Supervisión de las actividades asistenciales

Ethical considerations are always the foundation of any research project. As bound by the University of Northumbria Ethics Committee, when I applied in June 2015, I made a professional commitment that I would protect my participants from any harm during the process of my data collection. A large part of conducting ethical research relies on the researcher ensuring that the data collection methods are appropriate (Harvey, 2008). Therefore the trauma-informed methodological strategy that I developed prioritised the safety and empowerment of all of the participants. The research design was influenced by the trauma-informed approach, whereby participants could expect a safe environment and an interview built upon foundations of trust, choice, collaboration and empowerment. Given the sensitive nature of the research, I endeavoured to increase the protection of my participants.

4.3.1 Informed Consent

Written informed consent was collected from all participants. Each participant was provided with an information sheet with details of the research project and FAQs. This information included why they have been selected, what they can expect from the researcher (confidentiality, anonymity, the right to withdraw at any time and how they can do this) and what the researcher will expect from them (see Appendix One, Four and Six). Consent was requested for the use of an audio tape recorder during interviews with each participant in the community and prison setting. Audio recording did not replace note taking; both were utilised in the community setting. Participants were talked through the information sheet and the consent form prior to the interview (See Appendix Two and Five). Each participant was then given a copy of each form to keep. Before the

93

interview progressed each participant was encouraged to ask any questions about the research or the researcher to build up rapport and trust.

4.3.2 Anonymity

Participant anonymity was a key point of discussion with all participants prior to conducting interviews, particularly prison staff. The anonymity of participants becomes even more important when researching sensitive areas. Important demographics such as age range and geographical locations were collected for identification during data analysis. All data was anonymised in the research and pseudonyms were either provided or chosen by the participant. Thematic analysis was also utilised during data analysis to ensure vicarious identification would be highly unlikely. Any prisoner names that were identified during the interviews with prison staff were removed during transcription. Each participating prison and organisation remains anonymous; to avoid participant identification. Only broad geographical description has been included. Two of the staff working within the third sector requested to be referred to as ‘Staff Member’ as they felt this protected their identity and gender, therefore I applied this label instead of pseudonyms, across the entire third sector participant sample group.

4.3.3 Data Storage

All verbatim notes and the audio recorder containing data were stored in a lockable drawer set at Northumbria University. A single computer was used during data analysis, was on a desk that was allocated to me and password protected. Northumbria University is bound by the data protection act. All documentation and electronic data was stored on my university U drive, and will be protected and retained for 5 years following thesis submission.

4.3.4 Researcher and Participant Safety

Safety is key to this research and it was important to ensure the safety of all participants and myself as the researcher. There were a variety of protection measures in place for the participants including extensive debriefs and leaflets for support services (if appropriate). Each interview room was fitted with a phone and one room had CCTV (for the organisation's viewing).

94 4.3.5 Prison Service and NOMS Ethical Approval

In my first attempt to gain ethical approval from NOMS National Research Committee in September 2015, I was unsuccessful. However, this led to a revised and more robust research project.

Originally I had submitted to collect data with prison staff and prison listeners to establish how prevalent previous trauma was. In total, there were eight reasons why my application had been unsuccessful, however there were three key issues that would require me to reconsider my approach. The feedback stated:

Further to your application to undertake research across NOMS, the National Research Committee has considered the information provided and is unable to support your project at the present time. Reasons are as follows:

 The Committee felt that the potential benefits to NOMS (including how the findings could be operationalised) were insufficiently elaborated and did not justify the resource demands (assisting with identification/recruitment, accompanying the researcher, staff interviews) involved.

 It was unclear why prison listeners were being targeted, bearing in mind the consequent reliance upon second hand information, potentially producing partial or inaccurate results.

 It was also felt that the proposed Listener interviews were complex from a consent and ethics perspective; Listeners would need to avoid breaking confidentiality expectations, but their participation could still result in a loss of trust from other prisoners, negatively impacting the service.

Following this I re-developed my strategy. I removed the prison listener sample as this was not the appropriate sample due to confidentiality issues, and I continued with the plan to request access to interview prison officers. In the meantime by January 2016, I had found and started to research TIP and I had also begun to explore the potential of this approach. From this point, I began to intertwine TIP within my research design.

95

Whilst gaining access to third sector organisations, the NOMS application re-writing process was ongoing. I also sought the informal support from the governors of the prisons I was targeting for access. I decided to capitalise on my previous contacts and email each governor working in the four prisons, to provide them with some information about the research. I stated that in advance of any decision making that might be made, I was seeking NOMS ethical approval and I wanted to introduce myself and my research to them. I hoped that this would speed up the process of entering the prison, should I secure ethical approval from NOMS. Three out of four governors responded either by telephone or email with their support. I was able to use these emails to support my NOMS application. One governor sent me a card in the university mail, thanking me for being courteous and requesting their support. The card explained that many research requests 'land' on their desks every week without any prior notice or introductions and they valued my approach. By May 2016 I was granted NOMS ethical approval with provisions that I would amend participant documents with some additional information. I contacted all of the prison contacts I had been allocated by three governors and requested dates for interviews with their staff. I will discuss how I gained access to the final prison in Section 4.5.2.1.

4.3.6 Ethical Realities

During interviews with former prisoners, concerning examples and encounters with prison staff emerged. Specific examples included prison officers being violent to the men I interviewed, as well as prison officers being sexually inappropriate to women. As a researcher, it was important for me to ask my participants if they would like me to report this information. Thankfully, one example had been reported to a community based key worker and they were in the process of pursuing the matter. In this case, the prison officer in question had been suspended from a prison in the South West. However, one of my participants was adamant that he did not want me to report his example. He stated that he could not go through with the ordeal and wanted to move on from it. This is challenging for researchers ethically. However in this case, I think it is important to stay true to my participant’s wishes, despite my feelings about the issue. This research resulted in many

96

conversations with my supervision team and the faculty head of ethics at the time, to provide guidance with this particularly sensitive research study.