preston-shoot reflections on ethical research.pdf

8/11/2019 preston-shoot Reflections on Ethical Research.pdf

1/23

Reections on Ethical Research

in Action: Working at the Practice Edge

Michael Preston-Shoot, Veronica Wigley,Isabella McMurray and Helen Connolly

This paper draws on the experience of one research project in action to evaluatethe usefulness of research ethics frameworks when the environment surrounding

project negotiation, data collection and dissemination is seriously disturbed by critical incidents. The paper questions the lack of emphasis in research ethicscodes on the competence and capacity of agencies when commissioning and sponsoring research. Using events that surrounded one project, the paper researches the research. It explores what impacted on the creation of thecontext for ethical and effective research and how the researchers responded tothe ethical challenges that emerged. Different theoretical understandings and ethical models are drawn upon to explore how a research team translated ethical research in theory into ethical research in practice within an organiza-tion in turmoil.

Keywords Research Ethics; Duty of Care; Situation Ethics; Research in Action

Introduction

Contemporary concern with promoting good research practice, enhancing ethicalawareness and profiling accountability focuses predominantly on what factorsshould be considered and what arrangements should be instituted beforeprojects commence. For this purpose, and when identifying and responding tofactors that obstruct such expectations, ethical guidelines are designed toenable individual research judgements to be informed by shared values andexperience, and to be underpinned by widely held principles (SRA 2003).

This paper, on the other hand, explores a series of interrelated dilemmas thatarose after ethical approval had been obtained, monitoring arrangements put inplace and data collection begun. It is grounded in the real world of agencies and

ISSN 1749-6535 print/1749-6543 online/08/020150-22

Professor Michael Preston-Shoot is Dean of the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University ofBedfordshire, UK, Veronica Wigley is an independent research consultant based in Sheffield, UK,Isabella McMurray is a researcher in the Division of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, UK, andHelen Connolly is a PhD student in the Department of Applied Social Studies, University ofBedfordshire, UK. Correspondence to: Michael Preston-Shoot, University of Bedfordshire, Faculty of

Health and Social Sciences, Park Square, Luton, LU1 3JU. E-mail: [email protected]

ETHICS AND SOCIAL WELFARE VOLUME 2 NUMBER 2 (JULY 2008)


2/23

practice, which perhaps offers a more solid foundation for the discussion ofresearch ethics in action. The purpose is to contribute to debates about researchethics and governance, and to improve ethical literacy, especially withinagencies that commission or sponsor research and within higher education

institutions that must increasingly ensure ethical practice. Additionally, itsuggests that preoccupation with ethical questions whilst research projects arebeing configured mistakenly sidelines the imperative of enhancing researchquality across the entire process. Indeed, recorded experiences, and the insightsthey generate, may help to ground research ethics and to render them lessabstract and more practical (Alderson & Morrow 2006).

Question Definition

For researchers and managers to understand and apply standards, principles andrequirements of research governance correctly, they depend on a qualityresearch culture that promotes excellence and is facilitated by strong researchleadership (DH 2005) including within agencies that sponsor research. The ethicalissues addressed in this paper are twofold. What if clear and supportivemanagement arrangements in the field are not present or break down? Howshould researchers respond when an environment no longer exists wherein allparties can address openly and constructively issues derived from participating in

research?

Ethical Guidance

Policy pronouncements on research ethics focus predominantly on the proposalsand behaviours of researchers and the safeguarding of research participants.Thus, appraisal of social care proposals should include the competence ofresearchers, the nature of the data sought, the appropriateness of proposed

collection methods and the utility of the research. This appraisal embraces theprivacy offered to participants and the relationship between the researchers andthose actively involved in the research, and the degree to which researchers haveconsidered and addressed the likelihood of harm to participants (DH 2004). TheEconomic and Social Research Councils core principles (2005) include theintegrity and quality of the research, informed consent and voluntary participa-tion, data confidentiality, storing of data and avoiding harm to participants, withlimited discussion afforded to the period after the research in the form ofdissemination of the findings. The Social Research Association (2003) and theBritish Psychological Society (2006) have issued similar guidelines. The focus issquarely on the risks to service users of poorly conducted research, and on theknowledge and skills of the researchers, with parallels to human rights as

ETHICAL RESEARCH IN ACTION 151


3/23


4/23

research. The emphasis is principally upon the avoidance of harm to, andempowering and promoting the welfare of, participants. Once again, thatresearchers must be technically competent is stressed but on this occasion thereis implicit recognition that the working context may not be entirely benign.Social workers are urged to uphold the code of ethics even though theiremployers policies may not be compatible with its provisions.

For maintaining professional standards and ethical positions, codes andguidance utilize core principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. This approach has been criticized for lacking founda-tional theory, obstructing ethical enquiry, being Western dominated, andpromoting an individualistic bias (Israel & Hay 2006). Hardwick and Hardwick(2007), however, suggest that situation ethics, with its emphasis upon thecontingent rather than the categorical nature of moral response, offers a useful

basis for the ethical review of social care research because the uniqueness ofcontexts and the moral choices faced by researchers cannot be translated easilyinto principles. This does not mean that situation ethicists are not informed byany fundamental principles at all. Indeed, they acknowledge the need for humanconduct to be guided (as opposed to bound) by the principles embodied withinthe collective moral system. However, at the core of their philosophy is thebelief that harnessing human action to any fixed body of moral precepts ratherthan personal acumen can potentially serve to undermine the uniqueness of asituation, the choices surrounding it and, ultimately, the best interests of thoseinvolved. One such unique situation, and the choices surrounding it, forms thespringboard for this paper.

Literature Survey

The social care research literature is not exactly replete with examples ofcomplex practical problems with ethical implications arising during researchprojects. Israel and Hay (2006) do, however, give examples of difficult ethical

problems encountered by social scientists. This has been attributed to gate-keeping by journal editors and researchers, both of whom prefer to publishsuccessfully concluded designs (Alderson & Morrow 2006; Shaw & Norton 2007),and to the uncomfortable nature of discussing research difficulties anddisappointments (OConnor 1992; Grinyer 2001). There has, however, been alongstanding critical evaluation of the experience of researching in feministresearch in general and in ethnography in particular. Stacey (1988), for example,talks about the ethical difficulties of managing relationships in the field:

. . . fieldwork represents an intrusion and intervention into a system of relation-ships, a system of relationships that the researcher is far freer than theresearched to leave. The inequality and potential treacherousness of this



5/23

This experience resonates with some of the difficulties shared, if not reported,by social care researchers working closely with professionals in Britain.

There has been some concern about the lack of information about howdifficult ethical decisions have been made in the course of research projects.

Burke (2007), in response to a perceived lack of detailed discussion of ethicalissues in qualitative research in social work, both describes her own experiencesand makes a plea for the allocation of more space by editors for such discussionin academic papers. Similarly, Dickson-Swift et al . (2007) draw attention to thelack of research on the effects of doing qualitative research on researchers, butagain the focus is on reflections on their own experience rather than on therelationship between the host agency or institution and staff or service users.

Other exceptions are papers by Grinyer (2001) and by Gallagher et al . (1995),both of which explore dilemmas when actually undertaking research that hasbeen ethically approved. The authors are sanguine about the helpfulness of theadvice that may be gleaned from ethical guidelines about how to deal withparticular issues and choice points in research. Each offers some approaches orsolutions for managing such issues as informed consent, the disclosure ofconfidential information and the handling of findings. Gallagher and colleagues(1995) refer to three approaches for managing ethical dilemmas. By expedientthey mean adopting or adapting practical strategies that are likely to facilitateprogress. By value driven they refer to individual researchers negotiating ethicaldilemmas from their preferred orientation rather than from prescribed moral andphilosophical frameworks. By pragmatic they mean resolving competing dilem-

mas by employing a cost/benefit assessment that is intrinsically shaped by theirpersonal value system. Their solutions include seeking advice from colleagues,using steering groups, and returning to ethics committees. For Grinyer (2001),the discretion left by ethical codes to individual researchers is a space that canbe filled by training and by dialogue between the parties involved. Similarly,Hardwick and Hardwick (2007) advocate situation ethics because of the dangerthat procedural requirements will become givens and mean that the uniquenessof a situation will not be appreciated. They argue for an ethical review ofresearch that reflects the complexities of the social world, human agency, andthe realities of the individuals and groupings involved. For them, review relies onprofessional judgement and moral discernment, informed by the ethical maximsof the researchers. It might equally be influenced by other knowledge bases,such as service user views, research reports and theories capable of illuminatingpractice.

Research Project

Two of the authors had previously conducted research within this department(Preston-Shoot & Wigley 2005). This project was commissioned by a SocialServices Department with the overarching aim of assessing outcomes for looked-

154 PRESTON-SHOOT ET AL.


6/23

there were no other links, such as the provision of practice learning for students,between the department and the researchers university location.

Three stages were envisaged for the project, each building on the informationalready gathered. Stage 1 would provide information regarding the different

forms of residential care offered within the authority, the aims of different formsof provision and the extent to which they were meeting the needs of children andyoung people in their care. The next two stages were conceived as a longitudinalmultiple case study design over a five-year period. Stage 2 would identifybaseline measures, the prevalence of risk factors and the initial outcomes forchildren who became looked after in the course of this stage, coupled withoutcomes for those who were at risk of becoming looked after but were currentlyliving with their family. Importantly, it would also provide information about theperspectives of those involved, focusing mainly on children, parents and social

workers but including foster parents and residential workers where appropriate.Stage 3 would evidence the longer term outcomes for the sample of young peopleengaged in stage 2, continuing to explore factors related to the social worker,residential worker, parents, and the child themselves, and the settings in whichthe young people lived, in order to see how these influenced the outcomes forthe children or young people. Ethical approval was given by the University ofBedfordshires Institute of Applied Social Research and by senior managers in theorganization sponsoring the research. A steering group, comprising seniormanagers, social workers, foster carers, residential workers and managers, andlooked-after young people, met throughout the project and routinely focused on

ethical issues, such as preserving confidentiality for participants when presentingreports and obtaining informed consent from young people and parents whendescribing research objectives.

Stage 1 was concluded successfully. It used qualitative methods, augmentedby data derived from standardized questionnaires to gather information aboutyoung peoples behaviour and emotional state. Information was gathered from 22young people, care staff and managers in residential homes, and from socialworkers. At the beginning of stage 2 social workers were asked to examine theircase lists and identify children and young people whom they perceived as being

at risk of becoming looked after. Social workers were provided with a list of riskfactors aggregated from child protection literature (Powell 2003; Preston-Shoot2003) as well as being invited to add children they felt were likely to becomelooked after but who did not meet any of the criteria listed. They were asked toidentify risk factors for these additional children. After consultation with socialworkers it was decided that some children should not be interviewed as it mightbe detrimental to their well-being. Although the final sample was selectedthrough an informal assessment of being at risk of becoming looked after, itwas representative of the departments overall work with children in need andchildren requiring protection in terms of age and gender.

Outcomes were broadly defined as those set out in the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families (DH 2000). Using this



7/23

were conducted with 32 social workers. These interviews were designed togather information about and understand the holistic well-being of this purposivesample of 52 children (31 males and 21 females, aged between 0 and 16) whowere looked after or at risk of becoming looked after. Various standardized

measures were also used to gauge perceptions of a young persons strengths anddifficulties, well-being, self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy.

The processes that are analysed below occurred during stage 2 and resulted inthe project being halted during data collection for that stage. Althoughanticipated as a short-term measure, in fact the project has not recommencedas the department has engaged in a major review of its child care policies,procedures and practices, led by newly appointed senior managers.

Creating the Context for Ethical Research

The focus of ethical guidelines for researchers quite reasonably draws attentionto their reasons for undertaking particular projects. Some motivations mayrevolve around a desire to empower service users and to improve services byproviding useful findings; others may centre on pursuing particular lines ofenquiry, achieving personal and/or professional development, or contributing toa university departments research rating. Purposes may be concerned witheffecting change and/or knowledge production, and focused upon clinical workor the experiences of those receiving services (Glasby & Beresford 2006; Oliver1999). Faulkner (2004) consulted mental health service users and survivors inorder to develop ethical guidelines for research carried out by or with them, butdescribes the guidelines as useful for research involving service users in general.Participants in the research concurred with suggested widely accepted principlesbut also added that a commitment to change was a critical element of ethicalresearch. All this points to the importance of researchers understanding theircontext, and their own place within it (McAdam & Lang 1994), especially thekinds of influences that context exerts.

However, if research is to be ethical, the commissioners reasons for

supporting particular projects must be valid ethically, as must the context inwhich the research is undertaken. Some social care research may be commis-sioned in order to use the findings to improve services; in other instances,however, the motivation may be to provide a rationale to delay decision makingor to justify a proposed policy shift. Indeed, the aims and aspirations ofcommissioning agencies may not always be made explicit (Shaw & Norton 2007).Nor might the contextual factors likely to affect data collection and implemen-tation of the findings * /political, organizational, structural, financial and rela-tional (Matland 1995) * /be fully understood or considered. Thus, ethically literateresearchers might seek to understand how a research request fits with anagencys tasks, context and the services it offers (McAdam & Lang 1994), and toquestion whether an operational rather than a research response might be more



8/23

Perhaps crucial for ethical research is what happens at the researcher /commissioner interface. Humphries (2007) draws attention to the danger ofsocial work researchers becoming enslaved by the demands of their paymasters.Compromises in research design may be negotiated or, indeed, imposed by

sponsors because of timeframes for data availability, levels of accessible funding,and directed objectives or structures into which the researchers have to fit(Lloyd et al . 1996; Braye & Preston-Shoot 2005). Drawing on principles ofsystemic practice with families and organizations (McAdam & Lang 1994),researchers might usefully respond to requests by giving close attention to howthey themselves are perceived, to the stories and events, ideas and beliefs thathave led to their being commissioned. This research team was already wellknown to the commissioning agency, such that it might have been trusted with atroubling, even painful, brief, or perceived as likely to be less directly

confrontative.Equally, researchers will frequently be working within councils with socialservices responsibilities whose track record of acting lawfully and/or unethicallyis highly variable, judging by judicial review outcomes, health and safety at workcase law and reports from the Commissioner for Local Administration. These arealso the contexts where research indicates that managers and practitioners maycollude in respect of unacceptable service provision (Machin 1998; Horwath2000). Such contexts reinforce the importance of seeking to understand, ratherthan draw a veil across, the research setting and, therefore, the rationale forconducting a particular project at a given time.

However, although recognizing that relationships are pivotal to effective andsuccessful research outcomes (Israel & Hay 2006), in this project the researchersinitially accepted the commissioning agencys stated goal. This was to use dataon the outcomes for looked-after young people to reconfigure the balance ofsettings in which care was provided, rather than to interrogate how managersand practitioners in that agency, together with residential and foster careproviders, appreciated the context in which they were working. In common withother projects (Braye & Preston-Shoot 2005; France 1996), discussions on theresearch brief centred on safer dilemmas, such as timeframes and methodolo-

gical debates, and took place within the commissioner system rather than acrossall the levels and with stakeholders within and beyond the funding agency.Positions and perspectives were not entirely unknown in this example. The

researchers knew how some senior managers viewed strengths and weaknesseswithin child care teams and services for looked-after children. Indeed, theresearchers had previously been critical of the standards of social work practicein the same agency (Preston-Shoot 2003). However, whilst this might havetriggered further cautious reflection within the research team and between itand the agency within which they were working, it did not appear to question theintegrity of the project at this point. Equally, as stage 2 was being negotiated,the commissioning agency had already used stage 1 findings in contractualnegotiations about the future shape, provision and delivery of residential care



9/23

physical care but variable responses to their emotional needs. The interfacebetween social services and both education and housing required urgentattention at strategic management and operational levels. There was a lack ofclarity about role expectations and role requirements at all levels, especially in

relation to assessment and decision making, care planning and recording. Therewas a lack of information in social services systems about peoples needs, withadditionally significant gaps in service provision and shortcomings in planning foryoung people and levels of partnership.

The researchers also knew that some social workers were cynical about thelikely impact on resources of the research and about the use by managers ofconsultants and researchers. To some degree the researchers shared suchscepticism, having been concerned historically about the degree to whichfindings had been used or shelved. Nonetheless, the researchers did not followadvice (Grinyer 2001; McAdam & Lang 1994), namely to understand how researchis perceived by all those involved. The researchers did not explore howperspectives about child care provision or the proposed research played outwithin the commissioning agency, nor indeed how low morale had become inparts of it, nor what the impact had been in terms of relationships of thecontractual changes made in contracts for the provision of residential care. Why,then, at the point of research negotiation did the researchers not discuss thecommissioning agencys commitment and ability to act on the evidenceobtained? Whilst agreeing with the commissioning agency the content or taskof the project at stage 2, what took the researchers away from a position of

curiosity (Cecchin 1987) or space for reflective consciousness (Hardwick &Hardwick 2007)? This would have encouraged self-reflexive analysis in terms ofwhat was happening to the researchers, and relational-reflexive analysis in termsof how the participants could develop and use the opportunities provided by theresearch to engage with each other to explore ways in which they were relatingand to elaborate the potential in their working together. At least part of theanswer lies in the context for and dynamics surrounding this particular project.

SecretsSystemically, a secret in a family and/or professional system is something thateveryone knows but nobody is allowed to discuss. The secret, which it is not opento people to explore, may be particular beliefs or the way people behave and theproblems they have developed in the context of people and things around them(Stratton et al . 1990). At least four secrets were operating in the contextsurrounding this project. One was the authoritys geographical context, and theinsularity this created. The impact on child protection systems of insularity hasbeen noted (SWIA 2005). The pool of professional expertise may be smaller,especially as resources may be limited and complex cases not routinelyencountered, and training opportunities may be more limited. Furthermore,



10/23

to communities in respect of whose members they may have to take unpopular ordifficult decisions. As recommended in the SWIA report, this authority hadengaged several consultants and research teams but effecting change was notstraightforward.

The second secret was the degree to which the senior management team inthe commissioning agency had the change leadership skills necessary. These arethe different attributes required in order to manage the diverse tasks andprocesses involved in managing change. Personal communication with membersof the team indicated strengths in initiating ideas and work but weaknesses inkeeping track of progress, monitoring and responding to the emotional climate,and completing tasks.

The third secret was the lack of corporate responsibility within the authorityas a whole for the well-being of young people and adults requiring care andservices as a result of being in need or concerns about protection. The interfacebetween social services and other departments within the authority had beenraised both in stage 1 and in the planning of stage 2, and in earlier research but,as the research had been commissioned by social work managers, the researchersdid not have direct access to other departmental managers or with politicaldecision makers and could only suggest data collection and disseminationmethods that would involve them.

The fourth secret was an ongoing inquiry into the policies, procedures andpractices surrounding an incident which was widely expected to be exceedinglycritical of the standards of child care social work within the organization. Whilst

outwardly the agency presented as business as usual, such that its functioningappeared stable, behind the surface lay internal intra-personal distress andanxiety, and inter-personal tensions.

In order to avoid difficult emotions and behaviours these secrets were notconfronted openly but were regulated instead through the use of distanceregulators (Stratton et al . 1990). For example, the layout of the spaces occupiedby managers and different social work teams made face-to-face communicationdifficult. Senior managers in social services controlled the boundary betweenthemselves and the wider authority of which they were a part, meaning that theresearchers had very few opportunities in which to use research findings tochallenge the degree of expressed system corporateness for young people andtheir families.

The Referring Person

A research referral may be motivated as much by the desire to avoid anxietyand to maintain a professional position as to achieve change. The referrersobjective may be to take the heat out of problematic relationships by calling inan expert who is invited to move between the referrer and the otherparticipants, such that direct communication between members of this dyad is



11/23

unchanged. This suggests a focus for researchers on the position of the referrer inthe system being presented as the research location, and on interactions withinand between organizational systems in order to avoid becoming triangulated orincorporated into an agencys relationship patterns (Preston-Shoot & Agass

1990). This interactional focus, especially where all participants are broughttogether, allows researchers to avoid the pitfalls of becoming enmeshed insecrets and alliances. Enmeshment means a loss of leverage because researchersbecome associated or allied with one aspect of a dyad, namely the commis-sioners, rather than facilitating dialogue between them and others, in thisinstance social workers or senior managers in other departments of the agency. Itallows researchers to address relationships and interactions surrounding thereferral, and to ask questions that will answer whether or not research iscontraindicated, perhaps because everyone engaged does not have the con-

fidence or capacity to deal with ethical matters or to manage matters ethically(Girling 2007). There are key questions (Stratton et al . 1990; McAdam & Lang1994) when convening the system. What is the context? What is the problem? Whyis it a problem now and who is it a problem for? At what point did the researchidea emerge? Who else should be involved? What is the position of everyone inthis system of concern and what solutions would assist the position they startfrom?

In this project, the failure to convene the organizational system at the outsetallowed some people to disengage and probably reinforced resistance to, orscepticism about, the research. This was not just because, as often lies behind

research fatigue, it was seen as a distraction from practice and unlikely to have anoticeable impact on service provision (Harrison 1999). It was also becauseresearch was viewed as an external imposition, greeted with apathy or anxietywhich, in the context of unexplored secrets and relationships within thecommissioning agency, was left uncontained (Obholzer & Zagier Roberts 1994)and also because the research engaged with only one definition of the problem.Additionally, and especially reinforced in the context of the ongoing inquiry, theresearch request moved individual and organizational practice from the privateto the public realm, besides being an exercise of power in describing the problem

or concern in a particular way and locating it in particular systems (theappropriateness of types of residential care and the thoroughness of socialworkers assessments, for instance). If unaddressed, research may trigger bothanxiety and resistance. It may reinforce the taking of positions rather thanmoving beyond how problems are presented, even pathologized (McAdam & Lang1994), towards a space where a more consensual, co-operative domain mayemerge.

Put another way, experience in this project highlights the significance ofcontinual scrutiny of triangular relationships, and the way research sets upor reinforces existing relationships. Some social workers were already wary oftalking to managers or of being openly critical of the organization. Since theresearchers talked only with senior managers when agreeing the specification for



12/23

wariness. As some social workers then distanced themselves and the looked-afteryoung people on their caseloads from the research, for example by cancellingbooked interview appointments, the researchers became aligned even moreclosely with the commissioning managers in attempting to enforce co-operation.

The anxiety then passed around the organization was that relating to theirunfulfilled expectations of the research, leaving the internal state of individualsand systems untouched. A vicious circle was therefore created (Preston-Shoot &Agass 1990), with several increasingly forthright attempts by managers to securesome social workers participation in the research. This represented a more ofthe same intervention rather than a stepping back to consider distancing asinformation, as a reasonable response to a perceived unreasonable situation.This illustrates that who is engaged when the research is being proposed willinfluence how the problem is constructed and whose needs are (perceived to be)met (Humphries 2007).

Uncontained Disturbance

Increasingly, as data collection in stage 2 progressed, it became apparent justhow stressed and defensive some social workers felt, and how potentiallydangerous some practice was. There was a clear lack of trust and an experiencedabsence of support between practitioners and managers, and no sense of thecontainment necessary (Obholzer & Zagier Roberts 1994) to enable practitioners

to engage with the emotions, dilemmas and complex relationships encounteredwithin child care and child protection. Social workers felt unsafe, describing howthe organizations priorities were changed weekly and how managers were notquestioning decisions but were making decisions more because of what theywould look like in public than based on child-protection issues. They increasinglyspent much of the interview space discussing adversities in the work environ-ment, describing the authority as having an atmosphere of mistrust, so much sothat some social workers made notes of all discussions they had with colleagues.

The mood and malaise is captured by the following extract from one researchinterview with a social worker:

You want the truth . . . I have had supervision once since I have been here . . . I ama newly qualified social worker and I have only had supervision once in 3 monthsand in my opinion is unacceptable . . . I have been thrown in the deep end and leftto swim . . . I do not know what decisions are mine to make and what arent . . .They [the managers] would not want to hear the truth anyway so I wouldnt tell itto them. You know it is very odd here. You have to be very careful . . . It is the oldschool, who you are friends with . . . It is really weird. There is an undercurrentof, be careful who you talk to and it will get back . . . We just lost a social workeryesterday because she was like this is too dangerous here . . . Everyone is scared.The management are scared and you can feel it.

The environment had elements of what one judge, when quashing a local



13/23

of CD (a child by her litigation friend VD) v. Isle of Anglesey CC [2004] 7 CCLR589), compared to a computer virus, a demon that had affected local authoritydecision making. What was emerging through meetings with social workers wasclear evidence of a loss of personhood when institutions subvert professional

judgements (Dombeck & Olsan 2007) and of the depersonalizing effects of aninstitution because of the breakdown of containing and reflective mechanismssuch as supervision where individual and organizational internal states could beheld and discussed. The earlier quotation provides one illustration. Below isanother:

One of the cases I have concerns . . . the decisions made in a child protectionconference were overturned, the three to five or six decisions that we allagreed . . . but as soon as the mother started kicking up, its like no, just give in,so the decisions I made have been overturned. So, I dont have any control overthis situation . . . I couldnt say to my supervisor, I am feeling unsupported. Whydid you do that to me? I couldnt do that, I was saying everything its fine . . .because who shes friends with . . . When something happens here, people areafraid of everything, so it is cover your own back . . . I know like I feel unsafebecause I know if something goes wrong, I will be blamed.

These quotations raise a question about the degree to which informed consent inthe choice of cases where there is a sample was prejudiced in this instance.Social workers had no say in which cases they would be asked to discuss as theresearchers selected the sample, albeit from data provided by social workers

where they were able to select from amongst their cases those young people theybelieved to be at risk of becoming looked after by the authority. Social workersmay be comfortable and give consent to discussing a case where they feel thatpractice was good but may feel less comfortable when they have concerns abouthow work on the case was conducted. If social workers are to give informedconsent, should they know which cases are to be discussed before consent isgiven? Furthermore, to ask professionals to identify how, when and why specificdecisions were made exposes their practice to their own reflective thinking andalso to questioning and evaluation by others, including the researchers and those

who read project reports. That this will happen in the processes underpinningthis type of research is inevitable but the extent to which it will happen, and thestress that this might occasion, may not be recognized by social workers.Exposing staff to stress while researching practice, whether or not this can berecognized by them beforehand, may be justified by researchers in terms ofpotential gains for, as here, looked-after children. However, if research proceedswhen participants may not be fully aware of the stress that involvement maycause them, there are additional obligations on researchers. This is becauserespondents are exposing their perceived lack of safety within the organizationwhose responsiveness in management of practice, and implicitly therefore theirlikely reply to research findings, is being criticized.

Questions, therefore, began to emerge surrounding the integrity and viability



14/23

When is a Research Space Not a Research Space?

The quotations illustrate a subtle shift that meant at least some researchinterviews came to resemble supervision sessions. The opportunity to talk to theresearchers about a case in depth and confidentially was valued explicitly bymany participants but the time this took had to be weighed against the case workthat could have been done in that time. Given the nature of their work, this was avery real concern for several participants. Both the researchers and managersjustified this use of time in terms of the greater good, or beneficence (Butler2002) * /improvements to services for looked-after children and individualpractice. Such justifications relied on optimistic assumptions that the findingsof the research, including understanding that emerged from within theseinterviews, would be both relevant to practice, which was a fundamental

concern for the researchers, and would be used to develop services. However,the researchers had no control over the formulation or enactment of policychanges made as a result of research findings, and limited opportunity to checkback with participants on the use they had made in practice of insights derivedfrom the interviews.

A related question revolved around the validity of the data obtained in theseinterviews. The extent to which it was legitimate to use these data, the degreeto which the focus of the study was changing, and even whether it was possible tomaintain focus on the interview questions in the privileged situation of an

encounter between a researcher and social worker (Grinyer 2001), exercised theresearchers. Some of the research team felt that the data would have limitedutility, as a result of the agency being distracted by organizational dysfunctionand anticipating upheaval after conclusion of the inquiry. Others emphasized thesocial benefits of the research, if not immediately but as information toinfluence reorganization after the inquirys conclusion (cf. Gallagher et al .1995).

The potential benefits and hazards, including psychological and disclosuredangers, for both the social workers and the researchers from their participationemerged for consideration, for instance around how to protect confidentiality ofrespondents in such a small authority. Humphries (2007) refers to the tensionsamongst stakeholders when they hold competing objectives, for instance aboutthe use of findings to inform policy and practice. Here, the extent to which socialworkers were able to make an uncoerced choice about whether or not toparticipate in the research was affected by a number of issues. The research wascommissioned by their employer and was presented as a critical plank in thedevelopment of services for young people. Social workers knew that not takingpart would be seen as obstructive. The issue here is the extent to which anemployer has the right to demand staff participation, and whether ethical

research is prejudiced where participants feel that they have little choice aboutwhether they engage. While it is clear that managers have a duty to provide



15/23

information on which to base service provision decisions, the rights of staff areless clear and therefore the onus is the greater on researchers of non-maleficence, of avoiding harm (Butler 2002) in situations where the interestsof managers and social workers do not coincide.

Report or Action-oriented Research

Social workers did not appear to have much faith in their managers, as thefollowing quotation illustrates:

I dont think managers at the basic level get to manage properly. They are notgiven the time, the opportunity to manage us . . . Anything that we seem to do isstill crisis level. We cannot plan anything . . . They [first-line managers] are toointegrated into the higher levels of management . . . their role [should be] moreoperational . . .

The mandate from the commissioning agency was to provide information througha sequence of interim and final reports. The research was not conceived as anaction research project and the researchers did not negotiate a mandate to workfor organizational change. When faced with the extent of disillusionment withinthe organization, the question facing the researchers was whether, and if so how,

to act either as emissaries for the research participants to the commissioners(Grinyer 2001) or as mediators in this dyad. The researchers wanted the voice ofyoung people and their parents to be heard. However, they were uncertain of thedegree to which their responsibility included connecting people to theirorganizations (Dombeck & Olsan 2007) so that problems could be aired, anddoubted their ability to use the research as an opportunity to engage in socialchange in this institution, partly because of how the research had beenestablished and partly because of the pain and anxiety that existed at differentlevels within the agency.

Moreover, maintaining confidentiality and ensuring that participants could notbe identified (unless they gave prior permission) in written and/or verbal reportswas a fundamental ethical commitment made to participants. While this posesfew problems in academic publications, it does create difficulties in researchcarried out and reported to one department. Where people know each other wellit can be difficult to anonymize data sufficiently for such data to beunattributable. Yet omitting these data might reduce the value of the researchto commissioners and, ultimately, to client groups. The researchers used asteering group, which included social workers and service users, to advise onwhether cases and/or workers might be identifiable in draft reports, but this initself constituted a breach of confidentiality if cases and/or staff wereidentifiable.



16/23

Finding the Edge of Practice

Since the client group consisted of vulnerable children and their families, thecommitment to confidentiality explicitly excluded any information providedabout actions by social workers, which could place a child or family at significantrisk of harm. While there was much good practice in the department, exampleswere not infrequent of lack of care and concern about young people and theirfamilies, lack of adequate records and inadequate professional knowledge andanalysis of practice in relation to cases for which social workers wereresponsible. For example, one young person had a score on the adolescentwell-being scale that was predictive of a depressive disorder but the socialworker disregarded this finding, saying that the young person was seekingattention and had refused child and adolescent mental health services in the

past. One young person referred to bullying by residential workers but did notwant this information disclosed to social workers for fear that it wouldjeopardize plans for independent living. In another case, concerns arose aboutthe likelihood of a young person abusing other children in different settings. Onesocial worker refused to act on the basis that it was not their case; another didnot include this information in a research interview but the residential workerdid in the context of feeling unable to share the information with social services.

Decisions were not easy in relation to the point at which poor practice putschildren at such risk that confidentiality should be breached. The overridingreasons to disclose might not always be clear (Grinyer 2001). In practice theresearchers relied on early reporting of anonymized failures to meet their ethicalobligations, but was this good enough? In reality the researchers were workingwith a department under considerable strain and in retrospect (and even at thetime) it seemed unlikely that positive actions would be taken to address therelationship, procedural and structural failures that were reported.

Some members of the research team, from a utilitarian viewpoint, argued thatcontinuing the research and not prejudicing the collaboration of the socialworker participants would enable the project to provide data on whichimprovements to services for all children could be built. Others believed that

the safe edge of practice had been crossed and that the department had becomedangerous, such that disclosure to regulatory bodies should be made.

To Research or Not to Research?

The splits that emerged in the research team, around the validity of the datacollected and ultimately the integrity of the project, mirrored the splits in theorganization that had commissioned and hosted the research. Psychodynamicand systemic theories recognize that dysfunction in one system can evokedisturbance in another adjacent system, through a process known asre-enactment, mirroring or parallel process (Preston-Shoot & Agass 1990). The



17/23

discussed whether to terminate the project. Whilst the tangle was not fullyappreciated at the time, and whilst it did not undermine the teams work, it wasboth a source of information about the agency where the research was locatedand about unresolved anxieties, needs, disappointments, and relationships in one

or other, or both systems.

Ending as Another Beginning

Guidance (DH 2005) suggests that substantive changes to research projectsshould be submitted for ethical review and sponsors agreement. The commis-sioning agency, as represented by senior managers, did agree to the researchersproposal that the project be suspended. Moreover, it is arguable that the nature

of the contract between the research team and the commissioning agency wouldhave allowed the researchers to withdraw on the basis that the project was beingfrustrated. This is a term from contract law to recognize that problems mayarise that cannot be eliminated and that render it impossible to complete theproposed work in a context where renewed planning is unlikely to resolve theoutstanding concerns.

However, deciding whether or not to continue or to withdraw from research,which is of potential benefit, is not straightforward because in itself it is anethical issue (Gallagher et al . 1995). Not surprisingly, then, the research teamremained divided even after the decision was made. Gaps in knowledge aboutoutcomes and professional intervention, coupled with the objective of providingdata to inform service improvement and the recognition of the vulnerability oflooked-after young people, had to be balanced against the vulnerability of otherrespondents, especially social workers, and concerns about the safety of socialwork and research practice in this agency context. Ultimately, the researcherstook the view that gaps in knowledge could be rectified more effectively oncethe organization commissioning the research was better able to move forward.

Nonetheless, the way the contract was originally set up continued to createdifficulties, leaving the researchers holding a conflict of interest between their

obligations to participants and their sponsors. Different codes of conducthighlight the need for researchers to debrief or disseminate the findings ofresearch to the participants (SRA 2003; BPS 2006). The research governanceframework (DH 2005) also names as the sponsors responsibility the making ofappropriate plans for the dissemination of research findings. However, thedepartment did not initially release the reports prepared on stage 2 or respond tothe researchers request for clarification about how and when the reports couldbe released, which was triggered by a request from one social worker and oneservice provider for further information on the findings.

Equally, the researchers struggled with how to explain to participants thereasons behind their withdrawal, at least temporarily, when practitioners,managers and families must continue to work together. The question here is



18/23

of harm. This is similar to the ethical issue, again based on a concern about thepotentially deleterious effects of disclosure on the relationships betweenfamilies and social workers, of declaring explicitly and precisely all details of aresearch project when providing information. The researchers justified their

decision to circulate a summary of the findings and to link postponement to thepending inquiry report, knowledge of which was widely known, by reference tothe principle of avoiding harm, which fuller disclosure of the agency context waslikely to cause.

Concluding Discussion

Hardwick and Hardwick (2007) suggest that situation ethics will illuminate an

understanding of complex processes and allow for values to guide how arelationship of care should be expressed. They place considerable store on theresearchers ethical maxims and on openness to listening to the situation as keysignposts in searching for an appropriate response. However, ethical models andcodifications of values differ within and across professions, such that how andwhen to intervene may not appear straightforward. Equally, as demonstrated inthis paper, other sources of knowledge may prove helpful signposts.

Gallagher and colleagues (1995) offer two suggestions to researchers for whenresearch in practice becomes ethically complex. The first is referral back to aresearch ethics committee. This may provide an opportunity for criticalreflection by virtue of the committees detachment. However, research govern-ance structures in the agency at the time of the project were limited and theproject itself had received ethical approval through the universitys ownstructures and from senior managers in the organization hosting the research.Thus, referral back in this instance seemed to offer little. In practice, theoutcome of any referral would also have been affected by two factors. Firstly,the degree to which any committee was risk averse, oriented towards minimizingorganizational risk (Israel & Hay 2006). Secondly, by how procedural ethics,achieving sound processes at the outset, were balanced against ethics in

practice, the complexity of issues surrounding participants in an organizationin crisis. Outcomes would also be affected by the ethical literacy of thecommittee, and the ethical frameworks it privileged, which may or may not betransparent. Ethical committees with a member who is a professional ethicist arerare but including one could inform ethical decision making. Perhaps consultingan ethics committee on issues arising in the process of the research might beuseful, if the emphasis is on consultation rather than giving the power to make adecision to the committee. As members of ethical committees are usuallyexperienced researchers it is difficult to justify privileging their views whereequally experienced researchers are doing the research.

Their second suggestion is to utilize steering groups. The researchers hadbrought together a steering group for this project, comprising a senior manager,



19/23

workers and managers. Looking at the composition of this group, to varyingdegrees members were part of the problematic dynamics about which theresearchers had become increasingly concerned. Some issues were discussed inthe group, such as how to ensure the safety of researchers when visiting

participant families in their own homes, how to preserve confidentiality forparticipants in a small authority in reports prepared for the agency, and how tosecure the co-operation of social workers. However, issues of trust in what theresearchers came to see as an unsafe and conflicted environment, the possibleimpact of the inquiry findings, and the concerns about practice standards feltincreasingly difficult to raise. Perhaps this was out of (misplaced) loyalty orprotection to especially the senior manager and the social workers in the group.Perhaps it derived from the researchers increasing awareness of covert alliancesand relationships in the agency. Perhaps there was a growing sense that key parts

of the organization were not represented and thus the steering group did nothave sufficient authority to intervene. Thus, the researchers decision to suspendthe research and to withhold data dissemination until after the inquiry findingshad been published and worked through was not shared with the group.

As with Gallagher and colleagues (1995), ultimately pragmatic considerations,informed by a systemic and psychodynamic understanding of organizations indifficulty, guided the decision to suspend the project. Promoting the well-beingof young people and their families by disseminating data about practiceoutcomes had to be weighed against the capacity of the sponsoring organizationto make use of the findings at a time of crisis and the ability of the researchers to

engage all the participants sufficiently to ensure the integrity of the researchsdesign. Ethical codes and the researchers professional values, ethical researchin theory , helped to shape understanding and action. The researchers sought toapply ethical principles in their management of day-to-day relationships withproject participants, ethical research in practice . However, the crucial dilemmasfor this project occupied a different space, ethical research in-between (Jenness& Grattet 2005). How ethical research theory, as embodied in codes andprofessional values, was translated into practice was worked through by drawingon experience and knowledge, and was affected by the growing appreciation of

the environment in which the researchers found themselves. It was also affectedby the perviousness of different layers in this organization and their susceptibilityto engagement with ethical research, project objectives and critical perspec-tives on policy and practice. Arguably, codes are less helpful for ethics in-between, this space between theory and front-line practice, where maintainingsound processes and achieving successful outcomes confront responses topractice complexities.

Put another way, codes fail to solve situational ethical issues in the field(Grinyer 2001). Social work research has the practice of social work as itsoperational domain (Butler 2002), with all its dilemmas and conflictingimperatives. This renders universal principles of limited value. Rather, it requiresan ethical literacy which enables problem solving (Girling 2007) based on



20/23

and management of problems ethically, but developed and applied in a uniquecontext. This is one aspect of the reflective researcher (Banks 2006), taking acritical stance towards practice via dialogue and questioning.

This article has not discussed other ethical dilemmas which arose in this

project and which frequently challenge researchers (see Gallagher et al . 1995),such as how to obtain informed consent from young people and parents, andwhat information to provide when seeking this consent about project focus andaims, which could be seen as casting doubt either on the ability of social servicesto safeguard and promote the welfare of children, or on the likelihood of familiesbeing able to respond appropriately to the needs of children. One aim here hasbeen to explore a problem about which the research literature has beenconspicuously silent but which judicial reviews, ombudsman investigations, andresearch and inquiry evidence (e.g. Horwath 2000; Machin 1998) continue toexpose, namely unlawful and/or unethical and/or unprofessional relationshipsand practices. Another aim has been to focus on researching research as a sourceof learning. Ethical research is not just something on which to focus when seekingapproval for a project (Israel & Hay 2006). Admittedly, greater attention shouldbe paid when reviewing the fitness of the organization that is hosting theresearch and the contractual negotiations between all the parties. However, theessential message from the experience reported in this article is that greaterattention needs to be given to how researchers behave after project approvaland to how the ethical demands of research in-between, the translation ofprinciples into a project, and then research in practice respond to the unfolding

relational complexities.

References

Alderson, P. & Morrow, V. (2006) Multidisciplinary Research Ethics Review: Is it Feasible?,International Journal of Social Research Methodology , Vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 405 /17.

Banks, S. (2006) Ethics and Values in Social Work , 3rd edn, Palgrave, Basingstoke.Braye, S. & Preston-Shoot, M. (2005) Emerging Out of the Shadows? Service User and Carer

Involvement in Systematic Review, Evidence and Policy , Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 173 /93.

British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (2003) Code of Ethics for Social Work , BASW,Birmingham.British Psychological Society (BPS) (2006) Code of Ethics and Conduct , BPS, Leicester.Burke, T. (2007) Providing Ethics a Space on the Page: Social Work and Ethnography as a

Case in Point, Qualitative Social Work , Vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 177 /95.Butler, I. (2002) A Code of Ethics for Social Work and Social Care Research, British

Journal of Social Work , Vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 239 /48.Cecchin, G. (1987) Hypothesising, circularity and neutrality revisited: An Invitation to

Curiosity, Family Process , Vol 26, no. 4, pp. 405 /413.Department of Health (DH) (2000) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and

their Families , The Stationery Ofce, London.

Department of Health (DH) (2004) Research Governance Framework for Social Care:Guidance on Appraising Research Proposals , Department of Health, London.Department of Health (DH) (2005) Research Governance Framework for Health and Social



21/23

Dickson-Swift, V., James, E., Kippen, S. & Liamputtong, P. (2007) Doing SensitiveResearch: What Challenges do Qualitative Researchers Face?, Qualitative Research ,Vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 327 /53.

Dombeck, M. & Olsan, T. (2007) Ethics and the Social Responsibility of InstitutionsRegarding Resource Allocation in Health and Social Care: A US Perspective, in Ethics:Contemporary Challenges in Health and Social Care , eds A. Leathard & S. McLaren,Policy Press, Bristol.

Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (2005) Research Ethics Framework , ESRC,Swindon.

Faulkner, A. (2004) The Ethics of Survivor Research: Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Research Carried Out by Mental Health Service Users and Survivors , Policy Press,Bristol.

France, A. (1996) Exploitation or Empowerment? Gaining Access to Young PeoplesReections on Crime Prevention Strategies, Groupwork , Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 169 /85.

Gallagher, B., Creighton, S. & Gibbons, J. (1995) Ethical Dilemmas in Social Research: NoEasy Solutions, British Journal of Social Work , Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 295 /311.

Girling, J. (2007) Ethics and the Management of Health and Social Care, in Ethics:Contemporary Challenges in Health and Social Care , eds A. Leathard & S. McLaren,Policy Press, Bristol.

Glasby, J. & Beresford, P. (2006) Who Knows Best? Evidence-based Practice and theService User Contribution, Critical Social Policy , Vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 268 /84.

Grinyer, A. (2001) Ethical Dilemmas in Nonclinical Health Research from a UKPerspective, Nursing Ethics , Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 123 /32.

Hardwick, L. & Hardwick, C. (2007) Social Work Research: Every Moment is a New andShocking Valuation of All we Have Been, Qualitative Social Work , Vol. 6, no. 3,pp. 301 /14.

Harrison, M. (1999) A Social Action Approach to Research, in The Politics of Social WorkResearch and Evaluation , ed. B. Broad, Venture Press, Birmingham.

Horwath, J. (2000) Child Care with Gloves On: Protecting Children and Young People inResidential Care, British Journal of Social Work , Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 179 /91.

Humphries, B. (2007) Research Mindedness, in Social Work: A Companion to Learning , edsM. Lymbery & K. Postle, Sage, London.

IFSW (2004) Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles , International Federation ofSocial Workers and International Association of Schools of Social Work, Bern.

Israel, M. & Hay, I. (2006) Research Ethics for Social Scientists , Sage, London.Jenness, V. & Grattet, R. (2005) The Law-in-between: The Effects of Organisational

Perviousness on the Policing of Hate Crime, Social Problems , Vol. 52, no. 3,pp. 337 /59.

Lloyd, M., Preston-Shoot, M., Temple, B. & with Wuu, R. (1996) Whose Project is itAnyway? Sharing and Shaping the Research and Development Agenda, Disability and Society , Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 301 /15.

Machin, S. (1998) Swimming against the Tide: A Social Workers Experience of a SecureHospital, in Whistleblowing in the Social Services: Public Accountability and Profes-sional Practice , ed. G. Hunt, Arnold, London.

Matland, R. (1995) Synthesising the Implementation Literature, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 145 /74.

McAdam, E. & Lang, P.(1994) Referrals, Referrers and the System of Concern,unpublished paper, Kensington Consultation Centre, London.

OConnor, I. (1992) Bereaved by Suicide: Setting up an Ideal Therapy Group in a RealWorld, Groupwork , Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 74 /86.

Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. (eds) (1994) The Unconscious at Work: Individual and



22/23

Oliver, S. (1999) Users of Health Services: Following their Agenda, in Critical Issues inSocial Research: Power and Prejudice , eds S. Hood, B. Mayall & S. Oliver, OpenUniversity Press, Buckingham.

Powell, C. (2003) Early Indicators of Child Abuse and Neglect: A Multi-professional DelphiStudy, Child Abuse Review , Vol. 12, pp. 25 /40.

Preston-Shoot, M. (2003) A Matter of Record?, Practice , Vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 31 /50.Preston-Shoot, M. & Agass, D. (1990) Making Sense of Social Work: Psychodynamics,

Systems and Practice , Macmillan, London.Preston-Shoot, M. & Wigley, V. (2005) Mapping the Needs of Children in Need, British

Journal of Social Work , Vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 255 /75.Shaw, I. & Norton, M. (2007) The Kinds and Quality of Social Work Research in UK

Universities , Social Care Institute for Excellence, London.Smith, R. (2000) What is Research Misconduct?, in The COPE Report , pp. 7 /11,

Committee on Publication Ethics, London.Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) (2005) An Inspection into the Care and Protection of

Children in Eilean Siar , Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.

Social Research Association (SRA) (2003) Ethical Guidelines , SRA, London.Stacey, J. (1988) Can there be a Feminist Ethnography?, Womens Studies International

Forum , Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 21 /27.Stratton, P., Preston-Shoot, M. & Hanks, H. (1990) Family Therapy: Training and Practice ,

Venture Press, Birmingham.



23/23

preston-shoot reflections on ethical research.pdf

Documents