This study was conducted with the ethical approval granted by the College of Social Science Ethics Committee in the University of Glasgow. As child respondents were involved in the study, a Basic Disclosure Certificate was obtained from Disclosure Scotland. The Ethical Guidelines for Educational
Research established by the British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018)
were closely referred and adhered to in developing and implementing the study. The legislation and ethical requirements of the different settings in which the study was carried out were complied with as well. The following sections will provide a discussion of the ethical considerations in terms of informed consent and protection from harm.
4.5.1 Informed consent
Access to the institutions and respondents was sought after the College of Social Sciences Ethics Committee granted ethical approval. Official permissions to undertake the study within the case schools were gained through contact with the head teachers. Having been provided with the fieldwork application forms clarifying the nature and scope of this study in advance, the head teachers were fully aware of the demands likely to be made on the schools and the individuals involved.
To ensure that the respondents understood the nature of this study and the implications of their participation, the plain language statements and consent forms were tailored to each different group and provided at the outset (David et al., 2001; see Appendix D for the plain language statements; see Appendix E for the consent forms). In the case schools, the teachers and students were informed that besides participating in interviews and focus groups, they might be observed in some situations. They were assured that their participation was voluntary and there would be no adverse effects if they refused to participate or withdrew from the study (Crow et al., 2006).
All the adult respondents read and signed the consent forms, while the procedures were a bit different for the children respondents. Before commencing the fieldwork, I provided the schools with the plain language statements and consent forms designed for the students and parents/carers. In Phoenix Primary School, the forms were not distributed to the parents/carers as the deputy head teacher thought it was unnecessary. While participating in the focus groups, the students thought it was weird to sign forms before discussions, and therefore they granted their consent to be involved in the study orally. In St Andrews Primary School, no forms signed by parents/carers ever came back to me. Since the parents/carers were informed of the details of the study and no objection was raised, as the school told me, permission to involve their children in the study was granted accordingly. All the students who agreed to participate in the focus groups signed the consent forms.
4.5.2 Protection from discomfort
“All educational research is sensitive; the question is one of degree” (Cohen et al., 2011, p.164). Considering the sensitive nature of the present study in terms of its topics and the vulnerability of some of the individuals involved, protection from potential discomfort was considered accordingly.
The study of national identity and global identity is sensitive considering its potential to raise strong feelings and opinions regarding ethnic, racial and political issues, which might make the respondents feel discomfort and
challenged (Renzetti & Lee, 1993). The social circumstances, especially the political contexts in Mainland China and Scotland, had the potential to pose substantial threat to the respondents in expressing their personal views. To minimise the discomfort the study may cause in this regard, a variety of measures were taken as follows. Sensitive controversies, such as the 4th June Incident in
Mainland China and the Independence Referendum in Scotland, were avoided unless the respondents raised them. The respondents were assured that they were fully respected and that I did not bring any biased opinions or sentiments into the study. Since respecting the privacy of respondents is at the heart of the conduct of ethical research (Johnson& Christensen, 2012), confidentiality was assured throughout the study. The real names of the case schools and respondents were replaced with pseudonyms (Baez, 2002; Kaiser, 2009). Any identifiable information would not be revealed to anyone other than the researcher and the respondents, either in the dissertation or in any subsequent publications.
Researching vulnerable people is also a sensitive matter in this study. As one of the targeted groups of respondents, students of about 10 years old may feel powerless and insecure in the presence of an adult researcher (Greig & Taylor, 1999). The topics of national identity and global identity may lead to their incomprehension and uncertainty. To mitigate any possible distress on the part of the child respondents, further measures were taken. All the focus groups and non-participant observations were conducted in the schools and classrooms, which were familiar and non-threatening places, to put the students at ease. I strictly obeyed the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Scottish Parliament, 2007) by avoiding causing any physical, verbal or psychological offence to the children. Although there is no corresponding act in Mainland China, no harm was caused to the students in any circumstances. In conducting the fieldwork, I used child-friendly language to ensure their understanding of the study and encouraged them to ask for repetition and explanation if they were unsure of any questions (Punch, 2002).
I have sound reasons to believe that the study brought certain benefits to the respondents. First, the respondents’ senses of self-worth could be enhanced (Hutchinson et al., 1994). The interviews and focus groups gave voices to the
respondents, especially teachers and students, who may have a sense of not being heard. They were empowered to express their experience and understandings of national identity education and global identity education. Most discussions lasted longer than expected. The respondents seemed to be enjoying the conversations with me and were willing to be contacted for further information regarding the topics. Second, through expressing their views and hearing others’ voices, there might have been impetus for behavioural change (Cassell, 1978), which could make the potential for purposeful and thoughtful educational practices real possibilities.