Ethical issues

Since the study used a range of methods for collecting data, a number of common ethical issues were considered at various stages of the research, such as: self- completed questionnaires, teachers’ interviews and the focus groups of pupils, as well as the use of documentation. Some of the issues included; guaranteeing anonymity/confidentiality, consent, the right to participate and to withdraw, and explaining the purpose of the research study, the use of tape recorder and reporting the findings.

In relation to the self-completed questionnaires, Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2003) state that ‘the obligation to protect the anonymity of research participants and to keep research data confidential is all-inclusive. It should be fulfilled at all costs unless arrangements to the contrary are made with the participants in advance’ (p.61). In this study, all the teachers who completed the questionnaires, except those (12 teachers) who indicated their willingness to participate in the interviews were guaranteed anonymity. The 12 teachers from the cohort who did the face-to-face interviews were assured of confidentiality.

The essence of anonymity as Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2003) explain is that information provided by participants should in no way reveal their identify. This was not the case for the 12 teachers that participated in the interviews, since they indicated by putting a mark in a box on their questionnaire that they were willing to do the interviews. This enabled me to follow them up at their schools for the interviews (Appendix 5A). Also, the covering page of the questionnaire provided information relating to the purpose of the study, highlighting its relevance to teachers’ classroom practices. This information was designed to encourage the teachers to complete the questionnaires. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, respondents cannot be coerced into completing a questionnaire. During the distribution of the questionnaires, I told the teachers they were not under any obligation to complete the questionnaire if they felt strongly about it. I added that the decision whether to become involved and when to withdraw from the research was entirely theirs.

As explained in the previous paragraph, the 12 teachers and the pupils who participated in the focus groups could not be guaranteed anonymity; rather they were assured of confidentiality. According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2003) this is the second way of protecting a participant’s right to privacy. In line with this, all the names of teachers and pupils in the transcriptions from the interviews were pseudonyms (Chapters 6 & 7).

Furthermore, prior to each interview, I re-stated the purpose of the research study, assured teachers of confidentiality and told them they had the right to withdraw when they felt so. I also sought permission from each teacher to record the conversation by using a tape recorder. Additionally, as Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2003) suggest I

made the teachers aware that the research report might be accessed by many people both in Ghana and abroad. Other aspects of the ethical considerations regarding the interviews with the teachers have been outlined in Chapter 6.

In terms of interviewing children, many of the issues considered in teachers’ interviews were considered in that of the pupils. However, Lewis (2002) states that concerning interviews of children the concern has revolved around six areas: access/gatekeepers, consent/assent, confidentiality/anonymity/secrecy, recognition/feedback, ownership, and social responsibility.

In terms of access/gatekeepers, I sought permission from headteachers, teachers and parents to interview the lower attaining children involved in the study. However, as Lewis and Porter (2004) point out, the consent of headteachers, teachers and parents was not taken as conclusive of the final sample. Although consent was given by these adults on behalf the children to be interviewed, there was the need for assent from the lower attaining children to either agree or disagree to participate in the study (Lewis, 2002). In order to get informed consent/assent from the children I spoke to them about the chance to participate in the study, their rights to withdraw, what I expected from them (role) and the purpose of the study (Lewis, 2002) in their native language.

Also, as Lewis (2002) suggests, these steps were taken in order to respond to four issues regarding informed consent: the children or their proxies received the information, I explained the information to enable them to understand and respond to it. However, Lewis (2002) argues that this not only shows how daunting it is to obtain informed consent but also how difficult it is in genuinely obtaining informed consent

from the children. As Lewis and Porter (2004) point out it is critically important to provide opportunities to assent or dissent from involvement. Children have the right to privacy that researchers have a moral responsibility to acknowledge.

According to Lewis and Porter (2004) the consent process has often been described as ongoing; that is, that there are series of decision points as the research process unfolds and at which participants should be given the opportunity to express their view about their continued involvement and whether they would like to opt out. This view was upheld in the process of the research.

For example, I observed each child closely to ensure that none of them was pressurised in any way as they participated in the interviews. I noted their body language, facial expressions and general attitudes before and during the interviews to ensure that every child was happy to participate and continue with the interviews. Through careful observations of the pupils I noted that pupil (girl) was poorly. I called the child and had a chat with her; she told me that she felt they were going to be tested. I spent some time to explain the purpose of the interviews and what they were going to do. After that, I inquired from her whether she wanted to participate. She declined and was excused. In that process I ensured that none of the children felt uncomfortable or threatened (Lewis, 1992) and also upheld the right of the children to participate or decline (Lewis and Porter, 2004).

I also assured all the pupils about confidentiality and explained to them that everything that was said at the interviews was to be used only for the study and nothing else. Their names would not be made public or referred to when the data were

being discussed at any time and anywhere. In line with that assurance the names I used in the analysis of the data were pseudonym.

Prior to the use of the tape recorder I sought the pupils’ consent. The purpose for recording the conversations was to ensure that I retained the whole information as provided by the pupils during the interviews. In terms of ethical considerations, the recording enabled me to describe accurately what transpired during the interviews in order to eliminate biases (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison, 2003). Other issues have been outlined in Chapter 7.

In appreciation for the information, their time and their involvement in the interviews I organised a group ‘treat’ for the children after the interview sessions. This is acceptable in research; Lewis (2002) suggests that the basis of this exchange is respect for the children’s time and efforts.