Ethical Considerations

This section emphasises the ethical considerations to demonstrate my awareness of conducting research with human participants. It explains University of Waikato regulations and guidelines and process prior to visiting the research field. This sections also identifies three important ethical considerations which were derived from the fieldwork and influenced data quality. The first issue presents potential benefit and harm to participants. The second explains openness and consent focusing on deciding factors which influenced the participants’ un/willingness to contribute to this research. The last issue discusses trust and honesty that may occur in the research field.

3.5.1 The University of Waikato regulations and guidelines

Cavan (1977, p. 810) defines ‘ethics’ as “a matter of principled sensitivity to the rights of others.” It is necessary for applied linguistics researchers to take into account the possible effect of their research for participants (Cohen et al., 2018). Cohen et al. suggest that researchers must have an accountability to research participants “to act in such a way as to preserve their dignity as human beings” (Cohen et al., 2018, p. 112). Consideration for ethical conduct assists researchers in making appropriate judgments, sound decisions, and in choosing the right alternatives in order to shield and protect all from discomfort (Miller, Birch, Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012).

The University of Waikato has established regulations on ethical conduct in human research and related activities as good practice for designing and conducting research with human participants. The regulations illuminate the standard of ethical conduct required in research including human participants, such as minimisation of harm, informed consent, and non-exploitative relationships. They note that “[a] staff member, student or authorised person must not commence research or a related activity until it has been approved by the appropriate authority and in accordance with these regulations” (The University of Waikato, 2018). So, students must submit applications for approval for their research, or related activity, to the delegated faculties committees within the University.

My proposal was reviewed by the Faculty of Education’s Human Research Ethics Committee, and I received their approval to proceed to conduct this study.

3.5.2 Potential Benefit or Harm to Participants 3.5.2.1 Benefit

The University of Waikato’s Ethical Conduct in Human Research and Related Activities Regulations 2008 set a standard of value of research or related activities and the public interest. The regulations state that:

A researcher must be able to justify to his or her peers of the goals and methodology of the research and/or related activity in terms of its reasonably anticipated benefits balanced against any foreseeable risk of harm to the participants. (The University of Waikato, 2018)

My research offered potential intellectual benefits to participants such as self- reflective practices and self-awareness in the use of English and Thai, and pedagogy through data collection participation such as focus group discussions. These benefits would be derived from the participants’ reflection on their own practices.

More importantly, it was the first time for them to reflect systematically their teaching practice regarding EMI. By so doing, my research activities contributed to the professional learning of participants that had begun in their actual classrooms. To illustrate this point, the participants were in a process of self-observation and self-evaluation through answering the following thought-provoking questions: What do you actually do in the EMI classroom? Why do you do it? Does it work or not? What makes it work?

3.5.2.2 Harm

The researchers should attempt to ensure that participants are protected from excessive intrusion, anxiety, humiliation, embarrassment, psychological and social harm (Stevens, 2013). A possible way to create unanticipated psychological harm is for the researcher to ask informants questions regarding their attitudes and

experiences on “sensitive” phenomena during the data collection process (McCosker, Barnard, & Gerber, 2001).

In my research, there were four parties who might encounter potential harm because they were closely associated in terms of EMI programme development. Regarding OverseasU, I used their workshop information only to understand background information about the workshop. I was aware that if I made negative criticisms regarding the CLIL workshop this might decrease their good reputation. My concern was that this study would not be a cause for tensions among parties, especially OverseasU and HomeU. This is because these two parties had established a good relationship over a period of time. I anonymised data and removed identifiers. CLIL workshop materials from OverseasU are not used as part of my data collection and analysis.

I was sensitive to revealing negative results of EMI activities at HASS. The top HomeU authorities might blame the HASS management for unexpected results since HomeU had invested heavily in this programme at HASS. Additionally, the HASS authorities might lose face if negative practices were revealed. At the same time, I was aware that as an ethical researcher I needed to maintain the overall integrity of the data and of the research.

In regard to participants, I had no positive or negative histories with most of them. However, my research might draw attention to the weak points of EMI practices in my thesis. A highly undesirable situation, might occur for the participants, such as if their criticism of the policy and unexpected practice were heightened in this thesis, creating a potential risk to promotion prospects. To diminish harm, I used pseudonyms, altered the names of the participants’ teaching subjects and omitted names of the departments. Although I used lecturer participants’ reports written for

management, I selected only the potential issues that could be developed for the benefit of HomeU, HASS, lecturers, and students.

3.5.3 Consent

I informed potential participants about my research objectives and agenda as precisely as possible. I also distributed information letters to them. During data

collection, I provided an opportunity to the participants to talk about the research in progress. Later, I realised that my research framework had shifted from general lecturers’ beliefs and practices about EMI to specific aspects on languages in the EMI environment. I was aware that the participants should know this. Again, I shared my current research with them in person when re-visiting the site.

Receiving the acknowledged, informed consent of participants is necessary for the ethical conduct of the research so that the participants are not misinformed about their agreement to data gathering activities, and is a commitment from the researcher regarding the subject of confidentiality and anonymity (Menter et al., 2011; Rallis & Rossman, 2009). Rossman and Rallis (2016) argue that participants should be made aware that their identities, such as names and positions, will not be displayed in any dialogues or written papers concerning the research.

As far as I was aware, I clearly explained to the participants about informed consent and that it was not merely a paper that was signed, but it was a voluntary agreement to participate in my research. Before so doing, they should have a full understanding of my intentions.

3.5.4 Trust

Social interaction with participants requires diplomacy and sensitivity on the part of researchers (Lub, 2015). Researchers should be responsible for maintaining confidentiality (Fossheim, 2015) and be realistic about the extent to which they can guarantee anonymity (Zeni, Prophete, Cason, & Phillips, 2001). To make certain that reliable ethical practices are in place, the researchers must be open, honest and humble enough to work on building and sustaining a good rapport with the participants (Costa, 2015; Heigham & Croker, 2009; Rallis & Rossman, 2009). Costa (2015) counsels the researchers to build trust and plan the research project in a way that also values the participants’ communities, “that makes a matter of trust between you and the people in your research” (Menter et al., 2011, p. 58).

I was well aware of promoting and maintaining familiarity to, good rapport and interpersonal trust with the participants through the use of various personalising

dialogues and socialising activities. My research instruments allowed the participants the freedom to contribute data.