Awareness of ethical issues underpins the research. Conducting research in Pakistan’s cultural setting, using a research process and ethical framework derived from the perspective drawn largely from work conducted in the UK and USA, presented a series
86
of challenges. These included issues arising from working in an environment with a strong influence from a particular religion and with associated cultural values and a lack of basic infrastructure and privacy when conversing with people who were vulnerable and unacquainted with the concept of this type of research (Haeri, 2002; Iqbal, 2011). Cultural awareness, empathy, a non-judgemental approach, and reflective research can assist in maintaining ethical practice among researchers (Sjoberg, 1967; Miller, 2008). Having conducted a previous research project in Pakistan (Rachel, 2007), I was aware of the need to approach participants in Pakistan within the ethical codes for researchers which are standard in the UK and I followed the guidelines of the Middlesex University Code of Practice for Researchers (Middlesex University CoP, 2011). Whereas it would have been possible to have conducted the research through informal contacts and without regard to the rights of the subjects of my research, it was clear that gaining official permissions from the universities concerned and gaining informed consent from the participants would be necessary in order to conform to good research practice and international ethical standards.
As I was residing in the UK, planning to conduct research in Pakistan required long- distance correspondence/seeking permissions from university authorities for the work I needed to conduct during my visits to Pakistan. This involved social and professional networks to assist me in obtaining the necessary permissions. Many months before I was to begin my data collection, I started inquiring about the channels of authority that I would need to navigate in order to access the universities. This is particularly important when dealing with the public sector in Pakistan where it is not always clear who is able to grant the permission required.
On my first visit in April 2009 before the data collection was due to begin, it became clear that I would need permission from the heads of the institutions, not just the heads of the departments, to gain support and assistance at departmental level. The most effective way of pursuing this was to prepare a detailed document outlining the process of the research, with stages of the research fieldwork and present it directly to the heads of the institutions. The chances of the proposal being rejected were very high if the purpose, process, and scope of the research were not communicated in a manner, which was clear and understandable. Conducting research in an environment that significantly relates to a specific cultural value and religious belief system raises many ethical
87
questions and creates situations that require an ethically competent approach, a situation frequently experienced by transcultural researchers. Although I have the same national cultural background as the participants, the data collection process in the research led to a series of complex situations for me, all requiring careful reflection, and challenging me to maintain the principles of the code of practice for researchers as specified by my UK university. The power imbalance between the researcher and the participants in regard to the availability of the means of basic living, education, and apparent control over immediate surrounding (the power/authority of the researcher) played a significant role. Understanding of the culture, a non-judgemental and respectful approach,
empathy, acceptance of others’ as unique individuals and reflexive practice are essential for the researcher to maintain in order for ethical research practice to be established and this was maintained throughout the research (Fetterman, 1989).
During the research, ethical considerations which encompass confidentiality,
permissions and informed consent (Stringer, 2004 and 2007; Miller, 2008) have been assured. To protect the anonymity of the educational institutions, where most of the field work element was done, these universities have been identified by a number (U1, U2) instead of their actual names. The anonymity and confidentiality of the educational institutions and the participants, where the research fieldwork was conducted, is
maintained. Official permission was sought from the department heads of the
universities and the research project discussed. Permission was given by the head of the selected educational institutions for setting up the peer mentoring project and
conducting the fieldwork which included data collection by distribution of
questionnaires and through interviews, focus groups, conducting and evaluating the training workshops and the mentoring process at the end of the year. The participants in the research fieldwork which includes the members of the focus groups and the
individual interviewees, as well as the participants of the project (mentoring
coordinators, mentors and mentees) were informed about the purpose and nature of the project. Photographs of the participants of the workshop and the certificate award ceremonies (see Appendix 7 and 17) were placed in the thesis following consent of the participants. Consent was also sought before audio recording any individual or
collective interviews. Prior to any video recording for observation purposes, such as that undertaken in the training workshops, participants were informed that the recording was taking place and their permission obtained. Any who expressed reluctance, were not
88
filmed. This echoes Cohen and Manion’s (1994, in Bell 2010:39) affirmation that ‘a code of ethical practice makes researchers aware of their obligation to their subjects and also to those problem areas where there is a general consensus about what is acceptable and what is not. In this sense it has a clarificatory value’.
Informed consent from the participants was also obtained before collecting data using questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. The intervention was seen as a way of improving support and was structured, carefully monitored and assessed as it progressed. Care was taken to see that, as far as was possible, no harm (British
Sociological Association, 2004) was done to students being mentored or being mentors. This also applied to those not involved in the process as they continued to receive the support that was previously provided by the university.