Gaining access to the host school and the informers

Rapley (2007) writes that, ‘questions of access and recruitment can be central to understanding some of the outcomes of the research’ (p.38) and that describing all the process involved is essential for the reader to be assured of the ethical stance taken (3.3; 3.5).

In October 2006 the headteacher was approached with an action research proposal (Appendix H20) and at this first meeting, ethical issues were tangentially discussed as were the constraints of the information gathering. Concepts such as ‘informed consent, non-deception, absence of psychological harm, privacy and confidentiality,’ (Angrosino and Myas de Perez, 2000, p.690; 3.5) were considered, as were the headteacher’s wish ‘that the children were not interviewed during school time - that disruption was kept to a minimum’ (diary, October 2006). A month later a follow-up meeting was held at which permission was given by the school’s governors and headteacher for this longitudinal project to commence. At that meeting a draft letter, which would be sent to randomly selected parents of the Y7 students, was offered to the headteacher. ‘We discussed my proposed letter [and] a few comments were added - mainly about how “the school was in favour of research and educational development projects”’ (diary, November 2006. my brackets).

After this meeting a full list of the Y7 students was provided by the headteacher’s secretary. The students were numbered chronologically and programmed into an Internet ‘Research Randomizer’ (Urbaniak and Plous, 1997-2008). Only six random numbers were requested from the ‘Randomizer’ out of the sixty-seven available students because, ‘it is not uncommon for case study research to make assertions on a relatively small database’ (Stake, 1995, p.9). As Stake (1978) noted, what was needed was to gain a full and thorough knowledge of the ‘particular’ (cited in Spencer et al., 2003, p.68) not the

20 _{‘Appendix H’ offers the reader the proposed research schedule, as offered to the Headteacher (October} 2006) and the actual schedule, compiled retrospectively from the archive(January 2011).

general (3.6). Numbers were matched to names on the attendance lists and letters were submitted to the afore-mentioned ‘gatekeeper’ (Denscombe, 2003, p.45) - the headteacher’s secretary.

Identifying key gatekeepers is a prerequisite without which fieldwork would not begin, ‘such sponsors act as guarantors who vouch for the bona fide status of the researcher [...] in reality, they exercise continued influence over the nature of the research’ (Ibid., p.91). For example, when I submitted the list of randomly chosen students to the headteacher it was the secretary who informed me why several names had been removed and others suggested from the reserve list.

Miller and Bell (2002), writing on the ethical tension that exists when setting up a research project, noted that there is a ‘complex power dynamics that can operate around access’ (p.56).

I felt challenged by the ethics of this situation - random selection did not seem to mean an equal chance for every student. The school, as gatekeeper to the students, was influencing the selection of the informers, but I was not - ‘and as a guest in the school I did not feel empowered to object’ (diary, December 2006).

Letters were sent, via the headteacher’s secretary, to the students’ gatekeepers (parents/guardians) and because there cannot be a binding contract between researcher and the researched - who ‘have the right to refuse to participate (and) withdraw from the

study at any time’ (Stringer, 2007, p.55. my brackets) - the letter clearly confirmed my contract with them: that the ‘privacy and confidentiality’ (Angrosino and Myas de Perez, 2000, p.690) of the students would be assured and that only the school would be named in any future publications21. Some parents agreed to let their child partake in this study. Some declined. New students were randomly selected - vetoed or accepted by the school’s gatekeepers. Letters were sent out and accepted, or rejected, by the parents. And by early December 2006 six informers (subsequently referred to as ‘cohort A’) were in place as a ‘comparative group’ (Macintyre, 2000, p.61) and appointments made for their first home interview before the school’s Christmas break.

A year later (October 2007) this same process was undertaken with the new Y7 intake and seven randomly chosen students (and their parents) agreed to help me in this study. These students are referred to as ‘cohort B’.

Whilst working with cohort A, two ethical issues came to light: first, there was the need to include the informers as ‘co-researchers’ (Christensen and Prout, 2002, p.480; 3.2) rather than subjects of research (O’Kane, 2004; 3.3). Up to the first home interview all contact, other than a general one in school, had been with the parents/guardians of the students. Therefore, at the commencement of the first semi-structured home interview (Appendix I) the need for privacy and ‘confidentiality’ (Ibid.) was discussed at length with the informers under the following headings:

21 _{Permission to name the host school was received, but after further consideration I decided that in order to}

maintain complete anonymity I would not release any information, included the name of the school, which might lead to the identity of the informers being revealed (Cohen et al., 2006).

...everything you say to me will be private and confidential. [...]

...at school I have not told any of your class about these interviews - you can if you want to - but I won’t.

[...]

...some of your teachers have asked me who is helping me in the study. Do you mind if I tell them? (First Interview with informer D, December 2006. cohort A)

The second ethical issue arose in March 2007. Having gained permission from the headteacher and PSD teachers to hold class interviews with cohort A on ‘What’s the point of PSE lessons?’, a letter was sent to every parent/guardian seeking consent to sound record those interviews and, at the commencement of those lessons, further permission was sought from the students.

By the end of my first year of interviews and observations (2006-7) an awareness had developed that ethical awareness was a daily challenge and there was an ongoing imperative to be flexible ‘and sensitive to (the) children’s interest’ (Christensen and Prout, 2002, p.492. my brackets; 3.3). There had to be regular reflection on the ongoing researcher/contributor relationship (3.5) and an awareness that the researcher should never cease to have ‘a prudent understanding of what should be done’ (Carr and Kemmis, 1990, p.132).

A year later (2007-8), when working with cohort B, I became aware how the informers can also become emotionally involved in the process of participative action research. The attention being given to the informers; the secretive nature of their involvement in this study and their own emotional development led to the following diary entry: ‘At the end of the PSD session informers J and K asked if they could call me “Uncle Brian”. I said “NO!” Bit too cosy and familiar I think’ (May 2007. my brackets). As Denscombe (2003) noted, even skilled interviewers may find it difficult to draw neat boundaries around rapport, friendship and intimacy (3.3).

Ethical awareness underpinned this longitudinal study. Vigilance, vis-à-vis the students, was maintained. But despite reading Hopkins et al. (1985) warning that,

Principles of procedures for action research accordingly goes beyond the usual concerns for confidentiality and respect for persons who are the subjects of enquiry and define, in addition, appropriate ways of working with other participants in the social organisation (cited in Cohen et al., 2006, p.67),

the sensibilities of the teachers had inadvertently been ignored. It was not until the end of the first year in the school, when I was asked by the headteacher to write a preliminary report on my research for the PSD coordinator, that I became sensitive to the fact that, ‘In the early stages of a research project, it is important for facilitators to establish contact with all stakeholders as quickly as possible’ (Stringer, 2007, p.42. my emphasis). As responsive as I thought I was being to ‘all’, what I had not factored in was how sensitive the teachers might be to my presence.

For example, throughout 2006-7, Teacher S and Teacher T had, on a number of occasions, dissuaded me from observing their PSD lessons with cohort A. And though I was researching the epistemology behind PSD - and not the teaching practice per se - an inevitable consequence of being embedded in the school meant that some teachers felt judged by me. And no matter how much I assure them (and myself) that I was interested in the students’ responses to PSE lessons - teacher were being observed, on their ‘home ground’ (Stake, 1995, p.57) and therefore, ‘the usual standards of research ethics (and sensitivity) must be observed’ (Denscombe, 2003, p.79. my brackets).