Ethical considerations are of paramount importance in educational research. We, as educational researchers, have a duty to all concerned to behave in an exemplary way, to be responsible guardians of participants’ data and to be aware of the possibilities of unforeseen ethical concerns arising during the research. When we are working with children and young people, we have a particular responsibility to protect them and ensure that their participation is given due recognition. The most basic ethical principle is ‘not to harm anyone’ (Sikes, 2004, p32). The most effective way to do this is to plan the research thoroughly and ethically, be familiar with ethical and safeguarding frameworks (Robson and McCartan, 2016) and to have communicated well in advance with participants and case study schools about the
77
expectations of participants, their right to withdraw and the steps taken to minimise ‘harm’ in its broadest sense.
At all stages of the research I was as vigilant as possible to mitigate against any potential harm which might arise from teachers, leaders or pupils participating in the research. In establishing my sample of teachers and students, I stressed that participation in the scheme was both voluntary and completely separate from other processes in the school (e.g. observation linked to teacher appraisal). Busher and James emphasise that in order to construct ethical research a key principle is ‘that of voluntarism by the participants when engaging’ (Busher & James, 2007, 110). The participants were all involved on an entirely voluntary basis and were aware of their right to cease participation at any time. Central to ethical educational research is the concept of ‘informed consent’ (BERA, 2018). To achieve informed consent, I implemented the follow measures, to ensure that participants were very aware of what their involvement in the research would mean:
• Permission to participate was sought from students’ parents/carers well in advance of the field visits. The letter sent to parents/ carers clearly explained the purpose of the research and that their child’s anonymity would be protected. (See Appendix B for the full wording of the letter to parents/carers).
• Each adult participant was given and had explained to them the purpose of the study, how their data would be used and their right to withdraw. They each signed the adult participation form at the start of my field work engagement with them (see Appendix C).
• Adult participants were given the opportunity to review a transcript of their interviews and retract or amend what they had said.
Establishing pupils’ truly informed consent requires additional efforts, as initial access is gained through gatekeepers at the school and through parents and carers. Mortari and Harcourt (2012) are critical of frameworks which only require consent from adults, and do not give thought to the child’s view of participation. I was keen to ensure that students really did want to take part. At the beginning of the focus groups sessions I reinforced that their participation was voluntary. Despite the
78
challenges and additional ethical concerns in relation to researching with children, I think it is important that research acknowledges the enormous potential that student voice has to add to educational research: Groundwater Smith (2007) considers the challenges and ethical constraints of representing student voice beyond superficial engagement, but concludes that these additional efforts are very worthwhile, given the moral imperative we have to include pupils in educational research.
There are additional ethical considerations as a practitioner researcher going into the field. I chose not to research in my own school, although I did pilot some of the case study intruments there, prior to the main study. One of the reasons for choosing other schools for the main research was my consciousness of my role as headteacher and that I worried that some staff might feel obliged to take part and that they might have preconceived ideas about what I wanted to hear. This type of organisational dynamic is explored by Drake and Heath (2011), who consider that researching professionals have to navigate organisational politics and loyalties, work place power hierarchies and professional affliations, in addition to the usual range of ethical challenges. One of the additional responsibilities of practitioner researchers identified by Drake and Heath is to recognise that we have priviledged access to the work environment and participants: they consider that in educational and healthcare settings practitioner researchers need to be particularly mindful of their situatedness and to ensure that they are not taking advantage of their access to colleagues and pupils/patients in any way. In my pilot work I made sure that parental and participant permissions were sought in exactly the same way as the in the main study, as I was very conscious that I was the gatekeeper in the organisation.
Whilst I undertook my main case study field work in other schools, I was still very conscious of my professional status and that the adult participants, particularly, were aware of my working role. I also believe that my dual identities as researcher and practitioner (headteacher) made it more likely that the case study schools would allow me to research in their school and that I therefore still had a privileged access which other reseachers might not have been allowed (as suggested by Drake and Heath, 2011). As a result, I feel a tremendous responsibilty towards my research participants and am hugely appreciative of the time, good will and candour demonstrated during my field work. Gorman (2007) also highlights the potential for
79
conflicts of interests when professionals in healthcare or educational settings discover practice which does not reflect well on their colleagues: to whom is the researching professional ultimately responsible? To formulate my approach to potential conflicts of interest, I referred to the ethical, professional and safeguarding frameworks considered below.
Ethical frameworks and safeguarding regulations
During the study I was consciously operating within several ethical frameworks, to protect my research participants and also myself as the researcher: the ethical guidelines of the University of Cambridge and the Faculty of Education; the BERA (2015) guidelines, which were replaced by the BERA (2018) guidelines while my field work was taking place; and the statutory safeguarding requirements in schools and individual schools’ own additional safeguarding practices and frameworks. The key requirements of those working in education are outlined in Keeping Children
Safe in Education (DfE, 2019c) and in Working Together to Safeguard Children (HM
Government, 2018). As a headteacher, I am well versed in the safeguarding legislation and have current LA certification as a designated safeguarding lead (DSL) within my school trust. Therefore, I began my field work with a clear understanding of the rightly high ethical expectations of the university/faculty and of the professional standards and ethical expectations of those working in schools.
Mortari and Harcourt (2012) discuss research ethics in relation to working with children and recommend building upon what they term as the ethics of justice (i.e. adherence to legal and ethical frameworks) and that when researching with children we cultivate something beyond that: an ethics of care. They define this as the researcher seeing themselves as a ‘moral agent’ who ‘conducts her/himself in a way that embodies ethical values’ (Mortari and Harcourt, 2012, p241). I would agree whole-heartedly that ethical considerations, particularly when working with childen, have to go beyond a tick box compliance approach and consider at each stage of the research what is right for the children/child. Mortari and Harcourt (2012) term this the ‘ethical posture’ the researcher assumes throughout the time of the research ‘in their relationships and actions’ (p237).
80
Another key ethical consideration for educational researchers is how to secure anonymity, which is important both for the individual participants and their schools. Anonymity also encourages participants’ candour in discussion. As all-through schools are much less common than stand-alone primary and secondary schools and could, therefore, be much more easily identified, one of the steps I have taken in the research is to not refer to the schools’ location and I do not state the town/city, county or LA in which they are situated. Walford (2005) notes that preserving anonymity is a cornerstone of ethical frameworks internationally, but can be impossible to guarantee in reality. His experience was similar to my own, in the respect that he conducted research about City Technology Colleges (CTC) in the 1990s (Walford and Miller, 1991) and the schools could be easily identified. His approach to overcoming this dilemma was to name a particular school in the research and offer the headteacher the chance of writing an insider perspective. Unlike Walford (2005) I have tried to preserve the anonymity of the case study schools. All-through schools are not politically controversial in the way that CTCs were and I have not felt it necessary to tackle problems around anonymity in that way. However, I do have to acknowledge that, even given the steps taken, an informed reader could have an educated guess at identifying the schools. Therefore, I have been very careful about what I attribute directly to an individual in the case study reports. As is discussed in Campbell and McNamara (2007) there is a tremendous value in including practitioner accounts and profiles in educational research, but their inclusion needs careful consideration from an ethical perspective.
During the course of my research the General Data Protection Regulation GDPR (2018) came into force in May 2018, which the BERA ethical guidelines (2018) make clear also applies to researchers. The requirements of GDPR as they relate to permission to hold data and the requirements for secure storage reflect what we as researchers would consider to be best practice in any case. I ensured that a robust system was in place to gain permission to hold and use the research data for the specified purposes (Appendixes B and C). All data are securely stored and are password protected. I am not holding any personal or sensitive data about any of my participants.
81
The interests of the children observed or spoken to during the field work were and remain protected by the measures described. I did not encounter any situations during the field work observation of, or discussion with children or young people which concerned me in any way or led me to log a concern with the case study school or university. Similarly I had no well-being concerns for any of the adult participants. However, I discuss in 4.9 issues arising in the field, including when some adult participants’ views were ‘off message’ compared to those expressed by the school leaders.