Musings after the Ethics in Practice conference

by Keely Blanch

A few weeks ago, I spent the weekend at the Ethics in Practice Conference in Dunedin. As the name suggests, one of the conference themes was ethics in practice, specifically ethical surprises in research, but it also included a focus on discussion around Indigenous context in research ethics, as well as revisiting discussion of the New Brunswick declaration. It was a chance to hear some amazing keynote addresses talking about changes in research ethics. It also gave graduate research students, such as myself, a chance to present aspects of their research, talk through ethical moments, and connect with an international body of researchers as well as a wider graduate research student community.

Barry Smith speaks about making consultation with Maori meaningful

What I found interesting was that it seemed there were common themes woven through the various presentations from novice and senior researchers alike. Themes of needing to remember respect, empathy, relationships, values and the need for conversations around ethics. There was a strong message about being reflexive through the research process, and acknowledging that research affects researchers as well as participants and their communities in many ways.

These themes were signposted from the opening Mihi when Mark Brunton (Ngai Tahu Research Consultation Commttee) reminded us that in a bicultural society research needs to start with a dialogue. MP and Associate Minister of Health, Hon. Peter Dunne then emphasised that "ethics starts with asking the right questions and designing research appropriately". Dunne also noted that ethics is not static - we need to be constantly revisiting our ethical approach and maintain a flexible approach. These are points that would seem obvious in research ethics. Indeed, a commonly promoted aspect of research ethics is reflexivity*.

During the discussion of the New Brunswick declaration, Mark Israel called for researchers to be treated as adults, given the tools for ethical research and scaffolded through the research process and ethical moments. For me, this again calls to the need for ongoing conversations in/with ethics during the research process. As Israel noted with a humorous analogy - the formal procedural ethics review is akin to sheep dip, encouraging the belief that, once treated, researchers can roam freely through the research meadow. However, like sheep, researchers need ongoing support.

Research does affect researchers. As academics we may conduct research to advance knowledge, and build careers. Community researchers may have careers based around research contracts and a desire to help people in their communities. What I saw through many of the conference presentations was that research can also be an emotional journey for the researcher. There may be frustration at delays. Perhaps there is regret at not having more time/money to do the research differently or more thoroughly. Perhaps a participant discloses information that resonates emotionally. Perhaps a participant says things that evoke a strong negative reaction (do you need to 'like' your participants?). Or perhaps the research context evokes discomfort and fears for researcher safety as mentioned in Sieber & Tolich (2013).

By being reflexive we acknowledge these moments. As Graduate Research Students we are encouraged to keep reflective research journals where we acknowledge our positioning and the effect it has upon our research. We may write our positioning and reflections into our theses. We may refer to them in publications. Yet should we be sharing these reflections earlier? The muddles, hiccups, angst and constant negotiations of the research journey are not always made overt, but our reflections upon these shape our research, and us as researchers. Is there room to engage in conversations about these twists and turns during the research journey in a way that may inform not only our own, but the journeys of our research colleagues?

In my own department, I feel we (research students) have informally developed a supportive space for dialogue around these issues. We share frustrations, fears, joys and celebrations around our individual research processes. From my own perspective, I know it can be a relief to hear that I am not alone in the moments along our research journey. We are lucky that we have developed, and continue to maintain, a supportive community feel. Yet not all research students have that available. 

I'd like to see a space for conversations around ethical issues and moments that welcomes a range of experiences and contexts. We often join writing groups to develop and practice our writing skills, so why do we not consider ethical research communities to discuss and guide researcher actions throughout the entire research process? I'd like to see conversations around ethics and the research journey that incorporate senior researchers as well as novice researchers. Through open dialogue with each other as researchers, we can support ethical research practices that will help researchers and participants. 

The conference was tweeted with the tag #EthicsinPractice  and #nzethics. 

Check out tweets from @NZEthics, @EmTum, @teataotu, @frankeeross, @samuelmann, @julierbull and @Amberpoppy26.

*see Guillemin M. & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry April 2004 10: 261-280, doi:10.1177/1077800403262360

Researching with children: Some lessons learnt the hard way

by Kim Brown

I have compiled some thoughts on researching with children from my point of view as a parent, a teacher, a researcher, and an advocate of social justice. I have taken extracts from my Masters and mixed these with more recent deas reflections.

Positioning children within research relations demands awareness of the asymmetrical power relations between researchers and younger participants. The notion of voice encapsulates children’s capacity to speak and their right to do so (Thomson, 2008). Indeed, Roberts (2006) reflects on social research practice that is well-rehearsed in listening to children but not hearing them. Simply adopting child-centred approaches to research may not provide children sufficient opportunity to be heard.

Children’s voice represents a “hard-won” gain in research, yet might equally present researchers with ethical dilemmas when considering how far to acknowledge children’s agency (Kraftl, 2013). Questioning whether it is possible for an adult researcher to create equality with a child participant, Jenks advises recognising “the grounds of difference” (2006, p. 87). One aspect of difference draws attention to adult responsibility, particularly in research domains not conventionally thought of as child-friendly, sexuality being an obvious example (Kraftl, 2013). Drawing upon critical reflexivity may support a researcher in the precarious act of recognising rather than assuming differences. Additional actions may involve participatory roles for the students in the research design or creative modes of communication. Again, I caution that providing children with choices during the research process does not necessarily equate to balancing power differentials between researcher/subject or adult/child. If I reflect on my own research with child participants during my Masters, I can see that I created additional workload for the the young people involved despite my espoused principles of addressing differential power relations.

I sought to empower children to express themselves in flexible ways, both as individuals and as a group, and elicit data to investigate the research question. I chose visual approaches, in part inspired by scrapbooks (Bragg & Buckingham, 2008), and an anti-CV (Higgins, Nairn, & Sligo, 2009). What strikes me in retrospect (ah, the value of hindsight) was my emphasis on using visual approaches to provide tools that ease communication, and not necessarily generate data as a visual product. I now see this distinction as being particularly important. Why agonise over the process of setting and gathering indepedent research activities from children if my intention was to create an atmosphere for ease, conversation and interaction? Having devised an independent presentation and a group activity, the latter was by far the most efficient approach. I am extremely grateful for the efforts that the young people put into their independent activities, but I suspect I might have been able to save them some time had I started with the group activity.

On the day of the activity, I turned up at school laden with morning tea goodies. My visit, whilst pre-aranged was not in the school diary, nonetheless, a member of the administration team facilitated a space for me to meet the young people and then called them up on the intercom. The young people were also not expecting me, so I offered them the chance to opt in or out. All came along. Using low-tech pen and paper, they set about the task of writing a guide book (their prefered form of communication) on the topic of my research. They enjoyed the morning tea, conversing in-depth whilst they doodled, made lists and wrote ocassional sentences. The conversation was the source of rich data analysis, proving that the visual medium of the guide book served it purpose as a conversation starter. Equally important, I think we all had a pleasant morning.

 I have learned several important lessons from my Masters experience around researching with children and school:

1. We know that schools are busy places and present particular challenges for research activity, for example, around communication, access, recruiting participants, free space, and so on. This being the case, why design research that might be overly-reliant on multiple visits? I am not suggesting superficiality here. When our research is small scale, not directly related to curriculum activity, and lacking status of external funding or accomplished researchers, I have found simplicity to be most effective approach.

1. Be clear about the focus of my research. Am I researching methodology or a particular phenomenon? I may have gotten a little enthusiastic about the research design without really thinking about what I was asking of already busy young people. Lambert, Glacken and McCarron (2013) discuss achieving a balance between creative instruments and comonplace conversation when researching with children, and offer some very helpful key considerations in their paper.    doi: 10.1177/1744987112475249

1. Building a relationship with the children involved in research is critical, and if time is short and I am unable to meet with children, I must rely on ethical practices. Procedural ethics offer some widely recognised standards to scaffold research practices, but I would argue, these need to be substantiated by ethical reflexivity or ethical integrity. Maintaining ethical reflexivity involves ongoing critical self-analysis and scrutiny of the research process that moves beyond a simple form of self-confession. Ethics of reflexivity involve an acceptance that differences between researcher and participant extend beyond our research roles and practices, and include values, experiences and dispositions we bring to and maintain beyond the process.

If you'd like any literature references, let me know. :)