Issues of informed consent, right to privacy, confidentiality, conflict of interest and acknowledgment were very carefully considered in this research (see Reamer, 2001). The first thing to be shared with the participants before any data collection was the
information sheet (see Appendix 9). A meeting was held with the participants at both the sites, where the information sheet was distributed and discussed in a group. Every participant was informed that they could approach me individually as well, in case they needed any clarification. The participants were involved in the research process, only after they gave their consent (see Appendix 10 for the Consent Form). It was told to the participants that if they chose to withdraw their participation even after joining the research processes, they could do so.
Since it was a participatory research, the participants were involved in all the phases of the research once fieldwork began, including data analysis to some extent. They had the control to make the Research Video the way they found appropriate and the other research methods also gave them space to reflect upon and share the information they felt was important. This ensured that they were not restricted by my thoughts on what data would emerge and what the research results should be.
3.7.1 Ethics Clearance
I obtained the Ethics clearance from the OU Ethics Committee for conducting this research. The consent form and information sheet to be shared with the participants were approved by the Committee.
3.7.2 Consent
I decided to conduct this research only with girls above 16 years of age. This decision was made after a response from Ethics Committee that parental consent would be needed for participants below 16 years. This created a dilemma, since some
participants in Mahita had not informed their parents about their participation because they felt their parents would not allow them to participate in a video project. Rather than going against the advice of the Ethics Committee or arguing my case, I decided to conduct the research with participants aged over 16.
All the participants in Akshara were between 18-25 years. However, there was some concern about the age of a few participants in Mahita, as the Coordinator shared that some of them might be under 16 years. Their true age could not have been determined, as they did not have birth certificates, but only an approximation of how old they were. In the consent forms, all the participants mentioned that they were above 16 years, and I decided to regard the age they have mentioned as their true age.
3.7.3 Confidentiality
Though the choice of anonymity was offered to them, participants in both the research sites wanted to have their identity known in the thesis. They wanted to do so for the recognition of their work. Even when the participants made certain critical comments, they wanted their thoughts and opinions to be mentioned with their respective identities. This was reconfirmed when I shared parts of data analysis with them, which attributes the quotes to respective participants.
All the participants gave their consent to appear in the photographs and videos. Having appeared in newspapers, television news, organisation’s websites and in the training manual, they were not apprehensive about being photographed or videographed.
Instead, they wanted everyone, who would get to know about their work through this research, to also know who they are.
3.7.4 Conflict of Interest
Information, which could place them at risk, if it was shared with others, was seen as conflict of interest. Throughout the research, I was aware of situations when the research participants mentioned something, which might have been predicted and inferred as a conflict of interest, either with the organisation or other research participants or their family members. In such cases, the information has been kept confidential.
However, in certain cases, taking the decision on whether or not to share the information was difficult. For instance, the videos made by participants in both the organisations were to be shared with the Director of the organisation. This was a mutual decision taken by the participants and myself, before the shoot of the video. The participants in Akshara wanted to bring appropriate changes in their practice by sharing their perspective. In this video, they took a critical stance towards the organisation, raising several questions about the management. After the video was shot, the participants told me that if this video was shown to the Co-Director, they could be in trouble but still wanted to show the video to highlight the problems. It became an ethical challenge for me to decide whether to share the video or not. Keeping in with the participatory nature, I wanted to share it, although in presence of the apparent risk. Within a few days of shooting the video, two participants left the organisation. In consideration of the unstable situation and increased risk for the remaining participants, I decided it would be inappropriate to share it.
3.8 CONCLUSION
In this Chapter, I explained the methodological approach taken in this research and discussed the research design that was adopted. I explained how a constructionist epistemology was appropriate for answering the research questions, which focused on gathering the participants’ personal experiences. I also discussed how a qualitative methodology helped in producing an in-depth and holistic understanding and befitted here, since I wanted to study the entirety of a long-term PV project in relation to the participants’ agency. I further discussed how the participatory approach presented the opportunity for the participants to share their perspectives and engage in critical reflection on their practice, an important aim during data collection.
The use of a Case Study approach provided me the flexibility to encompass the unexpected events in the research. It also gave me the opportunity to study the PV projects as bounded systems, with balance and variety in the two chosen case studies. It also opened up the possibility for theoretical generalisation, which could incorporate both contrasts and similarities.
Further, I had a discussion on the methods, providing an understanding of how participatory observation, interviews, focuses group discussions and participatory video supported gathering relevant and useful data for this research. I also discussed the appropriateness of these methods, and my experiences from the field highlighted the kind of data they generated and the challenges that I faced. I argued that using these different methods also supported multiple perspectives, thereby, creating a holistic picture.
Next, I presented the different phases of the research and how the pilot study helped refine the research methods. I then discussed that I had undertaken thematic analysis with the help of data analysis software. Finally I discussed the ethical considerations in this research and how certain critical situations were dealt with.
The themes that emerged following the data analysis were used to structure the data chapters, which now follow.
4. EXPLORING AGENCY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter is the first of the three data chapters. Here, I present the initial phase of the PV process as it unfolds in the model of PV used in the two cases - from the organisation deciding to start a PV project, which invites participation from the local community (see Cornwall, 2004, for further discussion on invited spaces for participation), to some community members becoming ‘participants’ in the project. In Section 4.2, I provide an overview of the two PV projects that were initiated at Akshara and Mahita. Next, I discuss about the other actors involved in the project, their objectives and the relations between them. I also present how the participatory approach in a project can get affected because of the influence of these various actors.
Section 4.3 explains the gender contexts in which the two PV projects are set, looking in depth at the household and community levels. I demonstrate how intra-household inequality can prevent young women from participating in PV. Further, I look at the gender power relations at the community level and how community gatekeepers might obstruct the participation of young women. I also present the data and discuss how organisations may need to intervene in such scenarios for ensuring participation.
I then move on to discuss the particular gender issues that were present in both Akshara and Mahita. This gives an understanding of the issues that the participants themselves dealt with and how the organisations supported the young women to develop their own perspective on these issues. Following this, I present the gender norms that were prevalent in the local context, such as those around women and work, and explicate how participating in the respective PV projects may have enabled the
young women participants in challenging those norms, and therefore, exploring their agency. Next, I discuss how the participation may have supported young women in negotiating power at their household level.
The chapter ends with Section 4.4, which discusses how the participants' agency was affected during this initial phase. While doing so, I look at the various factors that can support or restrict participants’ agency exploration.