ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Similar to site access, both procedural and personal ethical approvals were considered. First of all, procedural approval was gained from the school board's ethics committee as referred to above, and the university's ethics board (Appendix B). As part of the university's ethics procedures, and in keeping with the anonymity, confidentiality, respect, and rights of the participants, letters of consent were explained to and signed by each of the participants. Written consent was obtained from the students on two different occasions: for their participation in the observation sessions (Appendix C), and for their participation in the individual and group interviews (Appendix D). The students who participated in the observation session were not necessarily the same students who were interviewed. The letters for students followed plain language guidelines (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, 1991). In addition, the letters were read aloud to the students. Formal consent was also obtained from each of the three instructors (Appendix E). Accompanying these matters of procedure, I also considered how I would 'be' towards the participants, as Schwandt (2000) poses, particularly when addressing the issues of reciprocity and signing consent letters.

Consent Letters

The presentation of the consent letters to the instructors and students raised interesting ethical considerations that impacted the relationships I had with both the students and instructors. Presentation of the consent letter to colleagues who I worked with as an instructor and administrator, and to the students who I had either taught in the past or assessed and counseled, signified a change in our relationships. For colleagues, the letter clarified that the study was transparently connected to my personal work as a student at a university, rather than my work as a program administrator. This was helpful because I did not want colleagues to perceive the research as an evaluation of their work, their classes, or their students. The letter confirmed that the research was not being conducted by and for the program; I was not directly accountable to the program manger, but to a university–based supervisor. The instructors also recognized that the letter was a procedural matter that was more of an obligatory bureaucratic requirement than a symbol of power and authority.