Informed consent

Informed consent is defined by Diener and Crandall as:

The procedures in which individuals choose whether to participate in an investigation after being informed of facts that would be likely to influence their decisions (1978, cited in Cohen et al, 2001, p.51).

Neuman (2006) similarly believes that informed consent should not be seen as merely getting an individual’s permission but that those concerned need to have an explicit understanding of what they are being asked to participate in. Imbued within this definition are four elements – competence, voluntarism, full information and comprehension. All four elements were adhered to throughout this research.

89

Kimmel (1988) asserts that to remain ethical no research should seek to involve people without their consent and should not coerce people into participating. This evolves from the participant’s right to freedom and self-determination (Cohen et al, 2001). All

respondents and participants did so of their own free well and interest in the nature of the study. The researchers’ professional position was not used in any discriminatory or coercive manner to engage participants. Those that agreed to form part of the interview sample were asked to sign a consent form (Appendix 9).

The issue of informed consent was important to this study. In each case, the

researcher contacted the participant involved setting out the purpose of the research. At each interview, the researcher reiterated the purpose of the research; the format that the interview would take – asking a list of structured questions but also using

unplanned, subsidiary questions to follow up any interesting lines of enquiry and to gain informed consent to record the interview. The researcher also confirmed that the

interviewees’ personal identities would remain anonymous and the use of

names/professional titles that may allow them to become recognised would be avoided. Following transcription of the interviews, each participant was given a unique

identification number in place of any details supplied regarding their name etc. Further issues relating to confidentiality will be explored later.

The principle of informed consent is open to wide interpretation. It is questioned for instance, by Robson (2002) how fully a respondent should be informed. What opportunity should be given to, the researcher, to withhold consent? Robson (2002) continues to question how practical and realistic it is to ask, in advance, whether people are prepared to take part in a research. According to Robson, it may not be possible or practicable to do this. He notes:

You may have good grounds for believing that telling them would alter the behaviour you are interested in but by not telling them would mean that the you have taken away their right not to participate (2002, p.68).

90

For the purpose of this research, informed consent was seen as being important and thus was gained via a number of means. For the first phase of the research process, the administration of the questionnaires, the use of a formal consent form and reply slip was deemed as inappropriate, as the completion of a questionnaire was deemed as consent in its own right. Indeed, if people did not wish to be involved in the research, then it follows that they would not fill out the questionnaire. This practice is highly criticised by Cocks (2006) who regards this as ‘implicit’ consent only. Given the typically low response rate of questionnaires (Neuman, 2006), the addition of further documentation and reply slips could serve to reduce the response rate further. However, all questionnaires did contain basic information regarding key ethical considerations, an overview of the research, and my contact details were provided, should participants wish to discuss issues in more detail (see Appendix 10).

Following from Neuman (2006) and Denscombe (2010) who argue that an ‘explicit act’ is needed to declare consent, written consent was sought for the second phase of the research process, the interviews. For those attending the interview stage of the research process, the information sheet (as already shown in Appendix 7) and a consent form, which required a signature to confirm that they had read the details

provided and were willing to participate, were administered (see Appendix 9). Following Richie and Lewis (2003), the decision was made not to include a number of more

specific details relating to the study. These included issues such as the sampling technique used to generate the sample, how the data would be stored, and any notion of possible harm or discomfort that may be experienced due to involvement in the research process. The decision to omit this information was informed by a belief that some of this detail may impact on the nature and quality of responses given and that having too much detail on the consent form may cause cognitive overload thus discouraging the participants from taking part (Cohen et al, 2007). As Punch (1994) states:

91

In much fieldwork there seems no way around the predicament that informed consent-divulging one’s identity and research purpose to all and sundry – will kill many a project stone dead (Punch, 1994, cited in Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, p.139).

Furthermore, Neuman (2006) points to a study conducted by Singer (1978) which concluded that no significant differences were found in consent levels between groups which had been given detailed statements compared to little/no information regarding a given study.

In addition to initial consent being obtained, it has long been established that it is important to ensure that consent is maintained and thus is embedded throughout the research process (Berg, Appelbaum, Lidz and Parker 2001). For Wendler and Rackoff (2007) continuous consent has four typologies:

Re-consent, in which “significant” changes to research are presented and documented by an impartial witness; on-going consent, in which minor changes to research are presented; reaffirmation, in which researchers periodically invite reflection on research participation; and dissent, in which voluntarily withdraw from research occurs (2007, p.4).

Arguably, consent should not be perceived to be something which is gained as a ‘one- off’ event. To this end, consent was gained at various stages of the research process (see Appendix 11 for a timetable of consent). The use of continued consent, served to build trusting relationships with the participants.