Ethical considerations

Gaining research ethics approval in sensitive personal areas such as child protection practice can be a delicate, time consuming and an arduous process (Dale, 2004; Munro, Holmes and Ward, 2005; Stalker et al, 2004). Ethical approval for this study was granted by a relevant Local Authority’s Research Ethics Governance Committee following a long-drawn-out application process. This protracted process involved complying with the following requirements:

1. Establishing contact with the relevant gate-keepers

2. Completing the Research Governance Framework Application Form 3. Employer’s, Public and Products Liability Insurance Cover

4. Professional Indemnity Insurance Cover

5. Evidence of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB now DBS) 6. Child or Young Person’s Information Sheet (see Appendix 5) 7. Parent or Caregiver’s Information Sheet (see Appendix 6) 8. Participant Information Sheet (see Appendix 7)

9. Child or Young Person’s Consent Form (see Appendix 8) 10. Parent or Caregiver’s Consent Form (see Appendix 9) 11. Professionals Consent Form (see Appendix 10)

12. Interview Schedule (see Appendix 4) 13. Direct Observation Sheet (see Appendix 3) 14. Research Timetable.

174

The application to obtain research ethics approval began in earnest in October 2010 and the approval was finally granted 24 October 2011 - after eleven months (see Appendix 11). Mindful of difficulties relating to gaining access to the research participants establishing contact with the relevant gate-keepers was the first task (Stalker et al, 2004). There were multiple gatekeepers that needed to be contacted at various stages of the process to enable access to the research sites and participants (Creswell, 2009). The first gate keeper who was contacted by telephone confirmed that indeed the Local Authority had a Research Ethics Governance Committee and he promptly shared contact details for the person who was responsible for facilitating the application process. Having previously worked under the first gatekeeper who was a senior manager within the same Local Authority raised ethical issues and subjectivity and these were discussed and agreement reached on the importance of maintaining clear professional and research boundaries. How subjectivity was addressed in this study has already been discussed in great detail in chapter.

Contact with the person responsible for facilitating the application process was via email and telephone. On each occasion clear guidelines were given regarding what was needed to be done. This involved the multiple processes of completing the application form and the detailed requirements which have been stated above as well as establishing further contact with another layer of gate keepers. These were service managers, who according to one of the email correspondences would, “facilitate access to either, information, staff or premises as well as obtaining a letter agreeing how they are going to assist”. The initial responses to the inquiry from four service managers who had been identified were varied. One did not reply despite repeated approaches via emails and telephone calls to her

175

office. Two responded to the effect that they were happy to provide the assistance but not necessarily permission to undertake the study. The last one apologised for the long delay she had taken to respond, but was clear permission would not be granted for access to the integrated children system or child protection documents. It had initially been intended to include document analysis as one of the data collection instruments but this was promptly dropped when it became clear that access would not be granted. The option of paying a stipend to someone within the service to do the collating of anonymised information from the documents was offered with a reminder that “the unit had no capacity whatsoever to support …we are busier than ever- have very explicit and major pieces of work to do - and I don't personally have any capacity for discussions”. The remainder of the advice sought information on specific samples required, permission required, number of children intended to be spoken to, records, conferences to be observed, with an admonishment that this, “in terms of ethics is huge as I know from other research work”. There was also a reminder that this study was taking place at a time when the Local Authority’s Children and Young Peoples’ Services were undergoing considerable re-organisation and therefore they needed assurance that the transition to the systemic unit model approach which had been “praised by Eileen Munro – is recognised in my report”. This seemed like an attempt to influence the findings of study to be favourable to the local authority’s reorganisation project.

This experience was not just about challenges for gaining access to research participants in general (Stalker et al 2004) but it also brought to fore the ethical issues that relate to undertaking research with children and young people and their families (Munro, Holmes and Ward, 2005) which was referred to earlier. Following further discussions with the PhD supervision team it became clear that the

176

research questions for this study could still be answered fully even if document analysis was excluded. While the permission to access confidential documents was difficult to obtain, there was still a chance for obtaining access to observe child protection meetings and interviewing social workers, and thus the research proposal was amended accordingly.

The difficulties faced in obtaining ethics approval in this study were not unique. Stalker et al, (2004) recounted the difficulties experienced when researchers sought access to children for social research interviews. They concluded that sometimes the process appeared as if it was designed to prevent access to research participants and that it may contribute to the reluctance of some researchers to undertake research if ethical considerations are perceived as being restrictive. Nonetheless, ethical considerations are of huge the importance in any research (Creswell, 2009; Dale, 2004; Stalker et al, 2004; World Medical Association, 2013). All research involving human participants, in whatever form, should have research ethics approval before engaging research participants in data collection (World Medical Association, 2013). Research ethics approvals remain an important responsibility since the publication of Nuremburg code and the Helsinki declaration, hence today’s research ethics committees have a duty on the conduct of researchers (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005; World Medical Association, 2013). Failure to take heed of the importance of research approval could lead to either the physical, social economic and emotional harm to research participants or harm to the researcher and their reputation (Gelling, 1999; Fadden and Beauchamp, 1986). While failure to comply with ethical requirements could also lead to a compromise in the scientific value of the study, however, there is also need for balance between risks and benefits (Fadden

177

and Beauchamp, 1986). This study complied with most of principles of these declarations, codes and protocols of research ethics.

In accordance with the principles outlined in Gelling (1999), Fadden and Beauchamp (1986) and British Educational Research Association (BERA), (2011), when considering research ethics approval for this study the following were observed:

Beneficence

Every effort was made to ensure that the obligation and expectation for the research to benefit the participants or society in general was made clear to the research ethics committee and the research participants (see Appendices 5, 6 and 7).

Non-maleficence

Similarly, all potential risks to participants and researchers were explained in the research ethics application form and in the information sheets referred to above. Fidelity

A trusting and respectful relationship was built with the participants throughout this study in line with this principle.

Justice

The relationship with participants was built on the principle of fairness and justice. Veracity

In all aspects of interaction with participants during this study the principle of truthfulness and transparency, without any deceitful was upheld at all times.

Confidentiality

It was also made clear that all information disclosed by research participants would not be disclosed to unauthorised people, with the exception of child

178

protection disclosures, where it was made clear at the outset that there is a duty to share such information professionally. There were however no disclosures made during this study.

Autonomy

Sufficient information was made available to research participants so they could make informed consent and decisions to participate in the research.

Voluntary informed consent and the right to withdraw

The voluntary informed consent and the right to withdraw from the study were explained in the information sheets referred to above and consent forms (Appendices 8, 9 and 10) were signed before participation in the study could occur.

Since this study was sponsored by Anglia Ruskin University, both the University and the researcher as an employee, were insured against the Employer’s, Public and Products Liability Insurance Cover as well as Professional Indemnity Insurance Cover, respectively. As part of the ethics application process evidence of such insurance cover was requested and was provided. Throughout the data collection process, as a registered member of the General Social Care Council (GSCC), and later on Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), there was an acute awareness of the duty to the profession and the children who were either in need, neglected or at risk of harm.

Apart from following the guidelines referred to above, throughout the study there was a constant awareness of the moral dimension of the study and that ethical dilemmas could arise. These were anticipated and actively sought out right from specifying the research problem; identifying a purpose statement and developing research questions; and collecting, analysing, and writing up the results of data (Creswell,(2009; Kvale, 2007). Contrary to conclusions by Stalker, et al (2004) that

179

some ethical requirements may appear as if they are designed to prevent access to research participants, in this instance there was an appreciation of the importance of the ethics approval process despite it being long-drawn-out.