1.6 KEY CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
1.7.8 Pilot Study
Barker (2003:327-328) defines a pilot study as “a procedure for testing and validating an instrument by administering it to a small group of participants from the intended test population”. Bless et al. (2007:184) supplement this definition by describing a pilot study as “a small study conducted prior to a larger piece of research to determine whether the methodology, sampling, instruments and analysis are adequate and appropriate”. The researcher carried out a pilot study with three participants before the main study was implemented. The questionnaire was altered slightly to incorporate questions which the pilot study participants introduced as themes during their interviews.
1.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 1.8.1 Ethical Clearance
According to Alston, Bowles & Ginsberg (cited in De Vos et al., 2011:126), institutional ethics committees (IECs) or institutional review boards (IRBs), review research proposals at universities, research institutions and major welfare organisations, according to strict guidelines and procedures, prior to the research going ahead.
This research study was executed under the guidance and supervision of the Social Work Department at the University of Stellenbosch. The proposal was presented to the Department of Ethics Screening Committee (DESC) of the Department of Social Work for approval as medium risk research and ethical clearance was granted for the study.
1.8.2 Ethical Issues
1.8.2.1 Avoidance of harm
Babbie (cited by De Vos et al., 2011:115) states that the fundamental ethical rule of social research is that it must bring no harm to the participants. Creswell (2003:64) states that the researcher has an ethical obligation to protect participants within all possible limits, from any physical discomfort which may be develop as a result from partaking in the research project.
This study was considered medium risk, as the study participants were transracial adoptive parents who were sharing the challenges they had experienced, with the researcher. Certain themes which emerged during the interviews could have been sensitive to certain participants. The researcher was obliged to protect all participants before they participated in the research, by informing them of any possible risk involved in the research. Such information gave the participants an opportunity to be eliminated from the study beforehand. In an attempt to protect the participants from emotional harm when sharing sensitive experiences, the researcher structured questions in such a manner as to move from the general to more specific questions. However, had the impact of the experiences the participants shared during the interview caused them emotional harm, the organisation (Arise) would have ensured that debriefing and counselling was arranged with a registered social worker or psychologist either at Arise premises, or at a venue selected by the participants. Should the participants have felt uncomfortable receiving counselling from a registered social worker or psychologist associated with Arise, Danielle Meintjies, a social worker in private practice, who specialises in clinical social work with adopted families, offered debriefing and counselling to the participants at a venue decided on by the participants in need. Fortunately, none of the participants suffered emotional harm and therefore did not feel the need to debrief after the interview.
1.8.2.2 Voluntary Participation
De Vos et al. (2011:116) state that participants should always be voluntary and should not be forced to take part in the research project.
Prior to the study commencing, the researcher informed participants that their decision to participate was based entirely on their choice and they could choose to discontinue at any stage during the process. None of the participants chose to withdraw from the study.
1.8.2.3 Informed Consent
Royse, Williams, Tutty (cited in De Vos et al. 2011:117) state that, “obtaining informed consent implies that all possible or adequate information on the goal of the investigation; the expected duration of the participant’s involvement; the procedures which will be followed during the investigation; the possible advantages, disadvantages and dangers to which respondents may be exposed; as well as the credibility of the researcher, be rendered to potential subjects or their legal representatives.”
As suggested by Hakim (2000:143), written informed consent was used in this study. A clear explanation of what was expected of the participants was discussed, in order to give them the opportunity to make an informed choice to participate in the study voluntarily. The informed consent process included explaining the purpose and goals of the study to the participants. Procedures and the semi-structured interview schedule were also explained to the participants. The interview schedule, confidentiality and the completion of the schedule during a one-to-one interview with the researcher was discussed, as well as potential risks and discomforts, and the options of debriefing and counselling. In addition, benefits of the study in the sharing of knowledge were explained to the participants, alongside the fact that no payment would be received from participating in the study. Finally, confidentiality and the choice to withdraw from the study without penalty was discussed with participants. Thereafter, participants were provided with consent documents to be read through and signed. These documents are kept in a secured file.
1.8.2.4 Compensation
No compensation in any form, was given to the participants.
1.8.2.5 Confidentiality
Babbie (cited by De Vos et al. 2011:120) explains confidentiality as a means of only the researcher and a few members of staff being aware of the identity of the participants. In the context of this study, only the researcher was aware of the identity of the participants. No identifying information was obtained from the participants, which prevented them from being identified through personal information.
1.9 LIMITATIONS
Limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. Firstly, all participants were from the White population group. A study incorporating participants from the Coloured and Black population groups would provide more inclusive results when gaining insights into the challenges faced by transracial adoptive parents in South Africa. Secondly, the gender of all participants was female. Incorporating male participants or both male and female participants as couples, could provide alternative insights into the research topic. Thirdly, the study was carried out in the
Western Cape. Similar studies would have to be carried out in the other provinces of South Africa in order to gain comprehensive insight into the topic.
Furthermore, as indicated earlier in this chapter, literature on transracial adoption in the South African context is limited. Due to the fact that such adoption was only legalised in South Africa in 1991 and the current Children’s Act 38 of 2005 was only assented to in June 2006, it was challenging to find studies on adoption in the South African context. Lastly, since the study was of a qualitative nature, it would be difficult to generalise findings to settings not studied.
1.10 PRESENTATION
Chapter 1 comprised of the research proposal, which was approved by the Ethical Screening Committee of the Department of Social Work.
Chapter 2 addressed objective 1 of the study by providing a description of the policy and legislation related to adoption in South Africa.
Chapter 3 focused on the objective 2 by exploring challenges experienced by transracial adoptive parents from an ecological perspective.
Chapter 4 aimed to meet objective three and presented the empirical study which sought to investigate the challenges experienced by transracial adoptive parents in Cape Town, South Africa.
Chapter 5 attended to the objective 4 by presenting conclusions and recommendations based on the collected data and made recommendations for future research with regards to transracial adoption in South Africa.