PROPUESTA ESTRATÉGICA
5.3 Fijación de metas para un mercadeo de relaciones
Ethical considerations are important for any research that deals with real people in real world situations (Bassey, 1999). Bell (1999) emphasises that a researcher must identify and be guided by ethical protocols throughout the research process, and that common sense and courtesy are invaluable in establishing good research practice. Neglecting ethical protocols not only harms participants, but may also affect the researcher as well (May, 1997). Accordingly, a concern for ethics and ethical issues began from the outset of the research by identifying with The University of Nottingham's Code of Conduct
(UoNottingham, 2000) and the British Educational Research Association's Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (BERA, 2004).
During the Fact Finding phase, I travelled round different language institutions, some of which were state schools providing evening language courses. As I visited each institute, I briefly explained the research objectives to heads and/or administrative staff, most of whom were cooperative in allowing access to premises and people. As Bell (1999) notes, before deciding whether to co-operate or not, participants and administrators have to be convinced of the researcher's integrity and of the value the research has for them.
Ethical concerns for participating teachers as stakeholders, led to a humanistic stance - one which views education as a human encounter - the aim of which is the development of the unique potential of each individual (Carr and Kemmis, 1984). This was accomplished by accommodating Libyan EFL teachers' concerns and aspirations for professional self- development in relatively low-resourced and poorly organised CPD environments.
3.7.1 Institutional access:
Wolff (2002) observes that research always constitutes an intervention into some social system under study; that research is disruptive to that system to which it often reacts defensively. The issue of gaining proper access to people and places (the social system), however, is more decisive in qualitative than in quantitative research (Flick, 2002). This is because interviews, observations or focus groups require closer contact with participants than, say, questionnaires, which can be administered without having to come into direct contact with subjects.
While ethical principles were observed throughout the research, and proper ethical procedures adhered to in order to gain access to people and places, it appeared that I could not satisfy everyone. People involved with institutional access held varying views of what constituted 'proper' access procedures, or ethical behaviour for that matter. 'Gatekeepers' (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992; Fink, 1998) in particular turned out to be more crucial in gaining institutional access than anticipated. In one incident, I purposefully arrived at a school gate in time for the morning break. Unfortunately, as my contact person was not available to meet me, I tried in vain to convince the gatekeeper of the importance of my questionnaire, but he was adamant that my visit would "disrupt teaching" and that, in order to get in, I had to obtain the headmaster's permission, who was not present at the time. Sadly, my visit to that school was abandoned.
In a second incident, having talked my way past the gatekeeper, I was met with a
gruelling task by the principal - the 'key gatekeeper' (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992: 81) – who wanted to see a "research proposal" prior to considering my request to carry out an intervention course at his school, the kind of proposal "scientists" do before carrying out "scientific research". As Bogdan and Biklen (1992: 87) observe, some comments by key personnel 'weigh heavily; they are taken as signs of rejection', for the principal was glad to see the back of me and my "scientific proposal".
With respect to the Case Study institution, my approach to institutional access was cautious. I was fortunate, this time, to meet some of my ex-students from university, through whom I gained a 'low-profile entry' (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992: 82). Having rallied the support of Case teachers, a meeting with the principal was arranged in which I briefed him about the research plan and the significance of the intervention course. This was followed by a written request from me to deliver the course and hold focus group
interviews with participating teachers, after which permission was granted. The principal was quite receptive to the research idea so much so that he personally encouraged his teachers to attend the course and instructed the technical engineer to finish off the network wiring at the Internet room in time for the intervention course.
3.7.2 Confidentiality and anonymity:
From the outset, I set out to assure participants of anonymity and that research data would be treated as confidential. It was made clear to respondents that research data would not be used to 'demean or otherwise hurt' anyone (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992: 79). This included questionnaire respondents, interviewees, CS members and ECS participants. It was explained that any information participants part with would only be used for the purpose of the research and that any published material would not identify them in person (Oppenheim, 1992).
However, the notion of anonymity often associated with questionnaires did not apply to the PAQ. First, teachers were required to indicate their readiness to attend the planned intervention course, so they had to be identified; second, their e-mail addresses were used to invite them to join Phase three of the course.
To ensure anonymity of interviewees during FF, alphabetical letters (Inspector A; Teacher B, etc.) were used. For Case Study participants, pseudonyms (e.g. BAHA; HIDI; SOLO) were used to refer to individual teachers within the group. Symbols P1, P2, etc. were used to refer to participants in the ECS. All respondents were assured that personal information that could be used to identify them individually would not be accessed by anyone other than those directly involved with the research (Trochim, 2000). In accordance with Bell (1999), participants were also informed of who was likely to gain access to data, e.g. the University of Nottingham and the E-learning team at the University of Hull.
3.7.3 Informed consent:
Principles of informed consent (Miles and Huberman, 1994) were followed throughout the research. PAQ respondents indicated their consent to participate in the intervention course by ticking a box. Written consent of Case Study teachers was sought and obtained by signing an attendance consent form, which was attached to a letter requesting permission to carry out the intervention course at FLI premises. In all cases, research participants were free to opt out of the course at any time.
In addition to enlisting the commitment of case teachers, the consent form assessed the need to invite non-FLI teachers on a secondary waiting list, consisting of teachers from other institutions who had expressed interest to join the course when responding to the PAQ. However, the head of FLI said that this would not be necessary and, in consequence, persuaded FLI teachers to attend the intervention course.
The next three chapters draw upon data from Fact Finding (Phase 1), the Case Study (Phase 2) and the Extended Phase Study (Phase 3), in order to investigate Libyan EFL teachers' experiences of, and interactions with, Internet-based professional development, highlight emergent themes and examine relationships between them in relatively low- resourced ICT contexts. The first of these chapters is an account of my entry into the field for the purpose of Fact Finding.