I used both informal and formal approaches to gaining informed consent from schools and potential interviewees. The process for gaining informed consent, described in this chapter, was approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee (MUHEC) prior to my beginning the research34. Copies of the documents used are in Appendices B and C.
School consent
Deciding on the appropriate individuals, groups and/or schools from whom informed consent was required was necessary before research could commence. The question of the school as “agent of permission” is complex in this study. Casey (2001, p. 137) says that, “where the data source within the organisation requires managerial permission to be accessed; the organisation is an agent of approval”. I could have sought permission from participants without either the current principals’ or boards’ knowledge and I did not need to visit the schools to gain access to interviewees. It still seemed appropriate, however, given the sensitive histories of the schools, to gain the consent of the current principals and boards of trustees, as their schools could be regarded as “passive participants” (Oliver, 2003).
34 Protocol no. 02/021.
Because I had worked previously in all three schools selected for the study and, therefore, had various forms of relationships with some school personnel, I needed to ensure that potential participants felt free to say “No”. For each school, the initial contact was with the current principal, at first informally and later formally. My informal verbal request was made along the following lines:
I have a request to discuss with you and I need to feel confident that you will be comfortable to say “no” if you are at all unsure about --- school being involved. I am beginning research for a doctorate on the topic of school decline. I want to understand why it happens and what we could learn to prevent it in the future. I need to select three schools that have experienced a period of serious decline and then contact staff and trustees who were involved during that time, to be interviewed about their experiences. The people interviewed and the schools will not be identified at any stage, including in the final thesis itself. Nobody apart from me will know who the participants are. There is a formal process of informing and getting informed consent from the board that I will need to go through, but I wanted to know how you might feel about the idea of this school being one of the research schools before I considered approaching the board chair.
My requests were greeted with a level of enthusiasm that gave me the confidence to continue. After the principal agreed to support my request, I approached the current board of trustees’ chairperson informally to assess his/her willingness for the school to be selected. Once they had each indicated support, the full written information sheet (Appendix B) was sent to each BOT chairperson for distribution to trustees prior to a board meeting. I attended the board meeting, spoke about the research, gave trustees the opportunity to ask questions and left while the board made its decision. Each school gave full written consent before I approached interviewees.
Later, it became apparent that I needed to request MOE documents in order to triangulate data provided in the interviews. At the MOE’s suggestion, I re-contacted the principal and board of each school to inform them that I intended to request access to files held on their school. I received a letter from each board giving me permission to proceed. On MOE advice, my request was made for the MOE files through The Official Information Act 198235.
Interviewee consent
All potential interviewees were approached36 to assess their possible willingness to participate. If they indicated an interest, I provided them with an information form, a consent form and a contact information form (Appendices B and C). I attached a note indicating my willingness to be contacted for any explanations. Of those I approached, only one person refused to be interviewed. Once the interviewee returned the signed consent form, I phoned and scheduled the interview. Before beginning an interview, I went over the key aspects outlined in the consent process giving another opportunity to ask questions, asking if they were willing to have the interview taped and reminding them they could ask for the tape to be turned off at any time or ask to finish the interview at any time. Glaser (1998, p. 107) advises strongly against taping interviews. My experience with lengthy interviews on sensitive topics has convinced me that it is less obtrusive to have a tape on than it is for the researcher to be writing notes as the interviewee speaks. Also, the demands of trying to manually record everything would detract from my role as an interviewer to support and encourage the interviewee. Only one person asked for the interview not to be taped. During that interview, I made handwritten notes that were later typed up and sent as a transcript for comments and verification. Two interviews, done by phone because interviewees lived far away, were also taped.
As well as consent to participate, interviewees were asked for consent to use the information they provided. Each taped interview was transcribed by a professional secretary and returned to the interviewee for verification and/or further comments. Some advisors on ethics are adamant that interviewees have the right to “examine and amend” the transcript of their interview (Tolich & Davidson, 1999). My experience during this research causes me to challenge the worth of this exercise of interviewee rights, as well as the ethics of asking for more of their time. Two interviewees specifically requested not to be sent their transcripts, saying that they were content with what they had said during the interview and wanted me to use that with their permission. I posted a copy of the interview transcript to all other interviewees and they each eventually returned their transcript and gave me permission to use it. Some minor corrections were made to grammar, or additions in order to complete sentences, but nothing significant was added, deleted or changed in any of the returned transcripts.