Ethical Issues

This section outlines the ethical framework for this study. Most writers on research methodology make strong points about taking account of ethical issues, e.g. obtaining permission/consent for participation from schools. Informed consent is an issue discussed in detail (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Participants must know they have choice in whether or not they participate; exactly what their role is and they can withdraw at any time. Before consenting they need to be aware of research purposes and whether research is to be published, and the likely audiences. These issues are enshrined in British Educational Research Association Guidelines (BERA, 2011) which I followed in conducting my research. I was careful to reassure about confidentiality, and especially of protecting identities of participants and institutions (Masson, 2004). BERA (2011:7) guidelines state ‘researchers must recognise participants’

141

entitlement to privacy and must accord them rights to confidentiality and anonymity’. Such assurance gives confidence to those being researched so they feel they can speak honestly and without fear of uncomfortable consequences; without this, there is likelihood of bias in responses. Whilst this may satisfy some ethical guidelines, in terms of conducting educational research as moral practice, Sikes and Goodson (2003) suggest that following a set of generalised guidelines can reduce moral concerns to the ‘procedural’ and is thus a form of methodological reductionism.

How to make ‘voices heard without exploiting or distorting those voices is a vexatious question’ (Olesen, 2000:231); control of data selection lies with researchers and is open to interpretations. Fine (1992) discusses different ways participants’ voices maybe misused, including use of individuals’ data to reflect groups; making assumptions that ‘voices’ are free of power-relations; and failing to acknowledge researcher positionality in relation to those ‘voices’. Fine (1994) develops these arguments in discussion of ‘ventriloquism’, where researchers speak for participants, putting words in their mouths or by using extracts underpinning their own values. Interpretation of data and its relationship to ‘truth’ are problematic; however impartial interpreters aspire to be, the authors of text have stronger ‘voices’ and whilst text may be written with integrity, ‘reality’/‘truth’ reflects perceptions of individuals (Simons, 2003). Such debates highlight some ethical/philosophical dilemmas raised by using ‘voices’ of others, including tensions between needing to ‘listen to quiet, less powerful voices’ (Griffiths, 1998:96), and reflecting those ‘voices’ to retain integrity and meaning of words. Through my use of a systematic three-stage coding system, I have made every attempt to retain the integrity and to capture the characters and identity constructions of my participants.

Access was negotiated via consent letters sent to all three schools’ Head Teachers asking for permission to conduct research (appendix 4). Once students were selected, consent letters were given to them (appendix 5) and e- mailed to their parents (appendix 7). Contained within consent letters were guarantees that every effort would be made to ensure confidentiality, anonymity, and explained that participants could withdraw at any point. I have used research pseudonyms for all participants and schools taking part.

142

Anonymity and limiting apprehension about being judged were important for teachers who reported ‘not knowing enough’ about ‘G&T’-policies; the research had no intention of exploiting teachers or being detrimental to their interests. The ‘researched’ can access my findings through a summary research report given to the schools. In this way, something is ‘given back’ to ‘researched communities’.

Reflexivity and Positionality

Researchers as integral parts of the world under investigation cannot offer impartial views (Wellington, 2000). Concerns with researcher perceptions are relevant to the interpretation of ‘voices’, as already mediated when they come to interview situations (Olesen, 2000). Many quieter, less powerful ‘voices’ including those of post-16 ‘G&T’-students are vulnerable to being significantly ‘Othered’. Fine et al (2000:117) argue ‘we potentially walk into the field with constructions of the ‘other’ however seemingly benevolent and benign’ and inevitably stereotypes influence interpretations. Acknowledgement of researcher positionality, use of three methods and voluntary participation from students/parents/teachers, reflects attempts to address these issues and to present an honest interpretation of data for critical examination.

Acknowledging my positionality enables more informed judgements about the value of my research and its findings. I considered possible impacts of values in my research including empathy with the students leading to over interpretation of what was said (or not said) thus creating a risk of bias. However, acknowledging research position may not be sufficient, if commitment is such that it is likely to overcome attempts to establish validity/reliability. As Douglas (1976:99) argues ‘one should have feelings but not passionate and well- entrenched commitments. It’s one thing for a non-customer to study massage parlours. It’s another for a nun to study them.’ However, I practised reflexivity in recognising that my presence within the social worlds that I sought to analyse would change those worlds. Stanley (1996) distinguishes between two types of reflexivity. ‘Analytic-reflexivity’ engages researchers in intellectual autobiographical accounts, which not only confront epistemological/ontological assumptions brought to research but assert the need to be explicit about

143

processes of analysis. Whereas, ‘descriptive-reflexivity’ involves descriptions of research contexts and evidence of critical awareness of issues e.g. power- relations and interaction of researcher with participants impacting on research outcomes. I have strived to attain both ‘analytic’ (by providing autobiographical information) and ‘descriptive-reflexivity’ (by attempting to minimise ‘researcher effects’ and participant reactivity) in my research processes.

However, the influence of researcher histories/values should not be underestimated (Greene, 2008). Problematics from the researcher’s autobiography often start chains-of-thinking leading to ideas for enquiry (Lindlof & Grubb-Swetnam, 1996). My own ‘ability-identity’ was affected by my perception of being labelled as a ‘failure’ through secondary modern attendance in the 1970s after ‘failing’ the ‘11+ exam’. This has influenced my sensitivity to educational policy/practices that have potential to label students, like ‘G&T’- policy implementations. My critical approach can be seen as value-laden, but all research is positioned, socially constructed, and the best one can do is search ‘for any usefulness that the researcher’s ‘reading’ of a phenomenon might have in bringing about change for those who need it’ (Burr, 1995:162). I have recognised that researcher involvement is necessary, and to acknowledge it through adopting reflexive approaches is the appropriate response (Abbott & Wallace, 1997).

However, research relationships are construction sites for complex interactions. Social cues - gender, age, ethnicity, social-class and educational background (Brewer, 2000) - are impossible to change, and impact on researcher- participant relationships. The outcome is potentially some ‘voices’ are privileged over others, as some may be less forthcoming for a range of reasons, including subtle complexities of interaction such as power differentials. As mentioned earlier (section 5.7), interviewees at times, actively resisted questioning or even steered the direction of the interviews to satisfy their own agendas. Like me, Scheurich (1997:71) found:

Interviewees carve out space of their own, that they can often control some or part of the interview, that they push against or resist my goals, my intentions, my questions, my meanings. The interviewee

144

may play out a persona just for the satisfaction of the play; may practice stories about herself.

Listening with a ‘third-ear’ is imperative to recognise what is being said and what is being omitted (Oppenheim, 1992). I consciously listened with a well- tuned ‘third-ear’ during my research, actively ‘listening’ to the unsaid and body language. During the one-to-one interviews, students generally called me ‘Miss’ or ‘Ma’am’ (at Barratt School), illustrating consciousness of the power relationship between student/teacher. However, students were keenly assertive in taking an academic interest in my research and in self-analysis. I noticed throughout the couple-interviews how confident, friendly and ‘equal’ the relationship/interactions were between parents and students. However, Scheunch (1999:73) points out:

The interview interaction is fundamentally indeterminate-the complex play of conscious and unconscious thoughts, feelings, fears, power, desires, and needs on the part of both the interviewer and interviewee constructs interview data that has ‘indeterminate ambiguity’.

Nevertheless, perspectives were gained from a multitude of samples through dialogical approaches revealing ‘crystallizations’ of what it feels like to be post- 16 ‘G&T’-students.