Transcript Ethics Seminar 2015: Sana Rizvi (Office document, 375kB)

Ethical Challenges
to Researching within a
South Asian Context
BY SANA RIZVI
DOCTORAL RESEARCHER
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL
Role of Gatekeepers in researching
ethnic minorities
What are Gatekeepers?
Play a crucial role in qualitative research
Specifically research that involves working
with ethnic minorities by acting as mediators
Allow continued access between the
researcher and the participants.
Role of Gatekeepers in researching
ethnic minorities
“They have the power to deny access to the
researcher and they may also influence whether
individuals opt in and out of a process. By
negotiating directly with prospective research
participants, gatekeepers can speed up the
recruitment process . By acting as cultural
mediators or brokers they can help the researcher
become more culturally competent”
(McAreavey and Das, 2013, pg 116).
Role of Gatekeepers in researching
ethnic minorities
Gatekeepers can serve to legitimise the researcher within the
community.
Exercise an asymmetrical power relationship with the researchers
Can influence various aspects of the research process:
◦ What counts as good research
◦ What constitutes a good participants.
Power dynamics, difference of values and trust between the
researcher and the gatekeeper therefore influences issues around
inclusion/exclusion of an already marginalised minority group and
how they are represented in the research.
Incentives to Engage in Research
Why should Gatekeepers agree to facilitate your research process?
Clark (2010) suggests three main mechanisms that support their engagement with
research
Political Representation
Civic and Moral Responsibility
Good Practice and Facilitating Change
Other incentives/ rationale to engage in research might be
Perceived affiliation with a group/institution
Researcher positionality/status
The Gatekeepers in my Research with
South Asian Families
MA research at University of Birmingham, “Provision for Learners
with SLD/PMLD from Ethnic Minority Families ”- (Rizvi and Limbrick,
2015)
MPhil research at University of Cambridge, “Exploring South Asian
Mothers’ Perception of their Child with Disability: Insights from a UK
Context”- (Rizvi, 2015)
PhD research at University of Bristol, “South Asian Maternal
Perspectives on having a Child with a Special Educational Need
and/or Disability”
Rationale for Research Engagement
FORMAL GATEKEEPERS (SCHOOLS)
IN PREVIOUS STUDIES
INFORMAL GATEKEEPERS (PARENT
SUPPORT GROUP AND COMMUNITY)
IN THE CURRENT STUDY
Good Practice and
Facilitating Change
Civic and Moral
Responsibility
Affiliation with a
Prestigious Academic
Institution
Affiliation with Prestigious
Academic Institution
Perceived insider status to
the South Asian
community
Issues in working with
Formal Gatekeepers
Parental Mistrust and Coerced Consent
May find school setting intimidating
◦ based on their own schooling experiences
◦ Or due to their current relationship with their child 'schools.
Ethical issues may have arisen regarding
◦ reliability of answers given in a school-setting,
◦ parents may have felt obligated to answer in favour of the School
or not to express dissatisfaction.
Calls Consent into Question
Issues in working with
Formal Gatekeepers
Parental Mistrust and Coerced Consent
Ethical concerns about gaining permission from
the school and parents to examine the annual
reviews.
Verbal Consent & Written Parental Consent Forms
Vulnerability of participants
Compromise of trust and integrity
Issues in working with
Formal Gatekeepers
School Policy, Beliefs and Attitudes
Communication about the Parent’s right to refuse and/or
withdraw from the research at any time was communicated
in English language
◦ School insisted it was not their policy to communicate in
different ethnic languages.
Many parents did not have English as first language.
Affected the degree to which consent, research objectives
and research findings were understood by parents.
Issues in working with
Formal Gatekeepers
Confidentiality and Anonymity
School’s role as a gatekeeper greatly affected
issues around confidentiality and anonymity.
◦The participants were recruited as part of
purposive sampling
◦Therefore schools were acutely aware of each
family’s circumstances.
Issues in working with
Formal Gatekeepers
Surveillance
Participants may feel they are being watched or
judged by the school
Researcher may come across as surveillance tool
Affects participant responses as parents may feel
they have to conform to certain notions of
parenting and what ideal home-school
relationship should be.
Issues in working with
Informal Gatekeepers
Confidentiality in a small community
“In our community there is no such thing as
confidentiality”- Mother
Lack of procedure
No proper records of participants. Snowballing to ask for
accurate contact details can compromise anonymity.
Influencing inclusion/exclusion criteria
“I wouldn’t contact her if I were you”Support Group Coordinator
Issues in working with
Informal Gatekeepers
Difference in values, beliefs and attitudes
Its down to consanguinity, isn't it? –
Support Group Coordinator 1
Assumed Community Representatives
gatekeepers may be focused on maintaining their own
integrity/status within the community and would not let
a researcher jeopardise their position.
They may only recruit participants that affirm their
assumed status in the community.
Concluding Notes
Inclusive research may often be intricately
tied to the role of a gatekeeper .
‘Credible knowledge’ is dependant on the
gatekeeper’s involvement
Gatekeeper’s involvement may reduce the
participant’s ownership or control in that
research process.
Concluding Notes
This is vital for research that claims to challenge
stereotypes around an already marginalised
community, as it can end up reinforcing these
marginalised communities as problematised groups.
Possible step forward Situational Ethics: Taking
context into account in order to be ethical
Research must aim for inclusive knowledge base
rather than following a set ethical template.
References
Clark, T. (2011). Gaining and Maintaining Access Exploring the Mechanisms
that Support and Challenge the Relationship between Gatekeepers and
Researchers. Qualitative Social Work, 10(4), 485-502.
Das, C., & McAreavey, R. (2013). A delicate balancing act: Negotiating with
gatekeepers for ethical research when researching minority communities.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 113-131
Rizvi, S. and Limbrick, P. (2015). Provision for learners with SLD/PMLD from
ethnic minority families. In The Routledge Companion to Severe, Profound
and Multiple Learning , edited by Lacey, P., Ashdown, R., Jones, P., Lawson,
H. and Pipe, M.
Rizvi, S. (2015)(in press). Exploring British Pakistani mothers perception of
their child with disability: insights from a UK context. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs.
Thank you