THE ETHICAL DIMENSION OF THE STUDY

The necessary ethical clearance for this study was obtained from UNISA’s College of Law Research Ethics Sub-Committee (ANNEXURE 8) on 24 February 2014. Mouton (2001: 239) highlights that ethical issues originate from people’s interaction with other people and the environment whilst Denscombe (2002: 174-175) underscores a nexus between the idea of ‘ethics’ and the concept of morality. Denscombe continues by highlighting that at a practical level it deals with what ought, and ought not, to be done. The consideration of ethics in research is clearly explicated by Leedy and Ormrod (2013: 104), who caution that “whenever human beings or other creatures with the

potential to think, feel, and experience physical or psychological distress are the focus of investigation, researchers must look closely at the ethical implications of what they are proposing to do”. The ethics architecture of this study was informed by the Belmont

principles and the Singapore statement on research ethics. These are briefly discussed below.

‘The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research’ (1978) has the identification of basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of research involving human subjects, and the development of guidelines to assure that such principles are followed, as the foundation of its existence. The Belmont Report (1978: 4-10) covers the following three basic ethical principles that are particularly relevant to the ethics of research involving human subjects:

 Respect for persons: The two basic ethical convictions incorporated into the principle respect for persons are, first, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents who have the capability of deliberation about personal goals

and of acting under the direction of such deliberation. The second basic ethical conviction incorporated into the respect for persons is that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection. Human beings who have a diminished capacity for self-determination should be respected and protected as they mature or while they are incapacitated. Some persons require little protection beyond making sure that they undertake activities freely and voluntarily whilst others may have to be excluded from activities that may cause them harm.

 Beneficence: In the context of the Belmont Report, beneficence goes beyond efforts to secure the well-being of individuals. In a stronger sense, beneficence is understood as an obligation. Two general rules have been formulated as complementary expressions of beneficent actions. First, these actions include ‘do not harm’ and, second, they maximise possible benefits and minimise possible harms.

 Justice: The idea of justice is introduced by means of the rhetorical question ‘who ought to receive the benefits of research and bear its burdens?’ This relates to ‘fairness in distribution’ or ‘what is deserved’. An injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly.

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity was developed as part of the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, 21-24 July 2010, in Singapore, as a global guide to the responsible conducting of research. This statement underscores the notion that the value and benefits of research are vitally dependent on the integrity of research (Singapore Statement on Research Integrity, 2010). The principles enshrined in this statement are:

 Honesty in all aspects of research;

 Accountability in the conducting of research;

 Professional courtesy and fairness in working with others; and  Good stewardship of research on behalf of others.

In dealing with participants, the researcher took note of the following categories of ethical issues and implications, as stipulated by Leedy and Ormrod (2013: 105-108):

 Protection from harm: The researcher did not expose research participants to undue physical or psychological harm. Interviews were conducted in a safe environment and in the comfort of an agreed upon venue suggested either by participants or by the researcher himself. No pressure, tacit or implicit, was exerted on participants to participate or answer in a specific manner. Research permission from the relevant government departments included in this study was obtained and the researcher ensured that all participants from these departments had the approval of management to participate in the interviews (ANNEXURE 9). No prior written approval for participation in this study was necessary for Participant CLE 1, who, as the most senior official attached to a municipal law enforcement agency, also provided permission for Participant CLE 2 to participate. Participant HS 1 and Participant POE 4 were referred to the researcher by – and received permission from – their provincial human trafficking task team coordinator to participate in the study. Both Participant INT 4 and Participant INT 5 were granted permission by their embassy and respective line managers to participate in the study.

 Voluntary and informed participation: The researcher informed the participants of the nature of the study to be conducted and gave the participants a choice of whether to participate or not. The researcher informed participants of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.

 Right to privacy: The researcher showed respect for the participants’ right to privacy and did not disclose responses received from the participants. The researcher protected the identity of participants by referring to them as ‘participants’ in the dissertation (Denscombe, 2002: 175). A number was also allocated to each of the participants. One incident that posed a threat to the confidentiality of one of the participants originated from the services offered by the professional transcriptionist used in this research. The incident was contemporaneously reported to the researcher by the transcriptionist, recorded and immediately contained, after which UNISA’s College of Law Ethics Committee was informed. The incident was comprehensively documented, whereafter a memo15 _{was drafted and signed by the participant, who agreed to continue in the} research.

15 _{The memo is not included as an annexure to this research because of the sensitive information that}

it contains. If needed, it can be independently verified by the chairperson of UNISA’s College of Law Ethical Review Committee.

 Honesty with professional colleagues: The researcher reported his findings completely and honestly. No misrepresentations pertaining to the research were made and the researcher did not mislead others about the nature of his findings. The researcher took cognisance of, and guarded against, plagiarism (see: Repanovici, Barbu & Cristea, 2008: 74) and gave the necessary credit to the authors’ work used in this research.

The researcher studied the UNISA policy on research ethics (UNISA, 2007: 1) and worked in accordance with the following aims of the policy:

 To contribute to an ethical and scientific intellectual culture of UNISA;

 To ensure that the rights and interests of human participants are protected. This is particularly important where information gathered has the potential to invade the privacy and dignity of participants, and where participants are vulnerable owing to their youth, age, poverty, disease, ignorance or powerlessness;

 To ensure that the research is ethical in the increasingly diverse research areas of qualitative and quantitative research; and

 To ensure that the ethical and scientific soundness of the research is not compromised where lack of funding limits opportunities for research and forces cost-saving procedures.

During the interviews with victims of trafficking, the researcher relied on his extensive investigative interviewing training related to victims of sexual offences and on his past and ongoing investigative experience with victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. He was also familiar with the convoluted debates and different feminist perspectives around issues of sex trafficking, prostitution and agency, and took particular caution to navigate the ‘ethical minefield in human trafficking research’ (Zhang, 2016). A number of scholarly works were consulted (Siegel & De Wildt, 2016; Lobasz, 2009; Harrison, 2006; Cwikel & Hoban, 2005) that related to the aforementioned issues and that informed the researcher’s efforts to safeguard the psychological and physical well-being of this population.