1.

Case study: ethics in multidisciplinary research

Wellbeing and poverty pathways
Professor Sarah White

This project involved inter-disciplinary mixed method research in rural Zambia and
India. A quantitative model to assess ‘inner wellbeing’ (what people think and feel
themselves able to be and do) was developed using items generated within the study
contexts. Ethnographic observations and conversations were shared and recorded
through team meetings. Detailed open-ended life history interviews were also taken.

Ethical issues
A common ethics proposal was produced and ethics approval was received from UK and
Zambia. The Indian collaborating organisation did not have an ethics committee.

We experienced conflict within the team in the initial period of piloting due to a clash of
views and practices as a result of our different disciplinary approaches. For example
issues arose about written versus verbal consent and appropriate debriefing for
participants with limited literacy ability. A written de-briefing did not seem appropriate,
nor was it clear that respondents wished for an extended verbal de-briefing about the
project, at the end of what had often been an extended survey interview. Respondents
rarely asked for more details about the study even when invited to do so. We therefore
compromised by producing a written debriefing sheet which was provided to
respondents on request rather than given as a matter of course. Researchers
emphasised that participation was entirely voluntary and people could withdraw at any
point if they chose. The research officer’s phone number was supplied so people could
follow up with her if they wished.

In India, photographs of the families of people we interviewed were offered as

incentives due to participants’ frustration at not benefitting from the earlier round of
research. The local NGO partner advised against financial incentives, fearing that the
community would demand payment in their future survey work. The preparation time
required for the photographs provided an informal space in which we were able to
respond to participants’ questions (de-briefing) and provided a more social space in
which the research team and respondents were able to interact in a more equal and
natural way.

Local researchers played a vital role in the research process and fieldwork but also
raised ethical issues. To counteract any sampling bias we included interviews with
people from many different factions. Local team members were also privy to sensitive
information about some participants but we were sensitive to the fact that the team’s
information could be wrong, or participants might not want to reveal sensitive issues.

Some of the questions were inevitably personal, while the interview experience was as
conversational as possible, the survey included standardised responses to set
questions; we felt this was a form of disciplining respondents and believe strongly that
there is an ethical imperative to include qualitative approaches alongside quantitative
when claims are being made about people’s thoughts or feelings, to guard against
misinterpretation of the data.

Due to the political situation in Zambia and potential threat any publication could pose
to participants, we discussed it with participants and in team meetings. Local people
saw our research as a critical opportunity for their grievances to be heard at a national
level but we paid particular care when anonymising our data, to ensure individuals
could not be identified. Representatives from the villages were also presented with
papers before they went public.

We decided not to make alcohol abuse a major focus of attention in our policy briefs in
India. Although we recognised that this was a significant factor affecting wellbeing in
the communities, we were aware that extended discussion of this issue could easily be
co-opted into existing negative stereotypes of these communities. Due to language
barriers the India briefing paper was not presented to Indian representatives. Ideally a
Briefing Paper in Hindi would have also been produced.

Lessons
 In interdisciplinary teams ensure you have detailed discussions about the
practicality of research ethics early on, so you can avoid these erupting as crises
 in the field. In particular, issues of formal rules vs situational ethics need to be
discussed.
 Research is a social process. This cannot be avoided, so you need to work with it
and make it as positive and inclusive a process as possible. This is particularly
evident in political situations where engagement with communities is only
achievable through a local intermediary organisation.
 In primary research that makes claims about people’s thoughts or feelings there
is an ethical requirement to include qualitative approaches, to guard against
imposing outsider interpretations.
 It is impossible to avoid some form of local alignment – or being seen as such. It
is, however, important that you remain as open as possible to hearing from
people from all sides of a conflict, so that if you do engage in policy processes,
you do so from a broad base of knowledge and understanding.

2. Case study: working in a multi-lingual setting

Attitudes to Gaelic in Scotland
Professor Lindsay Paterson

This project aimed to fill the gap in evidence on public attitudes to Gaelic in Scotland
with a module of questions on attitudes to Gaelic in the annual Scottish Social Attitudes
Survey of 2012. It explored views about the use of Gaelic in public areas, the place of
Gaelic in education, the use of Gaelic in broadcasting, the place of Gaelic in regional,
Scottish and British identities, and attitudes to the future of Gaelic. The Gaelic language
has acquired growing prominence in Scotland in recent decades, but there was very
little evidence on public attitudes to the language, especially those of the Anglophone
majority. The objectives of the project were to generate high-quality quantitative data
that would provide answers to the research questions.

Ethical issues
There were two unusual aspects to the ethical approval of this work.

Ethical approval involved a partnership between the University of Edinburgh and

ScotCen Social Research, which runs the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSA).
ScotCen is the Scottish arm of NatCen Social Research, the UK’s leading provider of
academic social surveys. More recently (from 2008), NatCen introduced a system of
formal ethical review for all NatCen studies, via Research Ethics Committees (RECs).
This system is consistent with the ESRC's Research Ethics Framework. The SSA
received full REC ethical review in 2009. Each year SSA goes through an expedited
ethical review to address any issues arising from new question topics or changes to
procedures. Issues NatCen pays particular attention to on SSA are: informed consent;
confidentiality and data security; question sensitivity; and facilitating participation. This
partnership approach to ethical approval requires that the lead academic organisation
respects and trusts the ethical procedures of the partner.

The second distinctive ethical feature of the work concerned bilingual operation. It was
decided that, so far as was practicably feasible, the work of the project would be
conducted bilingually in Gaelic and English even though the main operating language
would be English. The language to be used in carrying out research in multi-lingual
settings is not only a matter of practicalities; it is also ethical. No-one in Scotland can
speak only Gaelic, but it was decided here that, on ethical grounds, it would not have
been acceptable to have conducted the survey only in English.

There were three main aspects of the bilingual working:

 All the survey materials were translated, and respondents were given the option
of completing them in Gaelic. Since ScotCen did not have suitably trained
bilingual interviewers, this translation in practice was used in the form of an
audio file in which questions were asked in Gaelic and to which the respondent
would answer on a laptop, all in the presence of a ScotCen interviewer. A
supplementary grant from Bòrd na Gàidhlig paid for this work. Although in the
event no respondent did choose the Gaelic option, the work left bilingual
materials that could be used for future training.
 The paperwork for the project’s advisory board was provided bilingually to the
extent that that was affordable.
 Both of the public briefings on the results of the work were provided bilingually.
One of these was issued during the campaign associated with the referendum on
Scottish independence held in September 2014; this bilingual publication
probably raised the profile of the Gaelic language during that debate.

Lessons
The two main lessons correspond to the two aspects of the ethical issues noted above:
As social scientific research becomes more extensive, for example in the era of ‘big
data’, partnership working is likely to become more common. Where a well-developed
ethical framework has been provided by one partner, it may then be desirable for all
partners to adopt it.

Researchers should consider and demonstrate cultural sensitivity in research design and
delivery. In our research, although the main operating language was English,
participants were given the option to complete the survey materials in Gaelic.