Ethics are a key consideration for researchers to ensure proper conduct of their research (Patton, 2002: 552). While the design, methods and strategies used in the research improve its validity, the integrity of the research process is paramount and involves ethical considerations (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009: 331). Creswell (2014: 305) states that the researcher needs to be sensitive to the “rights, values and desires” of the participants while Miles and Huberman (1994: 25) have highlighted some of the ethical concerns applicable to a qualitative study that involves participants, which are: the potential harm and risk to the participants, the need for their informed consent, honesty and trust in conducting the research, privacy and confidentiality of the participants and responsible intervention by the researchers in the data collection process. In addition, ethical frameworks applicable to the researchers through their institutions also need to be respected for conducting ethical research (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2009: 160) and this research thus has been carried out after approval from the Ethics Committee of Research at the University of East Anglia.
The process of carrying out the research did not cause any harm, embarrassment or any other inconvenience to the participants in the research (Creswell, 2014: 305). Patton (2002: 408) has provided a checklist that can be used for handling ethical issues arising in a research. He particularly suggests the use of informed consent and a confidentiality clause for the interview process. All the participants in this research were told what the research purpose was in detail and were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. All the participants were given the introductory letter clearly stating the voluntary nature of their participation and their right to leave the research process at any stage of the
126
inquiry. The participants were further provided with detailed information about the research process and a clear statement about the purpose and scope of the project. They were also assured of the confidentiality of their identity in the research process. Confidentiality was assured through the use of participant numbers and not their real names when identifying their responses in the documents (Hatch, 2007: 174). This ensures that the responses cannot be associated with specific individuals by the readers of the report, thereby protecting the identity of the participants. Further, as suggested by Veal and Darcy (2014: 427), the recordings and transcriptions have been safely protected through use of password protected USB sticks to which only the researcher has access, and the information stored on the USB sticks was transferred on the researcher’s private, password-secure laptop.
Cultural sensitivity has also been highlighted as an ethical issue (Silverman, 2000: 826). In this regard, the researcher ensured that the cultural and social norms acceptable to Saudi Arabian society were followed in conducting the research, specifically the processes that involved the participants signing documentation. In the Saudi research context, the signing of consent forms for example is alien and considered to be risky by the participants and second, is perceived as a sign of mistrust of their oral consent. However, the researcher also had to take into account the ethical regulations provided by the University of East Anglia (UEA), so participants were told that consent had to also be provided in writing. In order to take into account both these considerations, participants were provided with the consent sheet but were asked to sign the sheets not with their name, but with their allotted participant number. Even so, not all participants agreed to this. Similarly, for the participant information sheet, the participants were provided with the required details for the research process verbally, but no sheets were signed with their names, only with their participant number. The researcher obtained verbal consent of the interviewees’ understanding and agreement to participate in the study. Another sensitive issue in Saudi culture is around recording the voices of Saudi women, and indeed, several participants refused to be recorded (i.e. 17 out of 42), while the remainder offered verbal consent for the interviews to be recorded. For the participants who did not agree to being recorded, the researcher took notes during the interviews. The collected data was immediately secured for analysis. The recordings, documentation and notes were kept secure on password protected USBs that was solely accessible to the researcher, were
127
later copied on a password-secure personal computer of the researcher, and all relevant data will be destroyed after UEA’s evaluation of the research.
Patton (2002: 405) states that interviews are interventions and thus do affect those who participate in the process. Participants in an interview can feel the process to be intrusive and sometimes may reveal more than they intended and this requires an ethical framework to protect both interviewers and interviewees from such issues (Patton, 2002: 407). The researcher tried to be objective about the data collection process and restricted the interview to the research subject at hand, to prevent the interviewees from digressing into other subjects. However, at the same time, it was in the interest of the researcher to collect as much data as possible about their experiences with the self-evaluation process. The confidentiality clause however ensures that their personal details would not be shared with others. Patton (2002: 408) also suggests that participants should not be misled about the rewards and thus the participants were not promised any rewards for participating in the research.