Procedural Ethics

In most of mainstream social research, the informed consent is the bedrock of the so- called ethical procedure (Cohen et al., 2005; Dörnyei 2007; Nachmias & Nachmias, 1976). We could say that this is mainly because the informed consent unlocks the figurative gate leading to the research project — of course, for studies in which informed consent is required (see Cohen et al., 2005, for a discussion). Therefore, in social research, and especially in qualitative studies such as this one, we habitually need persons to agree to work with us (Dörnyei 2007). Lack of consent, as can be expected, might severely affect our research or even worse, prevent it entirely. It is for this reason then that crafting a reasonably informed consent becomes an essential duty for the researcher, as we need to minimize the amount of people opting out of the research study (Cohen et al., 2005; Dörnyei 2007).

However, the informed consent is much more than our passport towards the fulfilment of our research intentions. It also lays the foundation for a future, fruitful collaboration between the researcher and the research subjects. This relationship is constructed around relevant and clear, factual information provided by the researcher, typically in the form of a consent form, which the potential study participants need to endorse (Cohen et al., 2005; Flewitt 2005). Once consent is obtained, a contractual relationship is therefore established between the researcher and the subject, by which both parties will abide. In

security blanket’ that would protect the researcher in his/her pursuit of the truth; and in turn, it would also safeguard the participants’ personal rights and values from unethical practices.

The amount of information provided for a reasonably informed consent may vary according to the situation. Nevertheless, there seems to be broad consensus on a somewhat universal modus operandi which could be summarised as: the researcher, whatever the nature of the research, has the obligation to inform the potential

participants, at least, about the possible risks and consequences of participating in the research, as well as about their rights to self-determination and privacy. In the light of these considerations, drawing on Dörnyei (2007) and other sources (AERA 2001; Cohen et al., 2005), a list is presented below with key points to be covered in order to achieve a minimal level of ‘informed-ness’ for our participants (and/or other gatekeepers).

Table 4.5: Guidelines for a reasonably informed consent (adapted from Dörnyei 2007: 69)

Right to be informed about… 1. The objectives of the investigation.

2. The purpose for which the data will be used.

3. The tasks the participants will be expected to perform during the study.

4. The possible risks and consequences of participating in the research.

5. The extent to which the data will be held confidential. 6. Their right to withdraw from the study at any point.

7. The benefits to be expected.

Having introduced the concept of the informed consent and emphasised its high

relevance in conducting an ethical study and its key components, informed consent was sought in this study across four levels:

• At the institution level

• At the parental/guardian’s level

• At the student’s level • At the teacher’s level

The rationale for the need for diverse informed consents lies in the fact that this research is conducted within a school-based context and with minors (14-year olds), and for that reason, in addition to the institution, I need to obtain two additional consents from various authority figures (Dörnyei 2007). As Cohen et al. (2005: 52) put it:

Seeking informed consent with regard to minors involves two stages. First, researchers consult and seek permission from those adults responsible for the prospective subjects; and second, they approach the young people themselves.

Furthermore, since I aimed to collaborate with an MFL teacher (Pamela) in conducting my research, for the reasons explained in 4.2.2, I needed to gain her consent, which would allow me to capture a different perspective of the same context.

At the institutional level, in order to embark on school-based research with Year 9 Spanish language learners I had to, firstly, gain access and acceptance from the organisation in question, namely a religious, state-funded school in England. To this end, I considered most of the steps encompassed in the negotiation access checklist outlined by Bell (1991) and adapted by Cohen et al. (2005).

Table 4.6: Negotiation access checklist (Cohen et al. 2005: 57)

1. Clear official channels by formally requesting permission to carry out your investigation as soon as you have an agreed project outline.

2. Speak to the people who will be asked to co-operate.

3. Submit the project outline to the head, if you are carrying out a study in your or another educational institution.

4. Decide what you mean by anonymity and confidentiality.

5. Decide whether participants will receive a copy of the report and/or see drafts or interview transcripts.

6. Inform participants what is to be done with the information they provide.

7. Prepare an outline of intentions and conditions under which the study will be carried out to hand to the participants.

8. Be honest about the purpose of the study and about the conditions of the research.

9. Remember that people who agree to help are doing you a favour.

10. Never assume ‘it will be all right’. Negotiating access is an important stage of your investigation.

Therefore, once I had drawn up a precise outline of my research, my first move was to speak to the MFL teacher, Pamela, with the purposes of knowing the extent to which my research project would complement the school’s plans for improving education.

Counting on the support and cooperation of Pamela, I then made a formal approach to the school’s head teacher via e-mail whereby I introduced myself and outlined the aims and scope of my research. There are two practical reasons why I contacted the head of the school with a view to negotiating access — instead of other school authorities such as the head of languages. The first was in line with Festinger and Katz’s (1966) recommendation of referring directly to the top of an organisation at the outset of the investigation with the aim of avoiding (extra) layers of hierarchy, and also increasing the likelihood for a favourable decision. According to the authors, it is likely that heads can

be more open-minded and more willing to co-operate than those situated lower down in the hierarchical structure due to insecurity reasons. The second reason, was because Pamela recommended this course of action, believing that it would maximise my opportunities to gain permission to undertake my research at the school.

On receiving a positive e-mail response from the head teacher, the negotiation process for informed consent began. Before making contact with the head teacher in person to discuss my research plans, and respecting the guidelines of Cohen et al.,I (drew up and) sent the head teacher an outline of my research giving “as much detail as possible about the aims, nature and procedures of the research as is appropriate” (2005: 55). In addition to this, I added extra information regarding the benefits that my research could bring to the school and to those involved in it — an idea that is favoured in Bell’s (1991) conditions for a school-based research project. These are the topics that were covered in the project outline:

• Broad aims and scope of my research

• Potential benefits of my research to the school

• My role within the school for the data collection period • Processes associated with the learners’ involvement • Methodology and methods of data collection • Ethical concerns

Next, I arranged a meeting with the head teacher to request the institute’s approval for the study. I reviewed the points raised in the email sent detailing the project outline leaving room for questions. I must say that the negotiation process was handled with extreme care. In it, I discussed my research plans in an informed, accessible and honest manner, constantly highlighting my transparent approach to data collection, and trying to build cooperation and trust. In addition, as suggested by Cohen et al. (2005), I also

tried to cause a positive impression by coming across as a competent and reliable researcher capable of delivering my objectives.

Having come to an agreement, I developed an informed consent form to formalise the negotiation, which was submitted at the following meeting. The consent form was designed following the guidelines for a reasonable informed consent included in Table 4.6 above. However, it is noteworthy that regarding point four (i.e., possible risks of participating in my research), due to the fact that no potential risks of my research were foreseen at this stage I decided to omit this in the form. By signing this form, the head teacher granted me access to the premises in order to conduct my research under the parameters negotiated. However, this document was of a purely informative nature and did not constitute any commitment of participation on the part of the school (because of the right to refuse to take part) or a commitment to comply with all the terms identified. Lastly, I also presented the head teacher with a copy of the informed consent form for us with the participants. This was done for the purposes of transparency and

trustworthiness. The negotiation process concluded with the disclosure of a DBS criminal record check that would enable me to work with, and research minors.

Considering now the parental-guardian level, as recommended by Cohen et al. (2005), having gained institutional approval, I contacted the parents/guardians by formal post, seeking consent for their children to participate in my research. This was also the procedure agreed with the head teacher in our second meeting. In the letter I specified that lack of response before a particular date would be taken as consent. I applied this strategy in order to ensure the maximum amount of positive responses, as mentioned in Dörnyei (2007). Moreover, to ensure that all parents would read the letter, Pamela agreed to remind them of it at the first parents’ evening of the year. Similarly to the negotiation process at the institutional level, I followed the guidelines in Table 4.6 to compose a reasonably informed consent form. Nevertheless, this time I especially

focused on the points regarding the protection of the children’s well-being, so that the parents/guardians could fully comprehend the situation they were putting their children into — and hopefully, help them feel more at ease.

Once parental/guardian informed consent was obtained, informed consent was then sought at the student level (see Cohen et al., 2005). Agreeing with Alderson and Morrow (2004), minors under 16 can usually sufficiently understand what is being proposed to them; therefore, they should be consulted for consent. I therefore distributed an informed consent form to each potential participant, which they were asked to sign (Dörnyei 2007). I did so prior to the pre-model implementation interviews on a one-on- one basis (cf. 4.4.1.1). This form very clearly and simply explained the contents of Table 4.6, focusing especially on the students’ responsibilities in the research and how

anonymity and confidentiality would be handled — which I would later emphasise in person. It should be noted however that the form did not fully disclose my research aims so as to ensure the collection of naturalistic data, and also to avoid response bias (Wiles et al., 2006). Prior to signing the form, students were given time to reflect on the information given, to ask questions, and in cases of perceived mistrust or self-doubt, I showed the students samples of reported qualitative data so that they could get a sense of what their data would look like in my thesis. (cf. Flewitt 2005).

Finally, I also sought consent from Pamela so as to benefit from the content of our exchanges, or informal interviews (cf. 4.4.1.3). The consent form that she signed was very similar in content and structure to the one given to the students, although more information was provided. Similarly to the students, I asked Pamela to sign the form after having explained it to her, and given her some time to read it through (i.e., a week) and raise any questions or concerns she might have had. In her case, the issue of bias did not arise since she was already aware of my intentions.