Research Ethics

Ethical conduct is an essential part of any research project (Palmer, 2016) and researchers must aim to ensure the rights, privacy, and welfare of the participants remain the focus of their study (Berg, 2004). Additionally, given the very nature of qualitative research Sparkes and Smith (2014, p. 79) emphasise that ethical issues are “pervasive and ongoing throughout the course of a study.” I therefore choose to follow Hammersley and Atkinson in that:

Ethnographers must weigh the importance and contribution of their research against the chances and scale of any harm that is likely to be caused (to the people involved, to others, or to future access), against the values of honesty and fairness, against any infringement of privacy involved, and against any likely consequences for themselves and other researchers. But this must be done on the basis of a realistic view of human relations, not an idealised one; and there will be conflicting indications, difficult judgements, and probably disagreements. Ethical issues are not matters on which simple and consensual decisions can always be made (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007, p. 225).

Addressing research ethics is therefore of paramount concern and obtaining ethical approval from the School of Sport and Exercise Science Ethics Committee (University of

89 Lincoln) was required before I could commence any data collection. Standard ethical procedures were followed in accordance with the University of Lincoln, and the School of Sport and Exercise ethics committee approved the project initially on the 20th _November

2016. Updated ethical approval was secured on the 13th _{July 2017 due to a change in data}

collection procedures from short immersions in multiple sites, to a study design consisting of extended immersions in one site. It should, however, be noted at this stage that the fluidity of a qualitative study brings with it what Sparkes and Smith (2014, p. 81, empahsis in original) refer to a “process-related ethical issues” that need to be negotiated and re- negotiated throughout the entirety of the research process.

At the procedural level, consent to observe the swimmers was gained initially via the director of swimming and head coach. Additionally, the swimmers were asked as a group if anyone had any objections to being involved in observations prior to my first period of immersion. No one at this point offered any objection. Those swimmers who were then selected for interview, were issued with a participant information sheet and consent form (see appendices 2 and 3) outlining the nature, direction and purpose of the research project, as well as informing them that they could withdraw from the process at any time. In line with the emergent nature of qualitative research it is important to stress here that obtaining consent was not seen as a singular event accomplished at the start of the study. On the contrary, obtaining consent was an ongoing process that needed to be negotiated and re-established throughout the study, which Sparkes and Smith (2014, emphasis in original) term, process consent. Examples of this included updating the participants on the progress of the study and checking that they were still happy to participate, especially when returning for observation periods two and three and the closing group interviews. This ongoing consent permitted my continued observations, interviewing and writing in pursuit of what the swimmers often positively and inquisitively referred to as ‘the book’.

Furthermore, it is important to note that those who gave observational or interview consent were only a proportion of the people encountered during the research process. Additional people, including other swimmers, coaches, support staff, academics and educators encountered during periods of observation or in workshops, may have directly or indirectly influenced the direction of the research at any given point. Moreover, when

90 swimmers described their experiences, they often referred to people outside of the research context to illustrate their points. Both of these issues came to light as ‘by- products’ of the ‘normal’, day-to-day interactions and thus entered into a research process that remained flexible in its rules. This also applied to issues of anonymity and confidentiality.

Key ethical concepts of anonymity and confidentiality are designed to protect participants from any harm (Kaiser, 2009), but can be complex processes. Like other ethical considerations, the problem of anonymity relies on a researcher’s good judgement. As a result, all names of people or places used up to now or later in this project are pseudonyms. It should be noted, however, that although every attempt has been made to protect the participants’ identities, due to the qualitative nature of this project in seeking rich descriptions, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed as identities may be disclosed unintentionally via deductive disclosure, based on responses, behaviours, and actions reported (Kaiser, 2009; Sparkes & Smith, 2014).

The researcher role also raises other ethical issues in ethnographic research. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) highlight how ethnographers are often assumed to subscribe to a higher ethical code than citizens, a position that inevitably proves difficult due to the shifting nature of the ethnographer’s role as both participant and researcher. I therefore needed to acknowledge that I would be personally and professionally involved in the research setting while attempting to observe, interact and document the field. Such a position brought about its own ethical risks and required that I adhered to a full range of health and safety, and welfare requirements. In light of this, it became my objective to behave at all times with compassion and sensitivity, honesty and integrity, and display within my conduct and personal demeanour a level of respect, and appreciation towards the coaches, athletes, and the programme environment. Such a position aligns with the ethical principle of “McFee’s friends” which according to Fleming (2013, p. 39) is an uncomplicated principle that works on the notion that researchers should treat their research participants with a concern for their well-being, in the spirit of friendship, where best judgements in relational to ethical aspects of the project were taken as and when the circumstances arose. To provide an example, I often found myself ‘eavesdropping’ on

91 conversations or difficult interactions between coaches and swimmers to which I was not a direct contributor. In this situation, although an unavoidable part of the ethnographic context, I had to make judgement calls on whether I should be privy to these discussions or not, often resulting in me removing myself from the situation, as one would do if friends or others were having a private conversation. Reflexivity and regular bracketing throughout the various stages of the research process (as detailed in section 3.4.1) thus became important components in assisting me to maintain a critical distance. Another key ethnographic consideration is the process of sampling the research site and social actors. It is this process that I now outline.