard to reach and less antagonistic towards future research. Such positive moves have been based on community development and capacity building rather than on parachuting in outsiders with pre-defined, often inappropriate, measurement tools and objectives’.

(Temple & Steele, 2004: 553).

Clearly, the case being made for co-production here is very strong particularly as it advocates partnership and participation throughout the entire research process. Nevertheless, although a number of researchers that are readily established in the Traveller and Gypsy community champion this approach, including Traveller and

79

Gypsy community representatives themselves, the full attainment of co-produced research in this project created a significant ethical deliberation particularly in relation to the principles of confidentiality and anonymity. Although Lincoln and Guba (1985) point out that confidentiality and anonymity can never be fully guaranteed in a qualitative study, Thompson (2002) states that every researcher should consider the potential risks that a breach of anonymity may produce. For Eisner (1991: 219) the point to be made between these two arguments is that ‘researchers have an ethical responsibility to foster fair treatment of those they observe.’ For this reason, ‘fairness’ was of particular concern for this study, aiming as it did, to uncover personal and potentially sensitive information.

Balancing co-production with confidentiality

The necessity for fair treatment became particularly apparent during the first twelve months of the project. The researcher was able to acknowledge, with the support of the developing community network, that people often wished to conceal the fact that they lived in care as children. For this reason, a number of people warned that convincing those who had lived in care as children to talk about their potentially traumatic experiences would be very hard. Some felt that it might be unfeasible. They explained that the apprehension concerning sensitivity and confidentiality would be overriding, potentially consolidated by the researcher’s identity as a non- Traveller or Gypsy male.

The fact that the research was not a Traveller or Gypsy presented initial challenges that raised significant barriers in terms trust and acceptance. Rooted in this disquiet was the most commonly reported concern that he would not be able to speak to women in a private interview setting, or ask them questions about private aspects of their lives, as to do so could be perceived as a breach of social mores and personal integrity. A number of community representatives suggested that the researcher would not usually be permitted to speak to a Traveller or Gypsy woman on his own without a chaperone. This concern included certain mores, described by Cemlyn et

al., (2009), and reflects the fact that some women might not feel comfortable

80

potential solution to this dilemma corresponded with the advice of Temple & Steele (2004), Greenfields & Home (2006), Reason (1994a; 1994b) and Heron (1996), which highlighted the need to include Travellers and Gypsies as co-researchers. Accordingly, the study incorporated the assistance of a female Scottish Traveller as a potential interviewer.

In addition to the support gained through sustained collaboration, the co-interviewer became a key component in the research process because she was available to interview people should they have requested it. However, although time was taken to ensure that she was aware of the ethical and methodological requirements of the study, her involvement presented additional ethical concerns of confidentiality and personal privacy. Once more, it was commonly reported that the ethnicity of a Scottish Traveller interviewer, for instance, might exclude non-Scottish Traveller women from taking part in the study. In addition to this, it was explained that some people might feel reluctant to speak about their own private affairs to another Traveller and Gypsy person if they are concerned that their private life may become publicly exposed. In addition to this, personal privacy was particularly important for men who explained that whilst they thought that the research might be useful, it would not attract their involvement if it meant them having to talk to another Traveller or Gypsy person. Therefore, it was clear that they would not become involved in research if it required talking about sensitive and potentially harrowing experiences to another Traveller or Gypsy person due to personal concerns that their confidentiality might be jeopardised. Not only did this concern have far-reaching implications for the interview method, but it also began to problematise the notion of co-production.

The solution to this dilemma was found within reflective ethical deliberation, which, together with the advice of Smith (2009: 156), reasoned that the attainment of co- production should come second to ‘ethical considerations which are overriding’. Therefore, rather than doggedly sticking to the notion of co-produced research, a deliberate move was taken to develop the networks established in the early stages of the research to move away from the focus of co-production, and more towards active consultation described by Levinson (2010). By focusing more on the practice of

81

consultation, the researcher was able to develop a working relationship with a number of ‘critical friends’ within the Traveller and Gypsy community who were able to offer continued support and advice, but who would not become involved in interviews or analysis. This level of consultation was essential to the overall research design and implementation and squared with the advice of Cicourel (1964), who advocates close and continued consultation with the research population, as it enables the proposed methodology to be scrutinised and tested.

The first outcome of this period of consultation led to a decision that each person who took an interest in taking part in the study would be informed of the choice to be interviewed by the researcher or a female Scottish Traveller. Whilst this opportunity was available, it was decided that the researcher should never assume that individuals would have a particular preference either way. The second outcome concerned research terminology and academic convention. Although the researcher used some academic words unwittingly, they were perceived by some community members as being threatening and potentially dehumanising. Based on this concern, deliberate care was taken to avoid academic jargon when referring to people who lived in care. Consequently, within the information sheet and any corresponding literature, including this thesis, the words ‘participant’, ‘interviewee’, ‘contributor’, ‘service user’ and so on were supplanted with words such as ‘Traveller and Gypsy’, ‘people’, ‘person’ or ‘individual’ wherever necessary. It was hoped that the pragmatic decision to omit the words usually associated with academic convention helped to reduce objectification, and increase ethical awareness.

4.2.2 The interviewer effect

In addition to the revised use of academic language, critical reflection was required in terms of the researcher’s social identity. During consultation, the researcher attended events in trousers and shirt, carrying a brown briefcase. Once people felt comfortable to talk to him, they accused him of looking like a “Tax Collector” and advised that if he intended to visit people’s homes to interview them, he would do well to dress down as his formal appearance could be perceived as intimidating and threatening. It was suggested that if he were to enter some sites dressed so formally,

82

he might also raise serious suspicions within the community as to why he was visiting a particular person. In order to reduce any intimidation caused by his perceived human agency, it was suggested that he exchanged his briefcase for a rucksack, his shoes for trainers and his trousers and shirt for jeans and a t-shirt. By considering these requests, the researcher was able to respect cultural mores and appreciate how his perceived identity may have influenced the ability of people to engage in the research process. For Clandinin & Connelly (1998) the ability of the researcher to reflect on their own human impact on the research process is a core principle of ethical awareness.