Conducting research with human participants necessitates thorough reflection in relation to ethics, particularly in social sciences where researchers “delve into the social lives of other human beings” (Berg, 2009, p. 60). In this study, the guidelines provided in the Massey University Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human
Participants (Massey University, 2009) were adhered to. Two Human Ethics Application forms
were submitted to the Massey University Human Ethics Committee (MUHEC) and approved as Application 10/13 (Phase One) and Application 11/01 (Phase Two). The sub-sections below present ethical principles considered in this study along with the precautions put into place.
4.6.1 Respect for persons.
The overarching principle of respect for persons deserves particular attention. Embedded in the researcher’s practice throughout the process, respect for persons refers to asking “how should we treat others” (Wilkinson, 2001, p. 13). This principle is closely related to distributive justice which involves the avoidance of imposing “an unfair burden of participation in research” (Massey University, 2009, p. 12) and discriminating against individuals and groups through inclusion or exclusion in the research. In this study, respect for persons was exercised through recognising the validity of diverse individual beliefs and viewpoints, in agreement with the social constructivist nature of this study.82 The terms of participation were negotiated with each individual through consent forms, thus avoiding exclusions on the basis that a participant did not want the interview to be audio recorded or for classroom observations to be conducted for instance. Finally, respect for persons was performed through promoting people’s sovereignty in making the informed decision to participate or not as well as in minimising harm and respecting participants’ rights for privacy and confidentiality, full information, withdrawal from the study up until the end of data collection, and obtaining a summary of the findings.
4.6.2 Informed and voluntary consent.
Informed and voluntary consent is the first step towards respecting the autonomy of potential participants. This principle encompasses information, comprehension, competency and voluntarism (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996; Massey University, 2009; Wilkinson, 2001). Information and comprehension imply that researchers provide full information so potential participants can make an informed decision to participate or not, based on their comprehension of what the study is about and what participation involves. Competency refers to people’s capacity to make that decision and to comprehend what is involved whereas voluntarism pertains to the autonomy of each individual to make a decision without coercion or pressure.
This research did not involve unnecessary deception. The request letters and information sheets provided full information about the purpose of the research, the intended participants, their potential involvement, and the protections for participants. The request letters and information sheets clearly stated that individuals should not feel pressured to participate and could withdraw
82 This research focuses on teachers’ representations and practices, but also drew on secondary sources of
information involving documents as well as direct information provided by other staff members and students. It is important to note that further publications are planned to give a voice to students and other participating adults.
without penalties of any kind. They also provided contact details for the potential participants to request more information or ask questions to the researcher and her main supervisor.
The strategies to obtain informed and voluntary consent from adult participants were different for each phase. For Phase One, responding to the questionnaire implied informed consent (Berg, 2009) as stated in the information sheet and introduction to the questionnaire. For Phase Two, written informed consent was first sought from the principal and the chair of the board of trustees to gain permission to conduct a case study in their school. Each individual adult participant gave his or her written informed consent. Research involvement and participants’ rights were discussed with each individual.
Three elements required specific attention regarding students’ involvement in Phase Two. First, written informed consent needed to be sought from parents/caregivers where student participants were younger than 16 years old (Massey University, 2009). Parental consent was not necessary for students 16 and older, although they were encouraged to discuss the invitation with their parents/caregivers. In all cases the teenagers’ written consent was sought to fortify their commitment to the project and show respect towards young participants. Second, the competency of students to make the decision to participate and comprehend what is involved needed to be established. Students’ ability to give informed consent was among the criteria given to the liaison person to identify potential student participants. To increase comprehension, the information sheet was written in lay language and the liaison person was asked to read the information with each student. Research involvement and rights were discussed with participants prior to the interview. Finally, the presence of the researcher in the classroom to observe adults’ practices was explained to students present during observation sessions, albeit they were not research participants.
4.6.3 Respect for privacy, anonymity and confidentiality.
Another fundamental principle of research ethics lies in respect for people’s privacy, anonymity and confidentiality. In this study, privacy relates to the right to control personal information and therefore avoid intrusion in people’s lives (Canadian Institutes of Health Research Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 2010). Anonymity refers to the impossibility, even for the researcher, to associate the data to a participant (Sapsford & Abbott, 2004). As Berg (2009) defines it, “anonymity means that the subjects remain nameless” (p. 90). It is not always possible to offer anonymity to participants. When the researcher knows the identity of the
participants, measures such as removing identifying elements of information and safe keeping of the data need to be put in place to protect confidentiality (Berg, 2009).
Respect for the privacy of all potential participants, whether they chose to participate or not, was considered in the approach procedures. Schools, professional associations and government agencies are all public organisations holding information about their students, staff, and members. How they use this information is regulated by the New.Zealand Privacy Act 1993. Hence, the approach procedures were designed to avoid information about potential participants to be handed to the researcher without people’s knowledge and consent. For instance, the list of students experiencing SEN that schools must produce was not provided to the researcher but was used by the liaison persons to identify students experiencing behavioural difficulties who met the eligibility criteria and could potentially volunteer to participate. (New Zealand Government, 1993).
The identity of participants in Phase One was not known by the researcher. They remained anonymous, but their right to receive a summary of the findings had to be conciliated with their anonymity. As advised by MUHEC, participants had the opportunity to leave their name and contact details to receive more information and/or a summary of the findings in a second independent questionnaire. In no way their responses could be linked to their identity.
For Phase Two, maintaining the identity of the case study schools confidential was a key factor in protecting participants’ identity and protecting organisations and individual participants from potential harm. In New.Zealand, schools are easily recognisable (Tolich, 2001). To avoid identification, the schools’ and participants’ names were replaced by pseudonyms. All identifying information was removed from the data. The codes for the pseudonyms were securely stored, separately from the data. When reporting the results, only the necessary characteristics of each school and each research participant were presented. No direct quotes from documents available online are cited in reporting the results. Such information is reformulated. Finally, the transcriber signed the Transcriber’s Confidentiality Agreement (Appendix M). Access to the data was restricted to the researcher and her supervisors.
4.6.4 Minimising the risk of harm.
Participating in research can entail risks. It is therefore imperative for researchers to reflect on the risks of harm their research could induce and to identify ways to minimise these risks. Risks can be physical and psychological (Berg, 2009). Risks can also be increased with the presence of conflict of interests. This was not the case for this study. In addition, the potential risks of
harm have to be outweighed by the benefits brought by the research (Wilkinson, 2001). Participation in this study would contribute to the formulation of recommendations in order to anchor ITE and PD in participants’ representations, practices and concerns. These recommendations aim to foster inclusion and help education stakeholders to prevent and respond to difficult behaviours in an inclusive way while recognising their needs and demands for support. Notwithstanding, potential sources of harm to schools, participants and the researcher were considered, along with strategies contributing to reduce the risks.
Potential psychological risks of harm to participants were identified. First, adults and students alike were invited to share their experience of inclusion and behavioural difficulties. This sensitive topic had the potential to cause discomfort, especially when this experience was negative. Second, some adult participants may have perceived the questionnaire, the interviews, the observation sessions or the analysis of their self-report forms as a judgemental evaluation of their views and practices. In Phase One, this potential discomfort was mitigated by participants remaining anonymous and by their right not to answer any particular question. In Phase Two, participants’ rights to refuse to answer any particular question and the right to withdraw from the study without any penalty were included in the information sheet and were re-stated verbally. The information sheets also explained that the research was not to be judgemental of participants’ views and practices. Difficulties in dealing with difficult behaviours were acknowledged and participants were given the opportunity to discuss their practices, issues they faced and areas of success and improvement. They were also offered the opportunity to edit the interview transcript in order to increase their control over the information released for analysis. For student participants, reading the interview transcript may have been daunting because of associated behavioural and learning difficulties. As an alternative strategy, the student and researcher listened to the audio-recording. Emendations made by the student were noted by the researcher and then included in the transcript. Finally, the last question on the student interview schedule enquired about something positive in their school experience. The researcher also offered students a card with details of school resources and national free phone helplines targeted in collaboration with the liaison persons.
There was also a risk that students and their parents/caregivers were not informed that the school had identified the student as experiencing SEN. To avoid a situation in which the research would inform students and their parents/caregivers of their presence on a list of students experiencing SEN, the liaison person needed to make sure that students and their parents/caregivers were already aware of the student’s difficulties and provision of extra support before presenting the invitation. There was also a possibility that student participants revealed information or behaved in such a way that may have suggested the student could be at risk of
harm. The researcher discussed the school’s policies and procedures on reporting sensitive information with the liaison person in each school before data collection began. If a student revealed sensitive information, the researcher had to consult her supervisors and then, if necessary, follow the procedure. The information sheet informed potential student participants and their parents/ caregivers about this and it was verbally explained to each student.
Conducting interviews with students identified as experiencing behavioural difficulties posed a risk of physical harm to the researcher. Some of the behaviours found on the spectrum of challenging school behaviours are potential threats to safety. Responses to the online questionnaire confirmed the presence of such behaviours in New.Zealand (see 5.4.1). The researcher’s professional background in working and conducting research with teenagers identified as experiencing high behavioural needs prepared her well to recognise the signs of anxiety, discomfort and anger in students. To minimise the risk of harm, each school’s liaison person helped identifying safe locations to conduct face-to-face interviews with students. The selected rooms allowed the researcher to leave easily if she needed to get help quickly. As a general precaution, the researcher only provided her mobile phone number and workplace contact details.
4.6.5 Social and cultural sensitivity.
Being socially and culturally sensitive minimises the risk of harm and demonstrates respect for persons. Researchers must pay attention to the specificities of the communities in which they conduct their research (Massey University, 2009). The student population in New.Zealand schools is increasingly diverse (Bevan-Brown, 2003; Ministry of Education, 2007). Students come from a variety of social and cultural backgrounds. European/Pākehā, Māori, Pasifika and Asian students form almost all of the roll of New.Zealand state and state integrated schools’ population (Ministry of Education, 2010c).
Even if this study did not make distinctions regarding ethnicity, there was a potential for culturally sensitive issues to arise. The researcher’s supervisors were familiar with the New.Zealand society and its educational system. Aware of the previous steps taken by the researcher to become familiar with the New.Zealand research context, they provided insights on the procedure and data collection instruments. In addition, special arrangements were made a priori to consult three experts to advise the researcher on the Māori, Pasifika and Asian cultures. The first two experts were respectively from Māori and Pasifika cultures and were both
experienced educational researchers. The third advisor was a European/Pākehā academic with extensive experience in working with Asian students.