Ensuring research integrity during data collection in a

closed context – Vietnam case

5th WCRI 2017

Faculty of Education

The University of Hong Kong

Supervisors: Dr. Anatoly OLEKSIYENKO

Professor YANG Rui

Presenter: Hy T. QUACH-HOANG

Email: hytqh@connect.hku.hk

31st May 2017

Content • Vietnam as a closed context

• Challenges of the closed context

• Focus of the inquiry

• Concept of research integrity

• Reflexivity based on relational ethics

• Strategy: Be firm, not fearful

• Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive

• Strategy: Be understanding, not judging

• Conclusion

• References

• “a very act of conducting research, aside from its purposes or focuses, is itself a sensitive matter” (Morrison, 2006; Scott, Miller & Lloyd, 2006; Turner, 2010)

Vietnam as a closed context

Vietnam as a closed context

- Government tightened the

control grip on freedom of speech

- Lecturers exerted great fear,

doubt, anger, discrimination,

hatred and self-censorship

Asia Times, 2016; D.N. Pham, 2016; H. Pham & T.V. Vo, 2016

2016 Vietnam Marine Life Disaster

Challenges of a closed context

Gain access

Recruit participants

Conduct interviews

Methodological

challenges

Ethical challenges

Deficits of the system and

“tainted” norms (i.e. corruption)

Fear, doubt, hatred, silent

refusal

Emotional outburst (i.e.

discomfort and anger)

Focus of the inquiry • How to ensure research integrity in a closed context?

• How to gain trust in a closed context to have access and participants for the study?

Concept of research integrity

• Integrity means honesty, truthfulness and sincerity … The root of ‘integrity’ in English derives from the Latin words ‘integer’ and ‘integeritas’ meaning whole or entire, integrating different parts of one’s true self.” (Macfarlane, Zhang & Pun, 2014, pp. 340)

• “Academic integrity … is on values, behaviour and conduct of academics in all aspects of their practice …” (Macfarlane, Zhang & Pun, 2014, pp. 340)

• “… the greatest reponsibility for maintaining high standards of conduct – the working of scientists themselves.” (Alberts & Shine, 1994, p. 1660)

Reflexivity – “Metaphysical analysis”

Epistemological reflexivity

Emotional enmeshment

Technical strategy: writing

research diary, do no harm

Ethical strategy: Relational ethics/

Ethics of care

Barnbaum & Byron, 2001; Bloor, Fincham & Sampson, 2007; Ellis, 2007

Reflexivity based on relational ethics

Acknowledge our

interpersonal bonds to others

Take responsibility for

thoughts, speech and actions

and their consequences Act from our hearts and minds

Strategy: Be firm, not fearful

• Access negotiation

Corruption Imposter author Unethical incidents

Strategy: Be firm, not fearful

Be firm with my ethical values, not fearful of being unable to gain

access, and explaining things in a clear and gentle way or suggesting

an ethical alternative

Strategy: Be firm, not fearful

Reach out to other people in the field. There are

many good people around

Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive

• Access negotiation and participant recruitment

“Friendship as

method”

Neither a program nor a guise

strategically aimed at gaining

further access

A level of investment in

participants’ lives that puts

fieldwork relationships on

par with the project

“Radical reciprocal”

A move from

studying them to

studying “us”

Tillmann-Healy, 2003, pp. 735-741

Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive

TRANSPARENT OPEN

Researchers should be the one to be open, honest and transparent first,

to gain trust

Strategy: Be honest, not deceptive

Political

disturbances

Great doubt and

discrimination

Research topic:

“post-colonial”

The genuine of

my Vietnamese

nationality

My

supervisors’

nationality

L1SS: “Is it related

to any political

issues?”

R1MS: “I would

participate if you

prove that you are

100% Vietnamese,

and not Chinese.”

L7MS: “Are your

supervisors Chinese?

What can you learn

from a Chinese?”

TRUTH

Strategy: Be understanding, not judging

Be aware

my own hegemonic

assumptions from the

standard research norms

Anger

Hurt

Humiliation

Sadness

Offendedness

Violations of ethics

Emotional outburst

Strategy: Be understanding, not judging

Hear, see and understand from the “others’” perspectives and their

contexts, and help them

Conclusion

Be firm, not fearful

Be honest, not

deceptive

Be understanding,

not judging

Reflexivity based

on relational

ethics/ ethics of

care

Gain TRUST

Ensure research

integrity

in a closed

context

Conclusion

• Research integrity is also the integrity of a human being

• Only ethical research can make a difference

(Ellis, 2007)

References • Al-Natour, J.R. (2011) The Impact of the Researcher on the Researched. M/C Journal, 14(6),

Retrieved from http://journal.mediaculture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/428

• Barnbaum, R. D. & Byron, M. (2001) Research Ethics: Text and Readings. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

• Ellis, C. (2007) Telling Secrets, Revealing Lives. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), pp. 3-29.

• Johnson, B. & Clarke, M.J. (2003) Collecting Sensitive Data: The Impact on Researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), pp. 421-434.

• Institute of Medicine, National Research Council of the National Academies (2002) Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

• Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, M.K., Guest, G. & Namey, E. (2005) Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. North Carolina: USAID.

• Malacrida, C. (2007) Reflexive Journaling on Emotional Research Topics: Ethical Issues for Team Researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), pp. 1329 – 1339.

• Mauthner, S.N. & Doucet, A. (2003) Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in Qualitative Data Analysis. Sociology, 37(3), pp. 413 – 431.

References • McCosker, H., Barnard, A. & Gerber, R. (2001) Undertaking Sensitive Research:

Issues and Strategies for Meeting the Safety Needs of All Participants. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(1), Art. 22, Retrieved: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/983

• Midgley, W., Danaher, A.P. & Baguley, M. (2013) The Role of Participants in Educational Research. New York and London: Routledge.

• Nunes, B.M., Martins, T.J., Zhou, L., Alajamy, M. & Al-Mamari, S. (2010) Contextual Sensitivity in Grounded Theory: The Role of Pilot Studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 8(2), pp. 73-84.

• Renzetti, M.C. & Lee, M.R. (eds.) (1993) Researching Sensitive Topics. Newbury Park, London and New Delhi: SAGE.

• Till-mann-Healy, L. (2003) Friendship as Method. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, pp. 729-749.

• Yang, R. (2016) Toxic Academic Culture in East Asia. International Higher Education, 84(Winter 2016), pp. 15-16.

Presenter : Hy T. Quach-Hoang

Supervisors: Dr. Anatoly Oleksiyenko

Professor Yang Rui

5th WCRI 2017

31st May 2017

Faculty of Education

University of Hong Kong