The British Psychological Society (2010) have produced a code of conduct for human research ethics. Within this document they specify that research should obtain ‘valid consent’ – which requires participants to consent freely to the research having been provided with adequate information; that risks to participants/researchers or others should be avoided, or that minimal risks are assessed and managed accordingly; and that any information obtained from or about participants should remain confidential (unless otherwise agreed in advance) in that participant data should not be identifiably linked to them. The following sections will address these key principles in relation to the current research.
2.5.1 Informed consent. Due to participants being under 18 (with the exception of one
young person who had recently turned 18 but remained under the YOS), carer consent was sought in all cases. Participants and carers were fully informed about the nature of the research and what would be required of them prior to taking part. The fact that interviews were recorded may have been unsettling for some participants – particularly given that they were likely to have had previous experience of being recorded for police interview – but the reason for doing so (i.e., to ensure that the whole interview could be transcribed verbatim and thus effectively analysed) was explained to them at the consent stage. They were then able to make a decision on whether or not they were happy to agree to this. Whilst efforts were taken to promote participants’ autonomy in their decision to take part, there was a possibility some participants may have felt an element of coercion to engage, given that they were recruited through a service under which their appointments were usually enforceable. The fact that two potential participants decided not to take part, however, indicated that at least some young people felt they had the freedom to choose.
2.5.1.1 Data collection and storage. Participants were informed that they could choose to stop the interview at any time. They, and their carers, were informed that they were able to withdraw their data at any time before, during, or after the interview, up until April 2017, when it was anticipated that data analyses would be finalised and submitted as part of the researcher’s Doctoral thesis. Withdrawal from the study was possible by contacting the researcher directly, or by requesting that staff from the relevant YOS contacted the researcher on their behalf. In line with the Data Protection Act (1998), data that was not withdrawn was stored securely for the duration of the research and will continue to be stored for three years following the completion of the study, in case any unforeseen amendments or corrections are required in the write-up or analysis.
2.5.2 Confidentiality. Participants were informed that their data would remain
confidential, in that their names (or any names of other people, locations, etc., they mentioned in interview) would be changed to prevent them from being identified. Participants were allocated a participant number so that their data could be traced should they wish to withdraw from the study. The specific locations of the YOSs where the research took place have been omitted from the write-up of the research in order to further protect participant confidentiality, and this was fully explained to participants when gaining their consent. It was made clear to participants that whilst confidentiality would be upheld wherever possible, any disclosure they made during their participation in the research that raised concerns over their safety or the safety of someone else, or any disclosure of details of a past serious offence or abuse, would need to be passed on to the relevant person or authority in the interests of safeguarding. They were also informed that should that need arise, they would, wherever possible, be notified about what information would be passed on and to whom.
2.5.3 Risk of harm to participants. There was deemed to be a small risk of participants
finding it difficult to think of examples of times where they have experienced compassion and feeling upset by this, or by becoming distressed by emotions such as shame or guilt. To minimise the risk to participants in this way, young people who were deemed by either the researcher or YOS staff to have been experiencing levels of psychological distress too great to be able to complete the study, or where it was thought that the nature of the questions were likely to evoke significant distress, were not asked to participate. Participants were also not required to discuss any aspect of their previous offending during their participation and were explicitly informed that their involvement in this research would not impact on the input they were
receiving from the relevant YOS in any way. Furthermore, the researcher drew on her skills and experience in clinical interviewing to facilitate participants’ engagement and alleviate any minor discomfort during interview. It was agreed that in the event of a participant becoming
significantly distressed, however, the interview would be terminated and staff and carers made aware so that they could provide any necessary follow-up support.
2.5.4 Risk of harm to researcher. Interviews were conducted by a single researcher,
alone with young people who had a history of HSB and in some cases other types of offending, including violence. There was subsequently a potential risk of the researcher being harmed by a participant. This risk was effectively managed by adhering to the relevant YOSs safety and lone worker policies, speaking to staff involved with the young person to ensure that any known risks were accounted for prior to the interview, and notifying staff and carers of when and where the interviews were taking place and when they had been completed. It was also assumed that because the interview material was not intended to be provocative in any way, the risk of conflict occurring within the interview itself was very minimal. The researcher further employed her clinical experience in dynamic risk assessment and remained alert to any potential arousal or agitation on the part of the young people being interviewed.
2.5.5 Ethical approval. Prior to the recruitment stage, research governance and ethical
approval was sought and granted from each of the three local authorities where the participating YOSs were based (see Appendix H). Ethical approval was also granted by the University of Essex (see Appendix I).
2.6 Dissemination
It is intended that a summary of the findings of the current research will be provided to the services through which participants were recruited. Participants and carers who indicated that they would like to receive a summary of the findings of this research will also be sent a summary via their preferred contact method (as indicated on their consent form; see Appendices D & E). The current research was undertaken as part of the Doctorate in Clinical Psychology and submitted as a Doctoral thesis. As such, the final draft will be available at the University of Essex for future trainees, students and staff to read and make use of. It is also planned for the results from this study to be submitted for publication by a peer reviewed journal that has published research in similar areas, such as Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice or Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy.
2.7 Chapter Summary
This chapter provided an overview of the methodological approach and procedures utilised for this research. Accounting for the researcher’s ontological and epistemological position, the case was made for a constructivist paradigm and therefore the use of CGT. It was further argued that a qualitative CGT approach was expected to enrich the existing literature in the area. Procedures for recruitment, data collection, and analysis were outlined and ethical considerations were made. The following chapter provides further details of the analytic process data were subjected to and presents the results from this.
Chapter Three: Results 3.1 Overview of Chapter
This chapter begins with an overview of key characteristics of the final participant group recruited for this research. What follows is a summary of the analytical interpretation of
participant interviews through the coding and memo-writing procedures detailed in the previous chapter. Data were synthesised into a substantive theoretical model to explain the dynamic and relational experience of compassion to self and others among young people who have engaged in HSB. The model is first presented in its entirety before the explication of each major conceptual category in turn. Minor and sub-categories are also delineated and the relationships between categories are outlined. Participant quotes help to demonstrate how the model is grounded in the data and the process of member checking the model for its relatability and fit is described.