Resumen de resultados

Ensuring that high ethical standards were adhered to was an important aspect of the design

and implementation of this study, and Ethical approval from the University of Birmingham

Ethical Review was sought and given. Ethical issues considered included:

 Consent  Withdrawal

 The protection of subjects from being impacted upon by inclusion in the study  Deception

 Coercion of the raters

Page | 76 3.9.1 Consent

Consent for participation in this study was required from schools, teachers (raters) and the

parents of selected pupils. However, this consent was not fully informed, as the attachment

hypothesis was withheld. The ethics of perpetrating such deception are discussed in section

3.5.3. The pupils were not asked for consent for the following reasons:

 They will at no point be identified.  Their names will not be discussed.  They were not active participants.

 Discussing the behaviour and backgrounds of unnamed pupils is part of my role in these schools and does not require consent.

 Not informing the pupils is seen as protecting them from any possible stress that may be caused by an awareness of the research.

All parents of pupils in the identified classes were sent a letter explaining the study (see

Appendix VII) and providing them with an opportunity (a return slip) to exclude their child

from passive participation. The contact details of the researcher and supervisor were provided

so that parents were afforded the opportunity to discuss related questions or concerns in more

detail at any point during the course of the study.

3.9.2 Withdrawal

The right to withdraw from the research, without having to give a reason, before and during

data collection, was made clear to all parents, school staff and other professionals contacted.

However, as no data was to be stored against individual names, it would not be possible to

Page | 77

to withdraw from the study were to be accepted without question, and no attempts to coerce or

persuade individuals to continue to participate would be made. It was made clear to all that

there would be no consequences for participants or raters withdrawing before or during data

collection, and that data recorded up to that point would be shredded. However, no requests

for withdrawal were made.

3.9.3 Deception

The deception involved in this study was approved by the University of Birmingham Ethical

Review, and was outlined in the application for approval in the following way:

“Adult participants will be informed of the broad aims of the project. However, they will not be informed of the attachment hypothesis. This has two purposes, to avoid

influencing the responses provided and to avoid influencing the perceptions of

teachers regarding the pupils and their families. The attachment hypothesis will be revealed in the research summary described below.” (University of Birmingham application for ethical review, 2011)

The use of deception in psychological studies has been criticised on three fronts:

 the harm caused to participants

 the harm caused to psychology as a profession by reducing public trust  harm caused to society (Baumrind, 1985).

However, in this research, its use is defended as both necessary to reduce the impact of biases

(see section 3.8), and to protect those involved. It was further justified as the potential benefits

which may arise from this research, were viewed to outweigh the potential harm caused by

Page | 78

The perceived potential benefits which may arise through the application of the findings of

this study include: improvements to the diagnostic process, treatment and support available to

children and school staff within the area of research. The potential harm resulting from

passive deception identified in the design of this study were reduced trust in the profession of

educational psychology, and the teachers involved experiencing negative emotions arising

from the feeling of having been deceived. However, the participating schools were considered

to have good working relationships with the Educational Psychology Service, afforded it a

great deal of trust, and were very interested in improving the diagnostic process. Concerns

about the accuracy of diagnoses of ASD had been raised by many schools in the area, and the

issue had been discussed at an area SENCo meeting. These factors were considered as indicating that there would be no negative impact on the school’s views of the profession. Rather, it was considered likely that they would welcome such research.

The deception perpetrated in this study was considered important to protect the children

involved, since the information gathered may have led teachers to make inferences about their

attachments and home lives. Thus, the attachment hypothesis was not discussed with teachers

to avoid influencing their perceptions of pupils and their families, and the measure was

constructed in a manner which concealed the difficulty indicated by the behaviours described.

3.9.4 Anonymity and Confidentiality

It was made clear to all parents and raters that no data would be attributed to them, or their

school, but would be presented collectively in a research paper (BPS ethical guidelines,

Page | 79

reveal the identity of the raters or sample children, these do not constitute personal data and

are therefore exempt from the Data Protection Act (1998) (Information Commissioner, 2001).