With the difficulties I had in recruiting participants, I was aware of being sensitive to the men who had agreed to take part. I did not want to scare them or overwhelm them with information, yet I had to be honest about the study and not omit any details. The first steps in establishing trust began with an explanation of the study. The research study information booklet (Appendix 3) that I had designed explained the research aims, my reasons for doing the research study, what was required of the participant, and what would happen to the data collected. To support two of the participants who had poor literacy skills, I gave the research study information booklet to their community worker, who read the details with them before they met me. When we met together, I reread the booklet to ensure their understanding of the study and the process involved. One participant, aged 19, took the booklet home to his mother to read it with her before he agreed to participate in the study, I reread it with him to ensure his understanding. The remaining participants read the research study information booklet with me and I answered any queries and gave clarification about the process involved. The time spent in the initial stages of the meeting proved valuable for developing a trusting relationship. The personal details of life experiences revealed might not have emerged without an honest and
reciprocal relationship being developed (Petrova et al., 2014). As I was working with vulnerable participants, it was important for me to ensure that the research study was supportive and non-threatening (Social Research Association (SRA), 2016). During the timeframe of the study with one participant, Josh, requiring several
90 meetings over a 12-month period, I was constantly reflecting on the methodology, to ensure that he did not feel under pressure to continue. I noted the times he was stressed, as a result of his personal circumstances with the mother of his child, and referred him to the school counsellor, being aware that I should not take advantage of his vulnerable state (British Psychological Society, (BPS), 2011). My priority as his teacher and programme coordinator (not as a researcher) was to support him. I did not want to coerce him into being part of the study and was aware of the
presence of the power relationship, where he could have felt unable to voice his dissent (BPS, 2011). However, after every meeting he gave me reassurance that he wanted to continue to talk to me and during the time of the study he indicated that he was better able to cope with stressful situations because of sharing these happenings with me, even though it was not my intention to give him therapeutic support. We agreed that if he felt uncomfortable at any time, he could inform me or the counsellor that he wanted to withdraw from the study. The counsellor was aware of Josh’s participation, but I did not share with her any his data, and I was not made aware of the contents of his counselling sessions. At intervals, when we had our planned regular research “chats”, I reminded him that he could withdraw from the study at any time (BPS, 2011, p.8). This openness and continuous checking-in ensured his permission to continue and on reflecting on our meetings, I was reassured that the times we met were not an adverse intrusion on his life (SRA, 2016). My awareness of his personal struggles fostered a greater relationship
between us and assisted him in expressing his emotions and feelings (Sikes, 2004). The trust he displayed in disclosing and discussing his problems is testament to the quality of the research study protocol (Petrova et al., 2014) and to the supportive approach used.
91 All the participants were made aware that consent could be withdrawn at any time, without any repercussions (SRA, 2016). In this eventuality, discussion on what data could be included in the study would be part of an exit negotiation. It was important to acknowledge “the autonomy and agency of the individual in contributing to the research, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty” (BPS, 2011, p.8) and I made this clear to the participants. I was very aware of my position as a professional educator as being a perceived position of power and I did not want to manipulate their involvement or be perceived as doing so (Sikes, 2004). Therefore, freedom to exit the study was important.
My own experience as a practitioner with families instigated the study and my value of a father’s impact on the developmental outcomes for children was the driving force behind researching the role of fathers. The increasing numbers of fathers in Ireland who live separately from their children had given me cause for concern. However, I needed to be careful that I did not bring my personal anxieties to the study. I was aware of Canella and Lincoln’s (2007) suggestion that researchers need “to recognise the professional as the personal, while at the same time examining how this personalising of [their] work affects those around [them]” (p.329). By being aware of this potential crossing of personal values and research goals, I strove to be objective, and in so doing avoided being judgmental
(Denscombe, 2011). I recognised that those same values of understanding and empathy that were the impetus for my interest in the topic of research were the driving force and motivation for instigating and continuing the study. However, these same values could influence how I reacted to the men while interviewing them. When in the research zone, I drew on my professional practice and aimed to use my personal values of fairness and justice to accentuate the role of researcher
92 investigator. My position, as one who had insight about fathers’ involvement with their children, meant that I could not distance myself from those concerns. However, from a position of enquiry, I was able to detach myself from my own feelings, ask appropriate questions, be willing to consider alternative explanations (Denscombe, 2011) and so behave in a non-judgemental fashion. By acknowledging my own positionality, I was able to approach the study in an open and objective manner (Denscombe, 2011).