RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

126 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
The cloak of anonymity is often vital in sensitive
research, such that respondents are entirely
untraceable. This raises the issue of ‘deductive
disclosure’ (Boruch and Cecil 1979), wherein it is
possible to identify individuals (people, schools,
departments etc.) in question by reconstructing
and combining data. Researchers should guard
against this possibility. Where the details that are
presented could enable identification of a person
(e.g. in a study of a school there may be only
one male teacher aged 50 who teaches biology,
such that putting a name is unnecessary, as he
will be identifiable), it may be incumbent on the
researcher not to disclose such details, so that
readers, even if they wished to reassemble the
details in order to identify the respondent, are
unable to do so.
The researcher may wish to preserve confidentiality,
but may also wish to be able to gather data
from individuals on more than one occasion. In
this case a ‘linked file’ system (Lee 1993: 173) can
be employed. Here three files are kept; in the first
file the data are held and arbitrary numbers are assigned
to each participant; the second file contains
the list of respondents; the third file contains the
list of information necessary to be able to link the
arbitrarily assigned numbers from the first file to
the names of the respondents in the second, and
this third file is kept by a neutral ‘broker’, not the
researcher. This procedure is akin to double-blind
clinical experiments, in which the researcher does
not know the names of those who are or are not
receiving experimental medication or a placebo.
That this may be easier in respect of quantitative
rather than qualitative data is acknowledged
by Lee (1993: 179).
Clearly, in some cases, it is impossible for
individual people, schools and departments not
to be identified, for example schools may be highly
distinctive and, therefore, identifiable (Whitty
and Edwards 1994: 22). In such cases clearance
may need to be obtained for the disclosure of
information. This is not as straightforward as
it may seem. For example, a general principle
of educational research is that no individuals
should be harmed (non-maleficence), but what
if a matter that is in the legitimate public
interest (e.g. a school’s failure to keep to proper
accounting procedures) is brought to light Should
the researcher follow up the matter privately,
publicly, or not at all If it is followed up
then certainly harm may come to the school’s
officers.
Ethical issues in the conduct of research are
thrown into sharp relief against a backdrop of
personal, institutional and societal politics, and
the boundaries between public and private spheres
are not only relative but also highly ambiguous.
The ethical debate is heightened, for example
concerning the potential tension between the
individual’s right to privacy versus the public’s
right to know and the concern not to damage
or harm individuals versus the need to serve the
public good. Because public and private spheres
may merge, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
resolve such tensions straightforwardly (cf. Day
1985; Lee 1993). As Walford (2001: 30) writes:
‘the potential gain to public interest ...was great.
There would be some intrusion into the private
lives of those involved, but this could be justified
in research on ...an important policy issue’. The
end justified the means.
These issues are felt most sharply if the
research risks revealing negative findings. To
expose practices to research scrutiny may be like
taking the plaster off an open wound. What
responsibility to the research community does the
researcher have If a negative research report is
released, will schools retrench, preventing future
research in schools from being undertaken (a
particular problem if the researcher wishes to
return or wishes not to prevent further researchers
from gaining access) Whom is the researcher
serving – the public, the schools, the research
community The sympathies of the researcher
may be called into question here; politics and
ethics may be uncomfortable bedfellows in such
circumstances. Negative research data, such as
the negative hidden curriculum of training for
conformity in schools (Morrison 2005a) may not
endear researchers to schools. This can risk stifling
educational research – it is simply not worth the
personal or public cost. As Simons (2000: 45)
writes: ‘the price is too high’.