This study was carried out subject to approval from the Tasmania Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (SSHREC) and was conducted fully within the conditions of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council, 2007). Prior to the commencement of this study, a full ethics application was submitted to the SSHREC and the research project was granted ethical approval
168
(Ref No. H0013094. See Appendix A). As the participating school was a Catholic College, permission to conduct research at Catholic schools was sought from and granted by the Catholic Education Office (see Appendix B). The decision to include methods of data collection that involved focus groups and the direct personal contact between the researcher and participants during the distribution and completion of quantitative instruments required the consideration of ethical concerns that are specific to qualitative studies. Patton (2002) provided a comprehensive framework identifying 10 key ethical issues within qualitative aspects of research projects including explaining purpose, promises and
reciprocity; risk assessment; confidentiality; informed consent; data access and ownership; interviewer mental health; seeking advice; boundaries for data
collection; and ethical versus legal issues. The manner in which these key ethical issues were addressed in this research are described respectively. The purpose of the research was clearly articulated to the principal and all individuals involved in the study. In relation to promises and reciprocity, all information provided about the study clearly identified that participants may not directly benefit from the research but the results may inform others through the publication and
dissemination of the contents of this thesis and that the information may be used for beneficial purposes in the future. An assessment of the risk relating to the individuals involved was conducted prior to commencing the research and this project was considered low risk. Assurance of confidentiality was given to participants by explaining that all information would be provided in a format that
169
would not identify individuals. Participants were allocated codes to identify their role (teacher, student, parent/carer) and their relationship (parent/carer of
particular student). The same codes were used for pre-test and post-test data. Digital audio files and transcripts of teacher interviews were labelled with the code number. Hard copies of transcripts were stored in locked cabinets accessible only by the research investigators. Computer files were stored on a password protected secure server and files linking participant names and codes were stored separately from the data. It was made clear to all individuals that their decision to participate in this study was voluntary and they were free to withdraw their consent at any time without explanation or effect, and that prior to the date stated on the consent form that they could request that any data supplied by them be withdrawn from the research. When providing instructions and explaining the study on information sheets, language and format appropriate to the targeted audience (teachers, parents and students) were used. Data access and ownership was considered as an ethical issue for this study. In line with SSHREC requirements, all hard copy data were stored in a secure location and each participant was offered the opportunity to request a copy of the final report on this study. The possibility that reflecting upon issues and concerns relating to animals might have caused anxiety for individuals was noted, and participants were provided with contact details of the free
170
4.9.1 Issues of Representation and Legitimisation
Two critical issues associated with qualitative research are the “dual crises of representation and legitimation” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 898). The crisis of representation refers to the practice of writing about and representing the social world. The crisis of legitimation questions traditional criteria used for evaluating and interpreting qualitative research, involving a rethinking of terms such as validity, reliability, and objectivity. Questions raised by traditional notions of legitimacy pose problems when applied to constructivist forms of research because the traditional concept of validity relates to positivist and post-positivist ideas of the nature of truth and what counts as valid knowledge. The requirement that a research account should “report the truth about an objectively described state of affairs” does not address the concerns of constructivist research (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990, p. 97). Mishler (2000) described the “prevailing conception of and
procedures for validation as based on an experimental model whereas qualitative studies are designed explicitly as an alternative to that model, with features that differ markedly and in detail from those characteristic of experiments” (p. 120). According to Mishler (2000), it is the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that the research methods and procedures of the study are visible so that the reader is “able to make a reasoned and informed assessment about whether or not the validity claims are well warranted” (p. 130).
171
4.9.2 Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness relates to the visibility of procedures and the overall coherence of design and analyses. Eisner (1991) referred to structural corroboration as the practice of “relating multiple types of data to support or contradict the interpretation and evaluation of a phenomenon” and suggests it as a means to assessing coherence (p. 10). Structural corroboration may be seen as a qualitative alternative to triangulation in quantitative research where the traditional concept is to collect evidence for the purpose of arriving at a non-refutable
coherence or correspondence with an objective truth. The visibility of methods in this study was intended to increase the authenticity of the research and contribute to trustworthiness.
4.9.3 Validity and Credibility
When designing and implementing a case study project, several
considerations are needed to ensure the validity or credibility of the work and to enhance trustworthiness. Yin (2009) emphasised the importance in case study design, of selection of sampling strategies and data collection, and management and analysis processes that are appropriate to clearly articulated research questions. Creswell (2014) suggested numerous strategies that promote data credibility and are appropriate for case study design. Three of the suggested
strategies have been employed in this study: triangulation of data sources; multiple data types as a primary strategy to support the gathering of multiple perspectives; and member checking, where the researchers’ interpretations of the data are shared
172
with the participants and the participants are given the opportunity to discuss and clarify the interpretation, and contribute new or additional perspectives on the issue under study (pp. 201-202). Additional strategies commonly integrated into qualitative studies to establish credibility include the use of reflection, the
maintenance of a research journal and peer examination of the data (Ahern, 1999). Keeping self-reflective journals is a strategy that can facilitate reflexivity, whereby researchers use their journal to “examine personal assumptions and goals and clarify individual belief systems and subjectivities” (Ahern, 1999, p. 408). In addition to including these strategies in this study, additional measures were implemented to address, minimise or resolve issues of representation, legitimation, validity and trustworthiness. Steps were taken to ensure that all findings were presented as accurate and authentic accounts; explicit reference was made to the fact that the study did not seek to reveal an objective truth; validity was enhanced through visibility of methods and procedures, and trustworthiness was
strengthened by the considered selection and correct execution of multiple methods, and the analyses of multiple data sources.