Ethical considerations

The ethical considerations for the research were developed based on the regulations of Green University, and were in line with the department’s education research committee guidelines, informed by a seminar (Russell, 2015). I am confident that the research was carried out at least in line with British Educational Research

Association guidelines (BERA, 2018) and in some areas may have gone beyond these expectations, as I will explain. I have adopted some of the headings used in the BERA guidelines to address my responsibilities to participants:

• Consent

• Right to withdraw

• Harm arising from participation in research • Privacy and data storage

• Disclosure

Consent

An important consideration is the extent to which a researcher’s reflective research into their own practice impinges upon others – for example, in the case of power relationships arising from the dual roles of teacher/

lecturer/manager and researcher, and their impact on students (BERA, 2018:13)

One of the main ethical considerations was that the participants were my own students.

At the recruitment stage, it was made clear to them that the decision to participate or not to participate would have no bearing on their treatment on the PGCE course. This was explained at the point of requesting the students’ informed consent to take part. In reality, I think this matter is not all that straightforward. As a PGCE tutor, I have a number of different responsibilities, which may compete with one another. These include responsibilities to the student in terms of ensuring that they receive high quality ITE on the programme, giving them the opportunity to become good science teachers, and to provide evidence of meeting the TS (2011); a responsibility to the teaching profession as a gatekeeper; a responsibility to protect the reputation of the university; and a responsibility to school partners as key contributors to the university-schools partnership PGCE programme, and as future employers of many of the participants. To a large extent, though, data analysis took place after the PGCE course had been concluded, and hence the possibility of anything that was disclosed in participants’ data affecting their progress on the course was not great. However, I acknowledge that a negative effect on working relationships is a possible

repercussion of insider research (Greene, 2014).

The research was explained to all the science PSTs in an introductory taught session about reflective practice. They were given an information sheet and consent form (Appendix M). They were invited to hand in the signed consent form to my supervisor, which meant that they were not under any pressure to respond immediately.

Participants were made aware that I may produce papers as well as a thesis, because they should know what may happen with the contributions that they provide.

As part of the DTC (Tripp, 1993), I suggested that participants may wish to collect data in their placement schools, to provide evidence of improving (or not improving) on the areas for development they identified. I provided materials for the participants to obtain the consent of the headteacher (a gatekeeper), as well as informed consent of pupils and their parents as needed (Appendix N). In the event, none of the participants collected data of this nature.

Right to withdraw

Participants were given the right to withdraw their data. Information about how to withdraw was provided, including the contact details of a third party (my main supervisor) in recognition of the fact that they might not feel able to tell their tutor. Because participants would be taking part in a recorded group discussion activity, it was explained to them in advance that it may not always be possible to tell what was said by whom, and hence it might not be possible for them to withdraw all aspects of their contribution.

Harm arising from participation in research

Because AL sets asked participants to discuss teaching issues, there was some possibility of emotional and psychological difficulties being raised. To mitigate this situation, participants were informed about how to access university support

services, which include counselling services.

The BERA guidelines ask researchers to consider the impact of not using

interventions with control groups (BERA, 2018). Strictly speaking, my research was not a quasi-experimental study making comparisons between a group of research participants and a control group. Nevertheless, I took the decision to make the intervention available to all science PSTs, regardless of whether or not they had chosen to participate in the research. In this regard the study went beyond BERA’s expectations. All science PSTs were included in taught sessions about reflective practice, and had opportunities to take part in writing reflective journals, in AL sets, and in writing action plans to develop their practice. The only difference in treatment of the group of research participants was that their AL sets were recorded, with their consent, and that these discussions took place in a separate room.

In the initial information, PSTs were made aware that there was the possibility that AL sets would need to take place outside of the time of their usual taught sessions. Additionally, writing reflective journals would be completed in addition to the normal requirements of the course. It was important that they were informed of this in advance as their decision to participate had implications for their workload. In reality, completion of the reflective journals was voluntary, as was participation in the final AL set, which was the only one to take place outside normal working hours. Overall, I do not think they were disadvantaged.

Privacy and data storage

In order to provide anonymity, participants were invited to choose their own pseudonyms, which are the names used throughout this thesis. Details of the university attended, and any schools, pupils and colleagues (university tutors or school-based mentors) that were named in the raw data have also been anonymised.

The research complied with data protection, as described by BERA (2018). All material collected was stored securely. Paper materials, such as reflective journals and action plans were stored in the researcher’s office. Electronic copies of materials, including scans of paper materials and audio files were kept on an encrypted drive. In line with university policy, data will be stored for 10 years.

Disclosure

Because participants were asked to take part in audio recordings of their teaching issues, to keep reflective journals, to write critical incidents and to analyse them to reveal underlying assumptions, there was the possibility of them expressing thoughts about their attitudes and values which may raise questions about their fitness to practice as teachers. If I had a serious concern about a participant, it would be necessary for me to take action, in my role as course tutor. This might include initiating the university process for assessing professional suitability, and hence might threaten their successful completion of the PGCE. In order to pass the PGCE, students must demonstrate that their professional practice meets Part Two of the TS, which deals with teachers’ personal and professional conduct (DfE, 2011; Appendix A). Participants were warned about this possibility and given the option of not disclosing parts of their file. It was also explained to them that this may be a reason why they might wish to withdraw from the research project. This element of the process had the potential to cause difficulties with working relationships with PSTs, given my position as insider-researcher.