Understanding Research (14 page)

For beginners, absolute or otherwise, here are some practical tips to consider as your research design starts to take shape. In fact it would be a good idea to incorporate these inquires into your initial reading and research:

• If your department does not have documented ethical guidelines, there should be information available at the faculty or institutional level. These guidelines and handbooks are often written in quite dry, legalistic language as they are often construed in the interests of protecting the institution from prosecution. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile taking a look at these governing codes, particularly in cases where a researcher may be liable or required to gain official permission; researching legal minors (children under 16 in the UK) being a case point, participant-observation of groups engaged in semi-legal or illegal activities another.
  
• If there is an approval or consultative procedure in place, if not for bachelor/ master level then usually for Ph.D. and most certainly these days for faculty-level research, you need to locate the forms and integrate the time needed to get a response into your planning.
  ¹¹
  
• On that note: ethics form-filling usually takes place in the earlier stages of a longer research project, though usually once you are clear about the question and elected data-gathering mode. In some departments, anthropology in particular, fieldwork cannot proceed until approval has been gained. For fieldwork in some parts of the world researchers also need to undergo a governmental-level approval of access process; postcolonial societies are particularly sensitive to these protocols, given the chequered history of research encounters in the colonial period and since.
  
• Whatever level you are at, try and integrate this aspect into the research design phase; do a first draft of any ethics forms you may need to submit; in Appendix 3 is one example. Use this as reference point when discussing your options with your supervisor/s or mentors, who may well have quite opposing opinions on the exercise or how you approach it.
  
• Be prepared to have to perhaps revise your plans if serious objections are raised.
  
• All these concerns are becoming not only more acute but under more scrutiny in computer-mediated or web-based research. Online research ethics are being written and existing ones adjusted with the rise of virtual ethnographic research, research into virtual worlds and gaming, web-mapping tools, and the boom in user-generated texts (e.g. reader comments on news media websites) where traditional editorial gatekeeping has been arguably superseded if not transformed; more on these matters in
  Chapter 5
  .
  

Figure 3.6
Human–machine ethics

Source
: Nina Paley:
http://www.ninapaley.com

In short, if you treat the ethics practicalities as more than just ticking boxes, as more than a subsidiary to the project, you stand a good chance of not only getting approval (if required), some productive feedback or suggestions about what to look out for (if this is part of an educative process), but also a more rounded project design.

The rules of thumb below are based on what
not
to avoid when considering ethical implications for your project. This is because ethics cut both ways; as negative and positive limitations to what researchers do. Remember that in some parts of the world, fields or settings research is a contentious undertaking.

1. Excesses on the institutional side or cavalier attitudes on the researcher’s side (history and scholarly critiques are full of these examples) notwithstanding, ethics are as much a philosophical issue as they are a minefield of cultural and social sensitivities.
   
2. Belief systems and worldviews play a prominent role here in terms of how ethics are practised in the field, institutionalized in academic departments, or even ignored by some researchers claiming immunity from the above considerations.
   

You can tick boxes or you can take the ethics protocols on board in such a way as to strengthen the project and ultimately your methodological rationale. Here are those things that are best
not
to avoid:

• Don’t avoid looking into whether there are general ethical considerations or specific implications for your project. Thinking through foreseen, and then unforeseen issues actually strengthens your work in the long run.
  
• For the above reason, don’t avoid taking action – adjust, rethink, or desist as need be – further on if an ethical issue emerges or you discover late in the day an aspect overlooked, for example, not having gained informed consent or access permission, or citing words by online interlocutors without their knowledge. A Ph.D. defence is not the place to be confronted with this news.
  
• For online scenarios in ‘open cyberspace’, don’t avoid checking whether there are ethical issues around observation, access, and informed consent in those forums you are investigating. This is even more pressing if you are working in a password-protected space on the web; even if a member already, this does not mean it is alright to lurk. Many researchers have found out, particularly when in spaces from other cultures or particular interest groups or subcultures, that other participants may not take too kindly to being research objects.
  
• Don’t avoid gaining consent, at the outset and during the research either. If objections arise during the course of your stay, or dynamics change, these need to be accounted for and it is in your interest, in fact, to note how these shifts in access and acceptance affect the observation, and participation.
  
• Don’t avoid dealing with these obligations by stating that (a) a project rests on your doing covert research, or (b) has to be ‘objective’. Whilst there may well be interesting theoretical debates on these matters to attend to, at the practical level you will see that all codes of ethics, and forms you may need to fill in, have clear guidelines here.
  
• Finally, a word on attitude: it is a good idea to avoid cynicism or sarcasm where possible, even if the ethics form is a formality for your work. Ethics cut both ways and also have multiple applications. Even textual analysis (e.g. online texts and images) now fall under overlapping terms of use and reproduction; for instance Facebook and Flickr images reside with these service providers yet ethically permission to use, or cite is also a matter for she or he who posted them, assuming of course that these images are theirs!
  

Whether or not they are mandatory, ethics forms and, when they arise, dilemmas need not stop you in your tracks. Nor should they prevent you from undertaking a creative, innovative piece of research. Rather, see them as part of the territory; their many facets and non-resolvable nature as integral to the theory–method relationship pertinent to your inquiry.
¹²

If your department or institution is not forthcoming (though it would be surprising these days if there was no information at all on ethical matters), see the useful checklist provided by the UK-based Social Research Association (2003: 53–56). A comprehensive discussion is the
European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
by the European Science Foundation (
www.esf.org/activities/mo-fora/research-integrity.html
). Other associations with well-developed codes and supplementary guidelines online are

General discussions and applied topics are also available in Berg (2007), Berry (2000), Denzin and Lincoln (2005), Gray (2009), Ratcliffe (2001), Silverman (2011), and Smith (1999). As for specific ethical issues, practical and more conceptual, pertaining to either an issue-area or within a particular discipline, consult the relevant journals and book catalogues for research-based examples.

A valuable resource is your supervisor. This relationship is one that develops as your project does so all the more reason for you to take a proactive approach to supervision in its formal and informal dimensions. Coping with tensions in the research process brings us to how the supervisor has an important role to play in helping students to overcome these tensions. Having an audience that is both critical (their role is to challenge you) and supportive (they want you to succeed) is something that needs nurturing at the same time, as it is perhaps the first professional working relationship students develop in their research lifetime, in the shorter or longer term.

Oftentimes the supervisory relationship is taken as read; moreover, it can well be a source of anxiety if not tension for some. This introductory section discusses not only the formal role of a research supervisor but also how students can ‘manage’ their supervisors, along with their own expectations of the supervisory process. Whilst there are many cultural and disciplinary variations to this relationship, one principle holds for all interactions: at the very least, aim to arrive at supervisory appointments prepared and hope to leave them feeling they have been worth the effort even if they have not always been comfortable, or comforting.

First, let’s look at it from one side of this relationship; we will deal with the other side in
Chapter 8
. The role of the supervisor is, foremost, to provide advice on the research topic, provide assistance on sources of material and give feedback on written work. The supervisor is expected to give feedback on interpretation, writing skills, written work, and to provide guidance on academic conventions, and the planning and completion of the thesis. On the other hand, students are responsible for undertaking the research needed to complete the thesis, for formulating the principal ideas contained within it, and for writing up the results according to the formats expected (see
Chapter 8
); earlier points on how formalities and originality interrelate are a case in point.

However it is gone about, early on the main objective is to get agreement between supervisor and student on key deadlines, meeting times, and mutual expectations. This can only be achieved through regular contact and open channels of communication.

But these exhortations, and many more, beg the question of why a supervisor is necessary for student researchers. In other words, what special skills do supervisors bring to the supervisor–supervisee relationship?

1. First, your supervisor will have successfully completed a research project at least one level higher than the one being undertaken by the supervisee. Or, they have specific skills or knowledge of an area.
   
2. In the first instance they understand the institutional rules that are in place regarding completion deadlines and they keep an eye on these, nudging you along when it seems time is passing without much progress. They can also offer guidance about reading as well as alert you to substantive issues in your research.
   
3. Finally, supervisors will also have an idea when your research is complete and ready for submission, or to be defended. For new researchers this is sometimes the most difficult aspect of the research process – knowing when it is finished and what it takes to get there.
   

One reason why supervisors and supervisees can find themselves at loggerheads is this undertow of mutual expectation; we all harbour ideal-types. So, ask yourself the questions in
Table 3.1
, depending on your role in the above process.

Until we return to this relationship and other points about feedback towards the end of a project’s lifecycle, the following pointers are for you to consider as you get your project off the ground and get to know your supervisor.

• A good working relationship between supervisor and supervisee requires communication. It is actually up to supervisees to work on keeping the supervisor informed of any major issues, in the research or personal, that may affect the timely completion of the research.
  
• This means that student-researchers need to more proactive in contacting and scheduling meetings with their supervisors than many think is necessary. This is in order to avoid some common pitfalls such as inadequate planning, misunderstandings, failure to stick to deadlines and the mutual distrust or resentment that can ensue.
  
• Good communication and being adequately prepared for meetings help anyway. But they are also crucial for pinpointing specific needs; any research training needs can be planned and undertaken, and alternative plans can be developed in the event the initial research plan turns out not to be feasible.
  
• Even though the dissertation or thesis is an individual research project, working too much in isolation can be detrimental to the research process. Keeping in touch with a supervisor, and others, can ease the isolation.
  
• However, at some point you will need to do the work, not just talk about all the problems you are having doing it; supervisors and classmates are neither our parents, nor our therapists.
  
• Serious issues that are affecting your ability to work are best dealt with by a trained professional. If it is all getting too much (and this happens) or if you are dealing with personal distress, let your supervisor know so they can refer you to the appropriate support services. All universities have counselling and health professionals in place for these contingencies.
  

Time-pressures and a tendency to see what is often referred to as the ‘deliverable’ as an end in itself and our supervisors as merely instrumental to this end is, paradoxically given the competitiveness of most research cultures, not where the real value of the supervisory relationship and research process as a whole really lie.

Before getting too far ahead of ourselves, this chapter draws to a close by considering the points raised so fair from a bird’s-eye view; the road that lies ahead and its various highways and cul-de-sacs is as much a rule-bound as it is an uncharted territory.