2.6.1 Process
Ethical approval for the research was submitted to the Ethics Review Panel at Keele University. A detailed project outline was submitted including details of the data collection methods, consent forms, questionnaires and interview schedules. The Ethics Review Panel reviewed the proposal and requested further information before approving the final project. This included clarification of certain terms, slight amendments to the wording in questionnaires and the inclusion of certain sentences and contact details.
71 2.6.2 Issues that were considered
As an experienced teacher, I was familiar with the internal workings and
educational language of schools. As members of the Ethics Review Panel were not educational specialists, they required some clarification of this educational language, in particular the concept of ‘in loco parentis’. Translated from the Latin, the term means ‘in the place of the parent’ and refers to the legal responsibility that falls to organisations such as schools, who act in the interest of the child and to all intent and purpose, take on the role of the parent during school hours. head teachers in the six research schools were happy to act ‘in loco parentis’ when granting permission to observe classes and issue the pupil questionnaires. Informal discussions with head teachers during piloting revealed that head
teachers were happy to give this level of consent for activities which did not disrupt the normal classroom routine.
However, parental consent for participation in the focus groups still had to be considered as part of the ethics review process which took place before the schools were approached. Letters sent to parents informing them of the research also gave them the opportunity to opt out of the focus groups on behalf of their child. The opt-out method was proposed for this study given the relatively unobtrusive nature of the research. Earlier studies indicated that the opt-in method can lead to skewed samples in terms of socio-economic status, gender and levels of education (Ellickson & Hawes, 1989; Tigges, 2003). Conversely, passive consent (as contrasted with explicit parental refusal) produced samples with higher proportions of boys, ethnic minorities, low achieving students and those with social problems (Unger et al., 2004). Thus the use of opt-in active consent would introduce selection bias into the sample. Opt-in consent led to low response rates (Tigges, 2003); and indications were that the least likely reason to
72 fail to opt in to studies was active refusal, while lack of response to passive
consent reflected a conscious decision to allow participation (Ellickson & Hawes, 1989). In the pilot study that I carried out, I found that even in a school where there were known literacy issues with parents the opt-out method was still used by the school itself to obtain blanket consent for photographs/inoculations etc.
(Appendix 3). Where there was a potential problem with the literacy levels /language barriers of parents, form tutors/heads of year would have been consulted, and parents phoned to obtain consent or letters sent home with a home/school worker to explain the content to parents. This was the standard procedure adopted by head teachers in such situations and they would have been fully involved throughout this process.
The Ethics Review Panel initially requested that the pupil questionnaires were anonymised, but this was not possible for two reasons. Firstly, the pupil questionnaires were the most efficient way of collecting the names of potential participants for the focus groups. The second section asked pupils to state if they currently had instrumental lessons either at school or outside of school, if they used to have instrumental lessons or if they did not have instrumental lessons. From the pupil responses, lists of those who had lessons, used to have lessons or did not have lessons were compiled and focus groups selected. It was, therefore, necessary to have the pupils’ names on the questionnaires. Secondly, the pupil and parent questionnaires would be cross-referenced in the analysis stage to explore the fourth research aim which examined the views of music at home. It was agreed that once the focus groups had taken place and the analysis of the questionnaires completed, the names would be removed from the questionnaires.
73 2.6.3 Letters, Information Sheets and Consent Forms
A range of letters, information sheets and consent forms had to be created for the research, aimed at head teachers, teachers and parents. The final versions (after alterations required by the Ethics Review Panel were made) can be found in Appendix 1 and Appendices 4 - 8. Appendix 1 shows an example of an initial approach letter to head teachers. Changes were made to individual letters
reflecting the school type and reason for its inclusion in the research. Appendix 4 contains an example of the information sheet and consent forms which were designed for interviews with the heads of music or performing arts. They could also be adapted for use with the peripatetic instrumental teachers who completed questionnaires instead of interviews. As all head teachers were happy to act in loco parentis and grant permission for their pupils to complete the questionnaires, consent forms were not required for this aspect of the data collection. Although opt-out consent letters were created for those parents whose children were
selected to take part in the focus group interviews in Key Stage 3, and also GCSE and AS/A Level music students (Appendix 5) the six head teachers involved in the research were also happy to allow me to carry out the photo and aural elicitation and focus group interviews without requesting parental consent. As none of the activities or questions were intrusive or potentially emotionally damaging, and as I was an experienced teacher with an enhanced CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check, they were happy for me to carry out all aspects of my data collection. Letters for parental questionnaires took a slightly different format (Appendix 6). This was due to the fact that each school approached their parents differently. Some chose to send out the parental questionnaires as part of a more general newsletter, some chose to publish a link on their website, and others chose to give the questionnaires out at a school-based event such as parents’ evening. The
74 general letter was provided to schools for them to use, along with an information sheet, but none of the head teachers chose to utilise them when contacting parents for the reasons outlined above. Letters were also composed to gain consent for the use of quotes from both parents and pupils and these are shown in Appendices 7 and 8.
2.6.4 BPS
The research adhered to the guidelines from the British Psychological Society as published in The Code of Ethics and Conduct, 2009 in terms of fully informed consent from participants.
2.6.5 CRB
As a teacher I already held an Enhanced Disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau which was issued in September 2009. The CRB certificate was valid for three years as long as there was not a break in service for more than 3 months. This Enhanced Disclosure was valid for the whole of the research period,
however, I also held two further Enhanced Disclosures from two Charitable Trusts which were issued subsequently as a result of employment or voluntary work. Each school was presented with the Enhanced Disclosures that I held at the time of the research and, in some cases, copies were taken for their own records.