La ―dimensió argumentativa‖

Participants to research have to take part through a voluntary process, without coercion (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Kimmel, 2009). In all instances, researchers have to notify their subjects that they can refuse if they want or refuse to further cooperate should they wish to withdraw participation. There must be no coercion of research participants in order to promote valid results (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Kimmel, 2009). This is associated with covert studies and deception in research.

There are specific ethical guidelines that guide the conduct of academic and professional research of this nature. In this study, all these ethical guidelines were followed fully. Particularly with the primary data collection process, the researcher ensured that all necessary permissions that ought to be granted were sought from the companies from whom data was gathered (Rossi, et.al., 2009). This was done by preparing a consent form and presenting it to the managers in charge of the companies. If the mangers identified operatives (labourers) to participate in the research, their opinion was channelled to the researcher like any other research participant. This implies that labourers did not need to channel their opinion through managers; they were treated like any other research participant.

The consent form spelled out all the aims and objectives of the study, as well as rationale for the study and the reason the companies were being requested to be part of the study

Page 162 of 334

(Emanuel, et.al., 2000). The roles that the researcher was expecting the companies to play were also outlined in the consent form. Even more, the consent form was to give assurances to the effect that data collection was undertaken anonymously and confidentially (Munhall, 1988). As part of the need to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, no respondent was identified by name. Portney and Watkins (2000) also discuss that after the main data collection exercise and all data analysis have been performed, the researcher returned the completed instruments to the companies to be discarded.

There are different principles related to the research ethics model. One is that research has to be assessed and carried out in such a way as to promote quality (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Jacobsen and Landau, 2003). This is at the very core of research and does not need much explanation. It would imply that researchers have to guarantee that at the onset, the development of proposals is based on a commitment to researcher which accounts for the best quality in research (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Flewitt, 2005). Accountability covers different principles and quality is based on an effective scientific design, the possibility of expected issues and how these issues would be managed, as well as the different ways objectives would be met (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Smythe and Murray, 2000).

Research respondents and staff have to be taught about the goals, processes, applications, and participation in research, including possible risks (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Greene and Hogan, 2005). Differentiations are allowed in various research conceptualisations. This principle reinforces the foundation of informed consent (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Morrow and Smith, 2000). Informed consent includes

Page 163 of 334

the process of providing as much data as possible on research in order to allow participants to develop a good decision on involvement expected (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Hill, 2005). In general, such data have to be written and be supported by the research subjects. In instances where consent does not have to be gained, it must be fully and justifiably supported.

The researcher independence must therefore be very clear and any issues on interest must also be indicated (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Meade and Slesnick, 2002). The research has to be carried out in the sense that it helps promote professional validity in its design; the direct and indirect participation of colleagues and related collaborators have to be recognised (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Harris and Atkinson, 2013). The Economic and Social Research Council (2011) discusses that investigators have to guarantee that no conflict of interest is seen and the relationship of funding and researcher impact on results is also specific, especially as far as the application of subsequent data is concerned.

Researchers also have to consider in general result publication, where they are seen by the media to relate to sufficient publication in the work (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Berry, et.al., 1994). Media coverage should not affect the participation of respondents, nor should it breach their confidentiality (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Harris and Atkinson, 2013). It is important for the link with the media to be based on the actions of the research team including the researcher.

Page 164 of 334

3.14.1 Considerations for Confidentiality

The main considerations for confidentiality of the data collection process for this research formed a core issue in the ethical approval as well as the design without compromising on the quality of responses (Economic and Social Research Council, 2011; Casarett, 2005). This meant that anonymity was paramount; therefore no one was asked to put their personal details; only official positions were necessary to the survey because they indicated the level of responsibility that respondents had (Casarett, 2005) – see ethical approval section of appendix one. This step was a necessary part of the data collection process, and it sufficed for this research because it allowed for free expression of opinions without fear of the reprisals or reprimands from authorities. In addition, sufficient plans also had to be undertaken in order to properly store the research data. The researcher ensured that the confidentiality of the respondents would be protected at all times by assigning numbers to both questionnaire survey respondents and interviewees. No names appeared on the answer sheets or interviewee transcripts; only the name of the researcher with the corresponding numbers for the respondent appeared on any paper. Only the researcher could access these names and information that respondents filled because all files were stored on a password protected document and password protected personal computer. The ethical committee of the university was also informed of the proposition that all the raw data will be destroyed two years after the defence of the PhD examination; to which they agree.