Perfil del abusador sexual

The experience of DE is understood to have adverse and far-reaching effects on young people, and in many cases compounds the pre-existing marginalisation and disadvantage already present in their lives (Pitts & Smith, 2007). This study set out to explore a time and experience that for some participants may have been emotionally and psychologically traumatic. However, Farquhar and Das (1999) note “all research topics have the potential to be sensitive” (as cited in Bloor et al., 2001, p. 21), but this must not deter researchers from inquiring into such phenomena. As such, steps must be taken to ensure a study of this nature is conducted in accordance with the appropriate codes of conduct, and the principles of ethical research concerning human subjects as espoused by those codes.

Massey University provides a comprehensive and in-depth Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants (2015) (the Code). The Code provides eight principles that, if strictly adhered to, ensures a research study is undertaken in a highly ethical manner at all times during the research process, with all parties to the study, and in a manner that demonstrates cultural and contextual competence. The principles stipulated in the Code include: respect for persons, minimisation of risk of harm, informed and voluntary consent, respect for privacy and confidentiality, avoidance of unnecessary deception, avoidance of conflict of role/interest, social

41

and cultural sensitivity, and justice (Massey University, 2015, p. 4). A copy of the ethics approval for this study is attached as Appendix 4.

Respect for persons is achieved through fair and equal treatment of study participants that recognises each participant as a unique and knowledgeable human being, who freely and willingly participated in a study that may one day benefit the lives of other young people at risk of DE. To ensure respect for participants, I advised them of their right to refuse participation in the study at any time, with no explanation or justification for their withdrawal required as per their consent form (see Appendix 5). Participants were also required to complete a confidentiality agreement (Appendix 6) to emphasise to them the importance of keeping the FG discussion and the identity of other participants confidential.

Risk of harm to participants was minimised through advice to participants on their right to ask me questions about the study, and their participation in or withdrawal from the research process at any time. They were also advised of their right to negotiate with me the attendance of a support person (see the Information Sheet for Participants attached as Appendix 7). One participant did bring a support person whose attendance was not negotiated prior to the FG interview. Other participants were queried about the attendance of the support person, and agreed they were happy for them to remain present for the duration of the FG interview. The support person was required to sign a confidentiality agreement (Appendix 8) which was included in the project documentation. Throughout each FG, I frequently checked the participants’ physical and psychological levels of comfort and, where necessary, made adjustments to return them to an acceptable state of comfort (i.e. opened windows, spoke louder or quieter, allowed participants to take quick breaks). Participants were advised of all health and safety requirements and considerations pertinent to the FG venue, including any hazards, the locations of venue toilets and emergency exits. I negotiated with each YGFF provider the availability a staff member to provide pastoral care if the participants required this after the FG interviews were complete. All YGFF providers agreed to this prior to each FG taking place.

Risk of harm to myself was minimised by the development of a safety plan for use in the event of unseen or unavoidable threats to my physical or emotional safety (verbal violence, physical violence, natural disaster, or the threat of any of these events). I discussed the safety plan with each venue provider, and observed the location of all exits, phones and staff in the event I required the use of any of these.

Risk of harm to groups/communities/institutions was minimised by assigning unique codes to each FG participant that anonymised them, and by deleting any identifying information concerning participants, their previous schools, and their current YGFF providers from all interview transcripts.

42

Dissemination of the final research report to interested parties, including participants, will ensure particular attention is paid to ensuring participant and YGFF provider privacy and anonymity, including screening of the interview transcripts, draft reports and the final research report.

Risk of harm to Massey University was minimised through my ethical and professional conduct as per the Code at all times, and through the production of a robust, integral and defensible research product. Mechanisms such as the supervision provided by Massey University for this research study also ensured a process and product befitting an academic study at this level.

The information sheet about the study and the process of informed and voluntary consent was provided to YGFF providers, as well as a specific information sheet for YGFF providers (Appendix 9), and a confidentiality agreement for YGFF providers (Appendix 10). These documents served to nurture the relationship and build trust with YGFF providers, which was crucial to the success of the FG interviews. I worked alongside each YGFF provider to ensure they were accurate in their interpretations and communication of the study information to the study participants.

A confidentiality agreement was provided to the transcriber (Appendix 11). Participant responsibilities concerning privacy and confidentiality were specified in the study information sheet. These responsibilities were reiterated before the commencement of the FG interviews, and again upon completion of the FG.

3.4 Conclusion

This was a qualitative study that used FG interviews to gather participants’ recollections of their lived experiences of DE and their perspective of the prevention of DE given these experiences. This study was guided by the epistemological tradition of social constructionism, and the theoretical perspective of interpretivism, in particular phenomenology. Thematic analysis was undertaken to elicit the rich, thick and descriptive FG data. The emergent findings are explained in the following chapter.

43

Chapter Four: Findings

4.0 Introduction

This chapter reports on the identification and interpretation of themes found within transcripts of participants’ FG discussions regarding participants’ experiences of DE, and their perspectives on preventing such exclusions. This process followed an inductive, latent level thematic analysis approach. An inductive approach identified themes within the data and latent level analysis, which examined the underlying ideas, patterns and assumptions of the themes (Braun & Clark, 2006). FG interview transcripts from three focus groups involving 14 YGFF students from both the North and South Islands with lived experience of DE were analysed using Braun and Clark’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis. Although these young adults were products of school alienation, their responses reflect on factors that contributed to their DE which are presented under the three themes of personal, classroom and school factors.

Appendix 12 presents an overview of the themes and subthemes that were identified in the initial responses. An ellipsis (…) represents the removal of words, and square brackets ([]) identify the word(s) within that have been added by me. Participant responses are indicated by the number assigned as their pseudonym.

4.1 Reflections on factors that contributed to their exclusion from school