Ethical tensions are often an everyday aspect of social science research, particularly around a social phenomenon that is causing angst within the community (Babbie 2002). These ethical tensions were a consistent challenge during this research work (Miller 2004). Procedures and methods needed to be refined to address these tensions (Flick 2002; Hynes 2003; Liamputtong & Ezzy 2005; Ruane 2005) and the limitations of
142Mason’s view, this research adopted a qualitative research methodology based on the premise that qualitative research involves data generation not just data collection (Mason 2002). The research required reflective data collection, which focused on relationship creation and maintenance in order to acknowledge any tensions and to allow these be addressed (Hynes 2003). In undertaking this research, the issue of inequity was also strongly considered (Truman, Mertens & Humphries 2000). In addition, a transformative emancipatory perspective was also a consideration in the selection of methods (Mertens 2003) maximising the experience as a positive process for participants (Boeije 2010; Swartz 2011).
The literature on research into sensitive topics is relevant to the research considerations especially in relation to risks to researchers, participants and the emotional nature of this type of research (Dickson-Swift et al. 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2009). Considerations were made in the research to acknowledge that:
Data collection can be an intense experience, especially if the topic that one has chosen has to do with the illness experience or other stressful human experiences. The stories that the qualitative researcher obtains in interviews will be stories of intense suffering, social injustices, or other things that will shock the researcher (Dickson-Swift et al. 2008a, p. 327).
The well-being of all participants, research assistants, transcribers and the researcher were considered in the research design. In particular, to acknowledge considerations ofcross-cultural research related to methodological and ethical concerns, as in the
143work of Liamputtong, was invaluable (Liamputtong 2008). Liamputtong’s research was important in assessing risk in relation to vulnerability as she has contributed important work to the research of participants considered at least temporarily as ‘vulnerable’ (Liamputtong 2007).
To understand some of the methodological decisions, it is important to understand the researcher and their relationship to the ARC Linkage project. Unlike many ARC projects, this research encompassed the entire project funded by the grant. It was not just part of a larger project. The reality of this meant that the researcher had a project management role in the project and worked directly with all stakeholders. Although this presented some tensions for the researcher, in managing the expectations of these stakeholders to ensure the integrity of the research and not be influenced
inappropriately by the wants of the stakeholders, the overall outcome was positive. The situation was able to ensure that the researcher fully understood the context of the research and that the understandings emerging from the findings could be presented in a way that increased the likelihood of both relevance and uptake by all parties involved. This is discussed further later in the thesis.
144RESEARCH APPROACH
Ethics
To undertake the collection of primary data, ethics approval was sought from the University of Tasmania Human Research Ethics Committee. The application adhered to ethical guidelines in research as outlined in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Government 2007; see Appendix 1 for the detail of the ethics application). However, due to the complexity of the research environment, an amendment to the ethics application was submitted later to allow a change to the approach of data collection. This change became necessary to counteract some issues related to media coverage and heightened suspicion within the African refugee
communities in Australia (see Appendix 2 for details of ethics approval revision for the research). The practical way in which this affected the research data collection is
explored in more detail later in this chapter.
In the data collection phase, a strict research protocol was followed to obtain consent from participants to ensure their privacy and the confidentiality of the research data(see Appendices 3-7 for detail of consent forms). It was of the utmost importance that participants felt that they trusted the process so as to allow the richest data to be explored. This process also ensured that the likelihood of undue risk to the
145During the process, though, concerns arose concerning ethical tensions in the research and the stipulations of an application for ethics approval. In particular, and as
Guillemin and Gillam (2004) highlight, there is a distinction between procedural ethics and "ethics in practice‛. When undertaking the research and considering ethical concerns there was full consideration of the issue of inequity (Truman, Mertens & Humphries 2000). These two issues led to particular decisions being made concerning research methodology and processes.
In this research, these tensions became tangible. One of the distinct problems was that all ethics requirements for participant involvement required written information and approval. This posed two issues. Firstly, it raised the issue of English language proficiency. Secondly, and more importantly, it highlighted the issue of official documentation and its negative association related to the refugee journey (Hynes 2003). The informed consent process was confronting for some of the participants. Both issues were raised with the Ethics Committee and this led to the development of a verbal introduction to both the individual interviews and the focus groups to
counteract these concerns.
The conversation with the ethics committee (only through formal written processes offered) left an unsatisfactory gap between the university’s standard concerns for participants and a practical understanding of this client group and the effect this research process may actually have on them. A deeper understanding of particularly
146vulnerable groups is necessary than currently exists in the ethics process. Although it is unrealistic to expect an ethics committee (particularly due to the voluntary nature of most of the membership) to automatically process these skills and understanding, there needs to be expert knowledge in the relevant field informing the ethics process. . What was absent was a mechanism for the researcher and supervisor (or lead researcher) in a project to discuss both their own and the committee’s discomforts concerning research design and participants. Instead, the process was long and drawn out, lacked clarity and still relied on the researcher, with superior knowledge of their client group, to make appropriate adjustments.
Instead of this being a process of ensuring quality, it was left feeling more like ‘fitting a square peg in a round hole’, and adjusting it to make it fit. The protection and
experience of the participants did not feel like the most important driver of this process and questions emerge as to how respectful these processes are to highly vulnerable groups in our community. Research in these areas is important and difficult social research and the ethics process should support it to be undertaken with quality and to support all parties in the process.
The other element of the ethics process that was surprising was the distinct lack of discussion about protections in place for the researcher. Research involving highly traumatised clients can be designed to maximise protection for all parties but no environment can be controlled when dealing with highly traumatic and emotional
147experiences undoubtedly, at times, leading to strong reactions to the topic of the research, in this case, police. Both the length of a PhD and the time taken to gain ethics approval leaves little time to extend the data collection over a period of time that may minimise researcher lethargy (emotional and psychological).
When the researcher did indeed suffer from some vicarious trauma issues, it became clear that unlike the participants, who were well covered for external support, the researcher (as a PhD student and not considered under staff conditions) received no support in recovery. There was no other option on offer other than to suspend candidature and use the public health system or her own finances to recover. This disparity between participants and researcher in terms of the duty of care criteria stipulated by the university ethics committee undermined the integrity of the ethics approach. This represents another weakness that currently exists in the ethics process.