Evaluación de los hábitos alimentarios

The adoption of the ‘utilitarian theory of ethics’ (Miles and Huberman 1994) most closely fits my work in terms of ethical behaviour in: recruitment

(informed consent); fieldwork (avoidance of harm – which could be interpreted for my purposes as maintaining anonymity); and reporting (confidentiality) and the ability of participants to withdraw at any time. I briefed all respondents prior to undertaking the research and gave them a full explanation of the purposes of the study. Following the interview I gave them the opportunity to raise any concerns. Research participants were also given the opportunity to read the transcripts to their interviews but nobody wanted to do so. I did not feel concerned that the topic under discussion, experiences of community in the UK and Spain would be problematic in terms of its sensitivity, although it was impossible for me to know what might have been potentially sensitive. I did not feel therefore that there were any issues regarding the rights and welfare of my participants. As discussed above in relation to being known to research participants prior to undertaking interviews, there are ethical issues in relation to researching with friends. This also relates to their potential unwillingness to refuse to participate in the research and could lead to

exploitation. However, it is impossible to know this. I was also mindful of and applied the British Sociological Association’s guidelines (2002).

4.7.1 Confidentiality and Anonymity

Confidentiality and anonymity (that is a lack of identifiers or information that would indicate which individuals provided which data) were to an extent safeguarded by not recording any respondents’ names on the transcripts and giving them pseudonyms. All research participants were made aware of this. Other issues to consider regarding this were: privacy – in what ways did the study intrude or come closer to people than they wanted? How identifiable are the individuals studied? Here privacy refers to the control over others’ access to oneself and associated information and the preservation of boundaries between known and unknown and insider and outsider.I did not link women’s

place of origin to their pseudonym or occupation and I have not identified the urbanisations on which the women lived. Further, although I have indicated that this research took place in the Costa Blanca in Spain, I have not identified the location. Confidentiality refers to agreements with a person about what will be done with their data (Mathison et al1994). Throughout the thesis

pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the individuals interviewed, although only one of the women (Jenny) expressed the desire to maintain anonymity. In fact, some of the women seemed disappointed that their real names would not be used in the final thesis. However, I felt that it may have been possible to identify Jenny if hers was the only pseudonym used. Once I had transcribed each interview, I destroyed the tape and the transcripts were anonymised. The issue of conducting research with friends was also an ethical consideration as I mentioned above in relation to Deidre and Vera. I did not discuss any of the interviews with them (including the ones with each of them). In producing my thesis, being known to Deidre and Vera could have been problematic since in spite of my attempts to anonymise research

participants it could have been possible for them to identify those involved. However, due to circumstances beyond the remit of this work I have not been in contact with them since the fieldwork was completed. I also obtained ethical approval to undertake the research from the University of Salford’s Research Ethics Committee.

4.7.2 Gaining informed consent

Prior to undertaking the interviews, respondents were given verbal information regarding the purposes of the research and were also required to read the information sheet and give ‘informed consent’. They were given the

opportunity to discuss any concerns that they had before agreeing to take part. All interviewees were asked to sign the consent form as evidence that they gave their consent for me to use the information they gave me for my research. They understood that they had the opportunity to withdraw consent at any time and I did not consider my research participants to be vulnerable.

(See Appendix 1 for a copy of the information sheet given out to research participants and the consent form which they were required to sign). I ensured that sufficient time was taken to explain the purposes of the research and made sure that participants understood.

Since these were one off narrative interviews, there was no necessary

ongoing need to ask for consent rather it was a one off (Roth 2003). However, even if the women who participated in the research were given full information about what the research involved and consent appeared to have been given freely, true informed consent in any research is not possible since what happens throughout the course of the work cannot be fully anticipated and many participants have no idea what researchers do with their work. This means that full informed consent cannot be given by research participants since the researcher cannot fully inform them of this

Data protection issues involved maintaining anonymity (in terms of people’s names, where they were from and any identifiable details) and keeping the taped interviews and transcripts in a safe place. It is worth noting however, that complete informed consent is not possible (Mason 2002). Although for ethical reasons we seek consent prior to interviews, we cannot know the details of what will be discussed beforehand (Nunkoosing 2005): ‘The person is only consenting to take part in the interview’ (Nunkoosing p. 703 2005). Also people exercise choice about what they reveal (Charmaz 1995) although if participants are friends then information could have been revealed prior to the interview taking place.