There are many questions concerning research that touch ethical considerations. Alver and Øyen (1997) called attention to the right of each individual to protect his or her living space, feeling of honor and pride, and integrity inside the boundaries of their culture (p. 14). These are important issues to consider when studying humans and their relationships. One cannot just be content with consequentialism, or to weight research needs against eventual risks for the respondents, but to consider more general principles as sacrosanct and justice. According to Alver and Øyer (1997) the researcher must have as a basis that certain deeds are just not acceptable even though they may lead to good consequences, and point to duty-ethics or the deontological principle (p. 14). Kent (2000) viewed deontological- and concequencial theories as two overarching theories in ethical philosophy but ethical dilemmas can also be dealt with guided by four principles and four rules. The four principles are: autonomy, beneficience, non-maleficence and justice, and the four rules are veracity, privacy, confidentiality, and fidelity (p.62-65). The principle of justice accounted for by Kent (2000) concerns fair entitlement to resources and that people should be treated fairly. At the University of Stavanger in Norway there is the possibility for all PhD students in the university’s PhD program to seek a certain amount of funding to support their research projects. This principal does not seem that relevant to discuss in this study, but the other issues will be addressed in the following text.
Alver and Øyen (1997) discuss the obligation of research to be in seeking the truth and continuously searching for better understanding and insight. In the process there are many considerations; Are there themes that are too dangerous to do research on? Will the research process be too risky for the participants? Who is to draw the boundaries, and where should they be?
Where and how are the boundaries determined for the researchers’ honesty
and moral? In what degree do the researchers own the results, and how are they to be published? These and more questions the authors discuss, but conclude that research involves risks because it seeks new knowledge and possible answers where there are no answers beforehand. If there were, there would be no need for research.
3.7.1 Permissions
In research it is essential to obtain a voluntary, informed consent from the participating respondents (Alver & Øyen, 1997). Permission to do the study was obtained from the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. The information that was sent, the collection and storing of data, was conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations that apply for scientific investigations. Permission was also sought and obtained from the municipality level (Appendix V) in six municipalities, which included daycare institutions and schools in both urban and rural areas. A lot of effort was put into giving a correct, written description of the project that was easy to understand, to ensure an informed consent from the participants. This written information about the project and an invitation to participate was then sent to the leaders of the establishments (Appendix VI) before participating teachers received the written information (Appendix VII) and instrument package with letters of guidance (Appendix VIII and IX). Some of these leaders chose not to participate in the study because they were involved with other projects or activities and did not want to give their staff an additional burden at that time.
The other leaders discussed the study with their staff and let them decide if they wished to participate. I was contacted by some of the daycare centers and schools who wished to participate in this study while I contacted those I had not heard from but had also received the information and invitation. There were more positive responses than I had anticipated and many pointed to the interesting theme of the study and not to my promise of giving a book-check to one daycare center and one school among the many that participated in this study. Permission was sought and obtained from four different levels:
National-, municipality-, institution-, and personal level. Respondents were also informed that they could cancel their participation in the study at any time. This is in line with the principle of autonomy where researchers are obliged to recognize a person’s right to agree or not agree to participate in the
study, and the rule of privacy where a person can limit access to information.
This also points to the importance of seeking and obtaining an informed consent. The rule of privacy is also connected to the rule of confidentiality (Kent, 2000). Disclosing information depends on how it will be presented and published and how well anonymity can be maintained.
3.7.2 Anonymity
Another important ethical issue is to ensure anonymity for all participants.
Alver and Øyer (1997) referred to the different challenges connected to quantitative and qualitative research traditions to ensure anonymity. With large data sets and methods of analyses with the aim of generalizing, it can be easier to conceal individuals compared to small data sets where there is more focus on meticulous descriptions, nuances, and details. To ensure anonymity of individuals, groups or institutions in the research report or presentation, certain aspects may have to be left out, and this may sometimes weaken the results (Alver & Øyen, 1997). When I report from the study, I have to make sure that individual participants will not be recognized. Since there are so many teachers from many different daycare centers and schools in this study, anonymity should not be difficult to abide by concerning data from questionnaires and Q sorts. I need to be extra careful when reporting interview data.
3.7.3 Beneficence
According to Kent (2000) the beneficence principle has to do with the
“obligation to take positive steps to help others” (p. 63). This points to researchers’ goals and justifications for doing their research. The background for this present project is to learn more about teachers’ beliefs and how this affects their work and their relations to children. A continuation of this is to help teachers become more conscious and reflective of their own thinking and practice in an effort to enhance teachers’ ability to meet children’s many diverse needs in the context of daycare and school.
3.7.4 Non-maleficence
This principle has to do with the obligation of not exposing people to unnecessary harm or risk (Kent, 2000). This present study is not a controversial experiment, but in every research project there can be an element of risk and both people and results need to be treated with respect.
Data in this case is collected from consulting adults who have agreed to share information about their beliefs concerning their role as teachers with me. This information will be treated respectfully and with the intent that no harm will come to those providing it. Data obtained through questionnaires, Q sorting, and interviews all call for a degree of reflection by the respondent. Q sorting probably requires more reflection than answering a Likert like scaled questionnaire, since the value aspect of one statement in relation to others as a whole, is incorporated in the Q sorting process. An interview situation is special since two people are together sharing time and attention on certain issues, and the use of probes or follow-up questions raises the possibility of even more reflection. The interview situation takes the researcher into the world where people live and work and opens up what is inside people.
According to Patton (1990) this type of inquiry “may be more intrusive and involve greater reactivity than surveys, tests, and other quantitative approaches” (p. 356).
Patton (1990) called attention to the power of interviews which are like interventions and their effect on people. According to him “A good interview can open up for thoughts, feelings, knowledge, and experience not only to the interviewer but also to the interviewee” (p. 353).
An interview can sometimes be change-inducing, through a reflection process that occurs during the interview and can leave the interviewee with knowledge of him or her self that they did not have or were not conscious of before the interview. The interviewer needs an ethical framework (Patton, 1990). Sometimes an interviewee may say more than first intended, or ask for help concerning a problem. Through research the intention of interviews is to gather good data, and not to be a therapist or problem-solver. With the understanding that the interviewee has something important and knowable to say, it is difficult not to be touched by what they share and tempting to try to
help if asked. In case of just such a situation I had some book titles concerning possible problem areas that I could pass on to them instead of dealing with the situation myself in this particular setting. This occurred in one case.
3.7.5 Veracity
Veracity deals with telling the truth and not withholding important information about the study when for example seeking potential respondents.
According to Kent (2000) “the rule of veracity regulates against deception”
(p.64). I have tried to abide by this rule in giving a correct and easy to read written information about the study to ensure an informed consent from participants. This is also an important aspect when presenting results.
3.7.6 Fidelity
This rule concerns promise keeping. Kent (2000) pointed to the number of implicit promises that researchers often make when engaging in a research project. He noted especially to be careful with information obtained and not to engage in fraud (p. 65). Social science research builds on trust (Kent, 2000)
“particularly that researchers will collect information and report their findings honestly and openly” (p. 66). Sometimes this obligation is disregarded, and fraud can not only be very damaging for those who indulge in it, but also for the reputation of the vaster scientific community. A recent example from Norway is the Sudbø case in January 2006 where data had been manipulated which may have had negative consequences for patient treatment of cancer, and for the use, distribution, and sale of medicine (Ekbom et al., 2006). This case also pointed to the responsibility of co-authors of articles published in scientific journals. There is a lot of money and honor involved in certain research topics through funding and through published articles. Although it may seem contradictory, the more a researcher publishes in adequate journals, the more time he or she is then granted to use on more research. On the other hand, with a decline in publications, less time will be granted to do research.
Without a solid ethical framework, there can be temptations too hard to resist, and some parts of a research project may become corrupted.
According to Kent (2000) most researchers have been tempted to engage in fraud sometime in their career and pointed to studies where half of undergraduates admitted to cheating. He mentions reasons such as: certain types of results are more valuable than others; furthering of careers;
advancing science; publishable results (p. 66). It seems quite clear that there are temptations, and this is a problem area that should be taken seriously, and hopefully is by most researchers. Ethics should be an important part of research education, but the question is how well is this followed up in colleges and universities at a time when it is extremely important to get students through in prescribed time.
Being aware of such temptations and their consequences can help steer away from them. In this present research project I have encountered different ways of using Q-technique, analyzing, and presenting Q-data. This has led to the need for me to study the philosophy behind Q-methodology more deeply, to be in a position to present this type of information correctly. In addition it has made me conscious of all the many small, but important steps throughout a research project no matter which method or methodology or combination of them one chooses to use. The many ethical issues described above, all contribute to guide our thinking, choices, and actions through potential risks in the pursuit of obtaining new knowledge through research. An essential condition is to be aware of them, reflect on them, and abide by them to the best of our ability.