Negotiating Access and Ethical Consideration

Access is about formal agreements to carry out the research from different levels. Formal agreements were made to gain access for the research using the following channels:

 Formal agreement from the University of Salford Ethical Committee was granted (See Appendix 1, page 282 )

 Connections were made with friends to contact Project Managers working for WVI and CU as these were seen as the gate keepers of the relevant project/s information

After formal contacts with project managers responsible for the drinking water projects who had operated in Nkhoma and Bvumbwe, an outline of the study was presented to them. The ‘Outline Information Sheet for the Prospective Project Managers Working for the NGOs’ included a careful explanation of the research, the outline of the main issue was to explain the reason for the research (See Appendix 2, page 289). Another ‘Outline Information Sheet for Prospective Participants’ (See

153

Appendix 3, page 291) was developed for the village-level gate keepers, and including ‘Consent Forms for Participants’ (See Appendix.4, page 293).

Interviewees were prepared with assistance via contacts through the WVI project community health workers in Nkhoma. However, in Bvumbwe the government health workers were used. Relevant information was supplied to the participants before the interview. A list of themes was sent by e-mail relating to information sheet and consent form as detailed in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. These information sheets were explained to the end-users by the community project staff. Sending the participants information sheets to project managers helped to promote validity and reliability by enabling project managers to consider information being requested and allowing them the opportunity to assemble supporting project documents from their files (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009: 326). Establishing interview themes were also part of these preparations, and this was done from the literature review analysed, drinking-water PM, experiences and discussions with colleagues familiar to the subject.

3.16.1 Access to Respondents

This section outlines how ethical research issues were employed for the study namely: access to respondents, informed consent, privacy and protection of the vulnerable groups. Seeking permission to conduct a study from responsible authorities at the place where the study took place was ethically imperative. Access is about following the right procedures before conducting the study. This study accomplished access issues by submitting the study proposal to Salford University Ethics Committees for moral approval (Appendix 1 page 282). At the filed study hand-pumps level, letters were sent to local gate keepers (Appendix 3, page 291) and to seek consent of the project end users ( Appendix 4 page 293). Letters were also sent to the two

154

prospective NGOs seeking permission to conduct a study in the project areas who were recipients of the hand-pumps they had sponsored (see Appendix 2, page 289).

3.16.2 Informed Consent

Informed consent is a prerequisite in order to safeguard the end-users/participants and protect their rights. Informed consent is about voluntary decision making to participate in the study. End-users had adequate information about the research, and understood the information which enables them to make an informed/versed decision to participate or decline. The information was about: why the study was conducted; what we wanted to achieve; the type of data; participant selection; procedures and contact information. Considering the low literacy levels of end-users in rural areas (Malawi, DHS, 2005), explanations were simple without long scientific jargon, in local language, which includes the meaning of the original version (Henderson, Cornel, Mahoney, Nelson, & Mwansambo, 2007). The researcher also obtained both verbal and written consent from the participants and also explained the voluntary nature of the consent and the right to withdraw (See Appendix 4, page 293).

3.16.3 Privacy and Confidentiality

Privacy and confidentiality were ensured throughout the research period. Polit and Beck (2008) reflect that all research with humans involves intrusion into the personal lives of participants, and participants have the right to expect that the data they provide be kept in strictest confidence. Anonymity is the most secure means of protecting confidentiality, and this was demonstrated when the researcher could not link a particular participant with the information given. However, as a researcher, it was also suggested that there would be a link between each field note and each participant to be able to return the transcript for participant validation. Anonymity was maintained through use of designated codes instead of participants’ names. Notes

155

of individual participants were coded and not participants’ named. Participants were assured that confidentiality would be observed throughout the study period. All research materials, including notes were taken during the interview are kept in a locked filling cabinet, and the key is kept by the researcher. However, the information produced during this research may be used for presentations during research dissemination conferences. When the research is completed, the raw data will be destroyed.

3.16.4 Protection of Vulnerable Rural Populations

Vulnerability is about exposure to unnecessary trauma. In rural projects, participants could be at risk due to poverty or the nature of interviewing. Illiteracy and poverty predispose end-users vulnerable as they do not have options or alternatives to take decisions. It may also be hard to engage some autonomy issues, which are stated in Nuremberg code and the Social Research Association (SRA) Code of Ethics, as these may be mostly geared for the western world. For example, if a village chief authorizes the study of the village, the end-users may not disagree due to illiteracy (Henderson et al., 2007).This study specified to the end-users whom it would be alright for them to turn against the chief decisions should they want to disagree. Sinding and Aronson (2003) also suggest that vulnerability occur because interviewers are deeply occupied with making meanings that reside within respondents. It is worth mentioning that the power differences may not be as evident throughout this study because the first series of interviewing was CI. CI process involved initiating the respondents themselves to generate the categories. The use of an aide memoir and not a fully structured interview schedule also helped to reduce dominance on the part of the interviewers. This implies that the interviews were mostly guided by what the participants determined.