I declare that I explained the information given in this document to participants. They were encouraged and given ample time to ask me any questions. This conversation was conducted in English and Sesotho and no translator was used.
________________________________________ ______________
Signature of Investigator
164
Appendix D: Permission from Research Ethics Committee
Approved with Stipulations
New Application
10-Apr-2017 Kotele, Mannini MR
Proposal #: SU-HSD-003425
Title: Exploring the educational experiences of Lesotho postgraduate students at Stellenbosch University
Dear Miss Mannini Kotele,
Your New Application received on 03-Mar-2017, was reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee: Human Research (Humanities) via Committee Review procedures on 30-Mar-2017.
Please note the following information about your approved research proposal:
Proposal Approval Period: 30-Mar-2017 -29-Mar-
2018 Present Committee Members:
De Villiers, Mare MRH Fouche, Magdalena MG Hansen, Leonard LD Lambrechts , Derica D Hall, Susan SLC Graham, Clarissa CJ Toi, Jerall J Williams, Aden A Prozesky, Heidi HE Rawlings,
165 Douglas DE Mariri, Tendai T Welman, Karen KE Khoza, Lindiwemhakamuni L
The following stipulations are relevant to the approval of your project and must be adhered to:
You may proceed with the envisaged research provided that the following stipulations, relevant to the approval of your project are adhered to or addressed. Some of these stipulations may require your response. Where a response is required, please respond to the REC within 30 days of the date of this letter. Your approval would expire automatically should your response not be received by the REC within 30 days of the date of this letter.
If a response is required, please respond to the points raised in a separate cover letter titled “Response to REC stipulations” AND if requested, HIGHLIGHT or use the TRACK CHANGES function to indicate corrections / amendments of ATTACHED DOCUMENTATION, to allow rapid scrutiny and appraisal.
166 1) PARTICIPANT SELECTION AND RECRUITMENT 1.1) The researcher states that she will ask students personally whether they would be willing to participate in her study. It is not clear from the information provided as part of the application how this process will take place, or where/how she will access contact information of students, that will allow her to contact them. Clear and specific information about the recruitment process is required. She should also clarify how she will issue invitations for recruitment and if she requires any institutional support (e.g. from the International Office or Student Information Systems). [RESPONSE REQUIRED]
1.2) All interviews will be conducted in the common room of each participant’s residence at a time convenient for the participant. The researcher must comment on her access to these common rooms, as well as the privacy for interviews to be conducted in these spaces. [RESPONSE REQUIRED] 1.3) The researcher mentions two data collection techniques: semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. It is not clear from her application when, with whom and how each of these data collection techniques will be utilised. In addition, it is not clear where the focus groups will take place. Clarity is required. [RESPONSE REQUIRED] 2. PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 2.1) The researcher intends to gather personal information which POPI classifies as special (and thus requiring stronger protections) (e.g. religious affiliation). The researcher should clarify her security procedures (but this can be done through the institutional permission process). 2.2) The researcher should also consider discussing focus group participant rights and responsibilities (as it pertains to the rights of the other participants) in the focus group consent form. [RESPONSE REQUIRED] 3. PROTECTION OF DATA, (BOTH PAPER AND ELECTRONIC)
Recordings and transcribed interviews will be stored in a safe. Please specify the location of this safe. No procedures for the storage of electronic data are provided. [RESPONSE REQUIRED]
4) INFORMED CONSENT AND ASSENT PROCESSES AND FORMS
The informed consent documentation is adequate and requires small changes. Two forms are provided and it is not clear which form will be used for the interviews and which will be used for the focus group discussions.
For the section requiring a description of the purpose of the study, the researcher has simply pasted her research aims as articulated in her proposal into this section. In preparation for the use of this form in the context of the study, she must rephrase this information by transforming it into simpler language.
5) ADEQUATE MITIGATION OF RISK; COUNSELLING SERVICES ETC?
The researcher states that the risk level associated with her research is low. However, it is more accurate to classify this project as medium risk research.
In exploring students’ experiences of the institutional environment she will uncover varying experiences amongst participants, some of whom may not be coping well in the environment and who may be experiencing distress. She positions her argument for this research on the notion that the environment is culturally dissonant for participants who may be experience being othered in this context. Some students may, therefore, experience their participation as therapeutic, while others may experience sharing their experiences as distressing and re-traumatising. It is hard to predict. It is imperative that she outline clear steps for risk mitigation and support for students who experience distress by virtue of their participation in the interviews and focus groups. The answer may be simply that students will be referred to the Centre for Student Counselling for support. The researcher must comment explicitly and clearly on this point. [RESPONSE REQUIRED] 6) INSTRUMENTS (QUESTIONNAIRES, SCALES, INTERVIEW OUTLINES etc. ) 6.1) The researcher provides two interview schedules: one for the semi-structured interviews and one for the focus group discussions. These schedules both contain questions that are aligned with the research objectives. However, in the interview guide the researcher asks specifically about experiences of racism on campus. It is not clear what the rationale behind the specific inclusion of this question is. If she is interested in exploring these kinds of institutional dynamics then one would wonder why she does not include experiences of sexism, and other axes of difference that serve as the foundation for discriminatory practices. [NO RESPONSE REQUIRED – FOR REFLECTION ONLY]
167 6.2) The interview guide provided for the semi-structured interviews is very long for the time proposed for each session. The researcher should redesign her schedule and/or consider increasing the number of interview sessions per participant. [NO RESPONSE REQUIRED – FOR REFLECTION ONLY] 7) OVERALL RISK LEVEL AND RISK /COST-BENEFIT ASSESSMENT
It is also not clear from the application how the research findings will be used. The researcher emphasises the importance of understanding these students’ experiences, but does not state how this understanding will be utilised to provide support to students. This is particularly important given that this proposal is for a Masters in Education Policy Studies. Given these issues, the REC finds it difficult to make a reasonable assessment of the risk/cost-benefit associated with this research.
Please provide a letter of response to all the points raised IN ADDITION to HIGHLIGHTING or using the TRACK CHANGES function to indicate ALL the corrections/amendments of ALL DOCUMENTS clearly in order to allow rapid scrutiny and appraisal.
Please take note of the general Investigator Responsibilities attached to this letter. You may commence with your research after complying fully with these guidelines.
Please remember to use your proposal number (SU-HSD-003425) on any documents or correspondence with the REC concerning your research proposal.
Please note that the REC has the prerogative and authority to ask further questions, seek additional information, require further modifications, or monitor the conduct of your research and the consent process.
Also note that a progress report should be submitted to the Committee before the approval period has expired if a continuation is required. The Committee will then consider the continuation of the project for a further year (if necessary).
This committee abides by the ethical norms and principles for research, established by the Declaration of Helsinki and the Guidelines for Ethical Research: Principles Structures and Processes 2004 (Department of Health). Annually a number of projects may be selected randomly for an external audit.
National Health Research Ethics Committee (NHREC) registration number REC-050411-032. We wish you the best as you conduct your research.
If you have any questions or need further help, please contact the REC office at 218089183.
Included Documents:
DESC Report
REC: Humanities New Application Sincerely,
Clarissa Graham REC Coordinator
168