Ethics and consent

As a prelude to the following discussions about research methodology, it is pertinent to clarify issues of ethics and consent which were relevant to the study. The four principles of ethical research identified by Diener & Crandall (1978) will be considered :

● Avoiding participant harm

● Ensuring informed consent

● Avoiding invasion of privacy

● Avoiding deception

The likelihood of participant harm in this study was low due to the nature of the research focus. A conscious process of seeking to protect participants from harm was nevertheless an important consideration, and in this case related to potential psychological harm rather than physical harm. The nature of the study was to engage participants in questioning and dialogue about their own behaviours and the impact their actions had on teams, organisations and services. It could be argued that this kind of dialogue is a common aspect of a leader’s work, through reflective practice, peer review, appraisal and ongoing personal development processes. However, it was important for the researcher to be sensitive to the potential for participants to personalise the issues being discussed, and through reflection during semi-structured interviews, for instance, to come to new realisations about the way they themselves behave as a leader. Subjective judgements about the relative merits of different approaches to leading improvement did not form part of the intended research methodology, yet it was possible that participants might perceive that their account of

their leadership behaviour was in some way being judged. It was important for the researcher to clarify and reassure participants that this was not the case, and to explain that any measurement of participant data would be against objective measurement instruments and frameworks, and not against the researcher’s subjective point of view.

In terms of ensuring informed consent, the study was not commissioned as an academic piece of research, but rather as an applied piece of evaluative work, for the specific purposes of The Health Foundation. All THF Award Holders, and therefore all respondents within the study had, as a requirement of their Award funding, provided written consent to participating in any activities commissioned by THF which contributed to evaluating the THF leadership schemes. As such, informed consent was already in place at the outset of the study, which provided clearance under a broad evaluation framework. Despite this informed consent being in place, as May (2001) points out, this needed to be accompanied by an understanding of the aims and processes of the research. The researchers worked with THF to ensure that email notification about the study was given to all Award Holders at its outset. In addition, the author met with several groups of Award Holders at alumnus and THF-related events during the summer of 2008, to provide details of each stage of the study, and to foster interest and engagement with the proposed methods. At each stage of involving individual Award Holders face-to-face in this study, a verbal overview of the work was provided, including a description of how the results of the study would be used.

It should be acknowledged that even the best intentions can fall short of an ideal approach to informed consent. Homan (1991) highlights how difficult it is to give prospective participants absolutely all the information they might need to make an informed decision about their involvement in the research. For example, in this study, it proved difficult to ensure that every single one of the potential participants had exactly the same overview of the research work, as the verbal presentations of the intended approach were provided to different groups of THF Award Holders on different occasions, often on an opportunistic basis, depending on when groups of them were accessible. A combination of rigour, consistency and pragmatism was therefore necessary.

In relation to avoiding invasion of privacy, all possible steps were taken during the research to protect the identity of respondents, by means of using identifier numbers. Access to the names of participants taking part was limited to members of the research team involved in arranging or undertaking the data gathering. The staff used for transcription duties were from an external agency, employed under an agreement about maintaining confidentiality relating to the transcribed data. The Q-Sort data were gathered at an open Alumni event where a participant list was available, but each participant’s Q-Sort dataset was given an identifier number as soon as it was collected, and became an anonymised part of a wider dataset from a total of 50 people. The confidentiality approach throughout the study was designed to ensure that neither THF, nor wider stakeholders, could trace data back to individual Award Holders.

In addition, all participation in the study was voluntary, with an invitation offered to all THF Award Holders, but with no obligation to take part. The researcher’s introductory comments before all interviews covered issues of data confidentiality and use of the data gathered.

Finally, the issue of avoiding deception is one with apparently limited relevance to this study. Nevertheless, Bryman’s (2008) observation that ‘it is rarely feasible or desirable to provide participants with a totally complete account of what your research is about’ (p.125) is worth some scrutiny in this respect. The multi-faceted nature of this study, which formed a smaller part of a wider study, reflected the numerous aims and objectives of The Health Foundation in commissioning the work. These aims ranged from an intellectual interest in extending the research evidence in the area to a pragmatic need to assess the optimal way of investing in future leadership development. The time necessary to outline all the purposes of the study to each and every participant in the study was prohibitive within the parameters of the work. A pragmatic approach was therefore taken by the researcher, ensuring that at the outset of all initial contacts with study respondents, the opportunity was provided for clarification about any of the purpose of the work. Unsurprisingly, some respondents were more interested in the detail of the rationale for the study than others. The principle used was that any question asked about the study would be answered fully, but that this would be when requested rather than automatically provided to all respondents.