Over the last decade, social work researchers and academics have developed an understanding that research ethics and social work ethics have much in common (see Dominelli and Holloway, 2008; Peled & Leichtentritt, 2002; Shaw 2008). Peled & Leichtentritt assert that “social work values direct us to go beyond fairness in our relationship with research participants, and to use the research as an opportunity to contribute to personal and social empowerment” (2002, p. 148). As such, research ethics are always contextual and situated in “moral rules that are grounded in the local community and group understanding” (Denzin, 1997, p. 227). A Māori-centred framework provides a culturally appropriate context of respect for people and their mana; accountability to the participants and their wider community; generosity and hosting people, as well as the care taken with information given. These principles are viewed as necessary ethical considerations which need to be addressed throughout the whole phase of the research (Kvale, 1996).
Before conducting any fieldwork for this research, ethics approval was sought and received from the Massey University Human Ethics Committee (MUHEC)11. Prior to recording the one- on-one interviews, the researcher and each participant spent time making introductions. A koha in the form of a grocery voucher was given to each participant in recognition of the time they were giving to the research and as an acknowledgment of their generosity. In some instances other family members or a support person were present. Each participant was
11
encouraged to ask questions relating to the study and their subsequent involvement. The Participant Consent Form (see Appendix 2) allowing the interview to be digitally voice recorded and used for the purposes of this research, was reviewed and signed by the participant. It was made clear that the participant could stop the interview and/or withdraw from the study at any time. In order for a sense of power to be promoted, informed consent was designed to be an on-going process, “not a piece of paper or a discrete moment in time” (Peled & Leichtentritt, 2002, p. 156). For instance, the opportunity for participants to withdraw from the study at any time was enhanced as contact between the researcher and the participants was maintained throughout the duration of the research. This aligns with kaupapa Māori principles of showing respect for people, being cautious not to trample over the mana of people, and by not flaunting knowledge, or authority, as the researcher (Tuhiwai- Smith, 2005).
Due to the sensitive nature of the research, consideration was given to minimise possible harm for all involved. Participants were informed prior to the interview that they could have a support person or family members with them during the interview. In my professional career as a social worker/kaimanaaki I was confident that I would be able to work through any immediate issues of distress that may result from the interviews. Time was spent after the formal interview to reflect and debrief. In keeping with a Māori-centred approach, food was shared. A list of counsellors working in the field of adoption, and Māori counsellors/ Kaiwhakaruruhau was made available to each participant should they, or any family member, require on-going support.
Confidentiality is also an area which needs to be addressed to minimise potential harm to participants and their family members. To help maintain confidentiality of the data, handwritten notes from interviews, the researcher’s reflexive journals, and print outs of transcripts were stored in a locked filing cabinet. Digital voice recordings and word processed transcripts were stored on the researcher’s laptop and locked with a password. To help safeguard the confidentiality of participants, the chosen pseudonyms were used on all documents, and in the participants’ brief biographies place names as well as other identifying information was changed.
Empowerment-related aspects of the research process, and research-related benefits for participants and others are the areas of importance within both Māori-centred research, and in social work discussions around research ethics (Durie, 1996; Peled & Leichtentritt, 2002; Perkins, 2009). One noticeable benefit for both the researcher and the participants of this study was being able to meet and hear about the experiences of other Māori who had been adopted into Pākehā families. I hosted a hui at my home where a number of participants
came to share food and stories with each other. Uncovering the silence and isolation of adoption has been voiced by the participants as a healing and valuable experience, some of whom had never previously met with other Māori adopted into Pākehā families. Recording the experiences of Māori adopted into Pākehā families is also viewed as beneficial. Having one’s story shared and recorded can be validating. A broader view of the closed stranger adoption practice and insight into the historical, social and political context of Aotearoa New Zealand is also of value. The possibility of further research focussing on future adoption policies which impact on Māori and whānauMāori may also be a research-related benefit.
In-depth interviews of approximately two hours duration were used to collect the data. At the first interview a Participant Consent Form was signed. The interview seemed the most appropriate technique for gathering information from participants because the research is premised on the understanding that conversation is a site for the social construction of self (Morris, 2006), and a narrative approach is also in keeping with Māori oral traditions (Rangahau, 2010; Walker, 1990). All interviews were conducted face to face, and were digitally recorded. Participants were asked to talk about their lives and their experiences of being Māori and adopted into a Pākehā family.
I have previous interview and counselling experience, enjoy the interview process, and was confident in creating an appropriate space for participants to tell their own story. However, I remained mindful that an interview is not a neutral site but is one where meaning is co- constructed by both the participants and the researcher (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Riessman, 1993). This co-construction influences how interviews may be explicated and a particular challenge is to present information in a way that both honours participants’ accounts while remaining accessible to others (Riessman, 2008; Wells, 2011).