BEYOND BUREAUCRATIC ETHICS IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN BEINGS ¹

ABSTRACT

NODDINGS, 1984 Denzin (1997)

Emancipatory Ethics; Empowerment; Foreign language teacher training

Resumo

Compromissos éticos em estudos envolvendo seres humanos têm sido considerados há poucas décadas. No entanto, preocupações a que comumente se restringem os pesquisadores são entendidas como típicas de ética denominada formal (e.g. anonimato, consentimento informado e ausência de fraudes). Neste artigo, enquanto defendemos que esse tipo de ética, também denominada burocrática, precisa ser superada, compartilhamos e ilustramos um exemplo materializado de ética defendida na pesquisa em humanas, nomeadamente, ética emancipatória. Esse exemplo é fornecido pela tese doutoral da primeira autora, sob orientação da segunda, e apresentado com considerações de ordens epistemológicas, ontológicas, metodológicas e éticas do início do processo investigativo ao seu final. Princípios da pesquisa emancipatória (CAMERON et al ., 1992), do cuidado com o outro (NODDINGS, 1984) e, ainda, considerações éticas e metodológicas de Denzin (1997) e Christians (2006) para pesquisas sociais e humanas fundamentam este texto. Em suma, este artigo visa demonstrar formas de distribuição de poder e incorporação das vozes dos participantes em prática de pesquisa.

Ética emancipatória; Empoderamento; Formação de professor de língua estrangeira

Introduction

We begin this article by arguing that ethics should govern any and all human relationships, in view of its relevance to keeping respect, morality, integrity, and justice in the relationships we establish socially. From the educational viewpoint, we endorse the understanding of ethics “[…] as a mark of human nature, as something absolutely indispensable to human coexistence.” (FREIRE, 1996, p.19-20, our translation) ² .

In this way, research practices must also cater to ethical consideration. Historically, researchers in the Biological Sciences pioneered ethical considerations in research involving human beings, due to the need to protect research subjects (then) and participants (for some time now), in projects that could put their integrity or respect at risk. In order to regulate these practices, official international documents have been created, such as the Nüremberg Code (1947), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Belmont Report (1978).

In Brazil, Resolution CNS ³ 196/96 (recently substituted by CNS Resolution 466/2012 ⁴ was the precursor to safeguard “[…] the rights and duties that concern the research participants, the scientific community and the State.” (BRASIL, 2012, p.2, our translation) ⁵ .

Although the value and importance of the guiding principles of this resolution are recognized, there has been a certain rejection in the Social and Human Sciences of the requirements of the Council for Research Ethics ⁶ /National Commission for Research Ethics ⁷ system, due to its relation to biomedical disciplines. The type of human based data collected for biomedical research is not the same as that one used in Social and Human Sciences research.

This article is divided into four parts. First, we approach formal ethics, highlighting official documents and organizations which aim to regulate it, followed by considerations on aspects of bureaucratic ethics (REIS; EGIDO, 2017), which have guided social research. Next, we discuss the understanding of emancipatory ethics . We then discuss ethical procedures and conduct of emancipatory nature and purposes, based on Chimentão (2016)’s doctoral research, looking specifically at ethical care which goes beyond concerns about formal ethical aspects.

Therefore, in this paper we want to illustrate forms of sharing power with participants and incorporating their voices in research practice. This way, for comprehension of the feasibility of research vested with emancipatory ethics principles, we report on research procedures of the research in focus.

Formal or bureaucratic ethics

The importance of ethical conduct to support any and all investigative process seems to be consensual in societies that seek respect and justice. As so, legal efforts to define and regulate ethical conduct in research involving human beings have been present for decades. By way of illustration, we have international documents, such as the Nuremberg Code (1948), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and, later, the Belmont Report, promulgated in 1978. In Brazil, the guiding document of regulatory standards for research involving human beings is the current Resolution CNS 466/2012, which replaced the Resolution 196/96. The current resolution takes into account the provisions of the official documents mentioned above.

Also in Brazil, the National Commission for Research Ethics and the Commission of the National Health Council were created with the function of implementing norms and regulatory directives of research involving human beings as once approved by means of Resolution 196/96. These committees have advisory, deliberative, normative and educational functions and work together with a network of Research Ethics Committees that are part of higher education institutions.

Ethics committees have the role of judging researchers’ competence through their research applications. Such committees consider

[…] if researchers have the appropriate research skills and experiences to conduct the research they propose to undertake – that is, is the research ‘conducted or supervised by persons or teams with experience, qualifications and competence that are appropriate for the research’. (MOONEY-SOMERS; OLSEN, 2017, p.129).

Even though Resolution 466/2012 was essentially passed to regulate high risk research in the Biomedical field, it mandates that any research project involving human beings needs to meet its provisions. In other words, any research project involving humans, regardless of area, must be formally submitted for the review and approval of the institution’s Research Ethics Committee, to which the research may be bonded to, prior to its initiation. Broadly speaking, the Research Ethics Committees examine and issue reviews in regard to research projects involving human subjects, which can be submitted by any individual with, at least, an undergraduate degree.

This resolution “[…] incorporates, from the point of view of the individual and of the collectivities, references from bioethics, such as autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice and equity, among others [...]” (BRASIL, 2012, our translation) ⁸ .

In this Resolution, the proper research ethics implies:

1. respect to the research participant in their dignity and autonomy, recognizing their vulnerability, assuring their willingness to contribute and to continue or not, [to participate] in the research, by means of free and informed consent;

2. consideration of risks and benefits, both known and potential, individual or collective, commit[ment] to maximum benefits and minimum damages and risks;

3. guarantee that foreseeable damages will be avoided; and

4. social relevance of the research, which guarantees the equal consideration ⁹ . (BRASIL, 2012, our translation).

This model of ethical review and evaluation in Brazil was not thought from the perspective of the idiosyncrasies of the Social and Human Sciences, which has been increasingly controversial and has caused a demand for normative documents specific to these areas, in respect to the realities of the research happening in the Human Sciences. To this regard, the Plenary of the National Health Council, considering the outcomes of the revision process of Resolution 196/96, reported: “The event also highlighted the need to produce specific resolutions for the areas of Social and Human Sciences without prejudice to Resolution CNS 196/96.” ¹⁰ (BRASIL, 2012, our translation).

We see similar discourse outside of Brazil: Guillemin and Gillam (2004) problematize the emphasis on what they refer to as “procedural” ethics - that of which refers to the search for approval by ethics committees (which involves, for example, much more appropriate use of language in order to not only demonstrate that the researchers involved are competent and experienced, but also to avoid highlighting issues that may cause concerns to committee members), in detriment to the “ethics in practice ¹¹ , to day-to-day ethical issues (GUILLEMIN; GILLAM, 2004, p.264, our translation).

Connolly and Reid (2007) also criticize the approach taken by the biomedical community used by research ethics boards to review the ethical acceptability of research that has humans as participants. Referencing van den Hoonaard, the authors share the understanding that “[…] just as qualitative researchers use creative, flexible data collection approaches that are often contextually unique, so must the ethics review process involve a more flexible treatment of summary protocol forms.” (CONNOLLY; REID, 2007, p.1032).

Research in Social Sciences and Humanities must support ethical principles, because “[…] social research is a practice, not simply a way of knowing. Understanding what others are doing or saying and publicly imparting such knowledge involves moral and political commitments.” ¹² (SCHWANDT, 2006, p.207, our translation).

However, we understand that this ethical conduct must go beyond compliance with formal ethical principles, understood as being of a bureaucratic manner. Bureaucratic ethics is characterized by considerations of norms and resolutions in force in Brazil, among which, the anonymity of the participants and the obtaining of the informed consent (REIS; EGIDO, 2017) stand out. We understand this type of ethics as important, but not enough for social research. Our position is supported by the three basic principles, which are related to the moral principles of codes of ethics: informed consent; the protection of privacy and the absence of fraud (CHRISTIANS, 2003).

The principle of informed consent is based on the right of freedom and self-determination that the participants of a research project hold (COHEN; MANION; MORRISON, 2000). According to these authors, this principle can be respected by means of a reliable explanation as to the nature, procedures, possible risks and benefits of the research. In addition, it is necessary for the researcher to make himself available for clarification on any questions that the participants wish to raise, and, finally, to ensure that the participants have the right to withdraw their consent and no longer participate in the investigation at any given time and without damage to themselves.

The protection of privacy corresponds to the principle of safeguarding the “people’s identities and those of the research locations” (CHRISTIANS, 2003, p.218). In this way, confidentiality is essential against unwanted exposure and for ensuring anonymity. Since, according to Christians (2003, p.218), “no one deserves harm or embarrassment as a result of insensitive research practices.”

The absence of fraud is the principle whose function is to ensure the accuracy of the data. Thus, deliberate distortions, “lies, fraudulent materials, omissions, and machinations are unscientific and unethical attitudes” (CHRISTIANS, 2003, p.147).

In a recent study, Reis and Egido (2017) identified a massive number of studies that reveal exclusive concern with bureaucratic ethics, by compromising the anonymity of the participants and obtainment of the Free and Informed Consent Term.

In view of the particularities of social research, we would like to emphasize the insufficiency of the aforementioned principles and demonstrate, in the following sections, the vision of ethics we advocate for and methodological procedures adopted in research practice in order to maintain consistency with the ontological and epistemological principles of postmodernist paradigms, with special attention to social constructionism.

Emancipatory ethics

We reiterate the merit of bureaucratic ethics, given its concern with the protection of research subjects and pioneering role in the debate of this issue. However, the bureaucratic ethics is seen in Social Sciences as basically concerned with having minimal damages (CHRISTIANS, 2003).

In regard to research in the social and human spheres, we think it more coherent to take the ethics whose philosophy “[…] situates the moral domain within the general purposes of human life that people share contextually and across cultural, racial, and historical boundaries.” (WHITE, 1995, apud CHRISTIANS, 2003, p.223).

Such a view of ethics is based on philosophical principles, such as those found in Levinas (1981), which understand human beings as social beings in connection. As a consequence, it is through the dialogical encounter between them that life is (re)created and moral obligation to it is reciprocally nourished (CHRISTIANS, 2003).

In this sense, caring for one another (NODDINGS, 1984) makes perfect sense. From this perspective, decisions regarding what is considered moral/ethical should be based on care towards the human being, that is, those with whom we interact and who, dialogically, constitute us. Therefore, “[…] to take the human essence as founded on the with idea implies understanding that we are constituted by what is external to ourselves.” ¹³ (MATEUS, 2011, p.190, our translation). It is about the type of ethics that “[…] socially (re)produces itself in the flow of interactions mediated by relations of trust and appreciation of differences […], forged within our actions with the other.” ¹⁴ (MATEUS, 2011, p.190 -191, our translation).

Thus,

[…] the interactions between researcher and participant that we suggest, are the substrate of the ethical dimensions of research practice. In these interactions lie the possibilities of respecting the autonomy, dignity, and privacy of research participants and also the risks of failing to do so, thus perhaps causing harm to the participants in various ways. It is in these interactions that the process of informed consent really occurs - not on the pieces of paper that an ethics committee peruses. (GUILLEMIN; GILLAM, 2004, p.275).

Therefore, according to contributions from Sociology, especially Denzin (1997), if human identity is constituted by the social sphere, then ethical action would be that which aims at the community. For this normative model, the mission of social research would be to foster the prosperity of community life. We understand prosperity in the sense of advances, additions, transformation and emancipation.

In this sense, Christians (2003), referring to Denzin, argues that “[…] research is intended to be collaborative in its design and participatory in its execution.” (CHRISTIANS, 2003, p.227). In this view, the research participants have decision-making power. They interfere in the research process, either with suggestions of research topics, courses of action or, for example, by accepting (or not) the results (ROOT, 1993).

Chronologically, references by Michael Root (1993) and Norman Denzin (1997) on methodology in qualitative research date back to the 1990s. However, such recommendations seem to have received little attention, for example, in studies of Applied Linguistics, a fact ascertained by Reis e Egido (2017).

In Chimentão (2016)’s doctoral research, the researcher takes into consideration the recommendations of care with the other , through the social relations established between her and the participants, of the treatment and analysis of the data, with concern on agency and power distribution among participants, their active participation during the research process, and the incorporation of their voices into the researcher’s return to the participants with research results.

We describe some of the trajectories of Chimentão (2016)’s research as a way of illustrating how such principles translate into procedures that constitute an emancipatory method of generating data ¹⁵ and returning the analyses to the participants ¹⁶ .

We understand these methodological procedures as opportunities for the other to emancipate themselves, since they allowed the participants to become actors, to exercise powers and to benefit from this exercise during and after the investigative process. These are essential steps in a research, related to social constructionism, which was intended to be emancipatory (i.e. research on, for and with the participants), according to Cameron et al. (1992) and whose ethics were driven by emancipatory purpose.

Methodological procedures consistent with principles of emancipatory ethics

In this section, through describing some of the research paths, we illustrate how the distribution of power is accomplished through methodological procedures.

Emancipatory Method of Data Generation

In research, there exists an asymmetry of power between the figure of the researcher and the one who, normally, is in the position of being researched. The emancipatory method of data generation (CHIMENTÃO, 2016) was developed aiming to practice the division of powers among the research participants, without the intention of concentrating power in the researcher’s hands. In order to do this, Chimentão (2016) developed an alternative method, in which all participants could exert power in the generation of data. This method had the intention of empowering the other. In this way, the traditional imbalance of power between researchers and participants could be reduced by the “[…] promotion of egalitarian relationships, grounded in reciprocity and a sense of mutuality.” (HEWITT, 2007, p.1155).

In the emancipatory method of data generation , the participant is seen, ontologically and epistemologically, as an agent and a critic. This understanding is based on the idea that knowledge is built on interpersonal relationships and on the ethical commitment to contribute somehow to the growth and empowerment of the research participants. In addition, this method considers that it is through experience that individuals can empower themselves.

Data generation, in Chimentão (2016)’s research, was one of the phases in which the participants’ agency and the inclusion of their voices prevailed. This was materialized with the exercise of genuine freedom to integrate into the research agenda what the participants thought relevant, disturbing and intriguing in the preparation of their interview scripts.

With respect to agency, the research participants were invited to participate in the research, but not as those who usually stand in the position of recipients of questions whose content and purpose are unknown before and during the generation of data. They exercised the power to devise the interview scripts themselves and, in fact, performed the role of interviewers, i.e, authors and employers of instruments. Therefore, each participant had the power to determine the content of their interview scripts. As a teacher-researcher ¹⁷ , Lilian Kemmer Chimentão was not the only one to have power in the social practice of generating research data. Agency, as we want to demonstrate, favors the incorporation of voices.

The distribution of powers in the accomplishment of the interviews can be seen in Fig. 1, by colors that refer to the position of each participant in the context of data generation: purple (coordinator), green (supervisor ¹⁸ ), and blue (student-teachers ¹⁹ ).

Figure 1
– Distribution of powers in conducting interviews

The distribution of powers for data generation resulted in seven different interview scripts ( Table 1 ):

Table 1
– Interview guides, interviewers and interviewees

Script	Written by	To interview
1	Coordinator	Supervisor
2		Student teachers (6)
3	Supervisor	Coordinator
4		Student teachers (6)
5	Student teachers	Coordinator
6		Supervisor
7		Student teachers (6)

SourceChimentão (2016

The coordinator prepared Scripts 1 and 2 to interview the supervisor (1) and student teachers (2); the supervisor prepared Scripts 3 and 4 to interview the coordinator (3) and student teachers (4); the six teacher-students developed Scripts 5, 6 and 7 to interview the coordinator (5), the supervisor (6) and the student-teacher peers (7).

The student teachers developed their instruments together. However, only one student teacher, representing his peers, interviewed the coordinator and the supervisor. We understood that if each student teacher had interviewed the coordinator and the supervisor, this option would have caused differences in the data, due to possible interviewee’s self-regulation and degree of empathy between the interviewer and interviewee.

The conduction of interviews between students and teachers was planned also due to the assumption that, because of a symmetrical relationship among them, this could minimize possible discomforts in interviews made only by participants historically positioned as ascendants (viz., coordinator and supervisor) and afford greater freedom to make their statements. Therefore, the aim of having a scheme of interviews between pairs of shared position in the context (viz. student-teachers) was the generation of productive data. Figure 2 shows the dynamics that enabled each student-teacher to experience the positions of interviewer and interviewee. In the interview scheme, Rob interviewed Sara, who interviewed Thor, and so on.

Figure 2
– Conduct of interviews between students and teachers

These dynamics of interviews - we reiterate - enable the emancipatory method of data generation and were designed in order to guarantee the participants’ agency, enabling everyone to play the roles of scriptwriters, interviewees and interviewers.

In order to generate the necessary data to carry out the method, we undertook preparatory activities with the participants, since they had little familiarity with the demands of scientific work. These activities were (i) a workshop for the elaboration of the instruments and (ii) a pilot of the instruments prior to the definitive generation of data.

The workshop was conducted by Simone Reis, who was outside of the teacher education context in which data would be generated. In the workshop, she dealt with ethical issues in the research process, through discussion and an activity that required identifying issues, weaknesses such as prejudices, induction and value judgments. In addition, Simone guided participants in conducting interviews, including checking the recording equipment, the interview participants, and informing the place and date of the interview. She emphasized the need to avoid suggesting responses to the interviewee (i.e. wording ) during the interview. Finally, she accompanied the participants in the work of elaborating the interview questions. In the workshop, the participants (viz. the coordinator, the supervisor, and the student-teachers) first elaborated the questions for their interview scripts, without sharing the content of each script with their target interviewees. There was an exception to the instrument developed by student teachers to interview their own peers. In a second phase, the participants e-mailed their instruments directly to Simone Reis, who revised them for objectivity, clarity and bias elimination.

In addition to the workshop, in order to test and perfect the scripts, as well as provide greater security for the performance of the role of interviewer, we piloted the instrument.

The pilot of the seven instruments was carried out in three rounds of interviews. This was possible with the support of teachers and students of the undergraduate course in Social Sciences from the State University of Londrina and of their supervisor, who agreed to be interviewed, each in a social position occupied in the teacher education program of their area. On the same day as the pilot interviews, we did a conference audio recording. At the time, all those involved in the pilot could share impressions and suggestions to improve the instruments and their use.

Among the impressions, we recorded comments indicative of redundancy of certain questions on the scripts, as well as interviewer posture that suggested responses to the interviewee through behaviors during the interview, which the audio recording would not capture. These comments, made by the participants of the Social Sciences course, allowed us to draw attention to behaviors that could jeopardize the definitive generation of data: an attempt to signal desired responses by the interviewer, and paralinguistic expression of irony (by means of facial expressions, gestures, body language, tone of voice, etc.). Thus, the interview pilot allowed us to assess the instruments and prevent biased positions for data generation.

Return to the participants with the analyses

The return of the researcher to the participants with the analyses is an ethical commitment to share and submit their interpretations (results) to those who provided them with the data. This feedback enables them to express reactions in terms of acceptance, refutation, suggestions for adjustments, as well as emotions resulting from reading. In addition, it is one of the moments in which research becomes an empowerment tool, since it enables participants to exercise power. Upon returning to the participants, empowering research gives them the right to ask for clarifications and revisions, to question interpretations, to revise their positions, to express disagreement, to add information and explanations, to validate the knowledge produced, and to learn, among other possibilities. In other words, under this research vision, it is not a question of returning the knowledge produced for information to the participant, but to scrutinize and discuss it, both to avoid negligence and/or failures with the participants and to review positions and statements, which ultimately make up the knowledge to be offered beyond the context in which it was constructed.

It is an uncommon practice among researchers to return to the research participants with the analyses, even though the so called return of results has been advocated for within research ethics literature, originally in the Social Sciences (CAMERON et al ., 1992), for approximately the last 26 years. In Applied Linguistics, Telles (2002) and Celani (2005) also express similar concerns regarding research benefits for participants.

Distinguishing from the majority of researchers who do not return to the participants to discuss the results of the research, the members of the Research Group Language and Power ²⁰ have assumed this ethical commitment and several studies have been concerned with returning research results to the participants (CORADIM, 2008, 2015; D’ALMAS, 2011; FRANCESCON, 2014; JASNIEVSKI, 2013; LUNARDI, 2011; REIS, 2005, 2014; SENEFONTE, 2014; SILVA, 2014; CAMPOS, 2017).

The concern, care and respect with the other, in Chimentão (2016)’s research, was present from the initial stage, with the proposal of the Emancipatory Method for Data Generation. Thus, at the end of the investigation, we could not fail to consider and incorporate the voice - which, even in the singular, has a plural meaning - of the other in relation to interpretations. This was the way to practice the ethics of care with the other in a research situation, because “[…] to define ethics as a social practice implies, therefore, to live ethics and to recreate its meanings continuously in the same way that relationships are recreated with the other.” (MATEUS; EL KADRI; GAFFURI, 2011, p.191, our translation) ²¹ .

In the return, in order to guide the participants’ reading and assessment of the analyses, Chimentão (2016), based on Reis (2005) and Jasnievski (2013), asked participants to focus on these aspects:

1. their general impression: tendency to agree totally or partially; disagree totally or partially. With what points and why;

2. Feelings and sensations experienced before, during and after reading. Which and why;

3. Points of analysis found relevant or non-relevant; d) Criticism of the (emancipatory) method of data generation;

4. Criticism of the analysis report (in regard to the powers exercised by the researcher (or research) and the limits respected or transgressed by the researcher (or research) in the interpretation of the data);

5. Other comments.

In addition to these guidelines, Chimentão (2016) shares three annexes with her participants: (a) story style; (b) glossary; and (c) analysis report. The first two files were meant to facilitate reading; the first one clarified the analysis reporting style, and the second one brought the meaning proposed by the author to the (sub)categories. The third file contained the analysis.

Participants had a period of 20 days to read the analysis and, by the end of deadline, only four student teachers returned their comments. Therefore, two student teachers did not participate in the proposed return. The supervisor returned her impressions on the analyses after the deadline, which is why her reactions were not part of the final research report.

As reported by Chimentão (2016), the step of returning the analysis to the research participants provided greater confidence of her interpretations. In addition, the researcher had peace of mind to present her analysis to the participants, knowing that her actions had been ethical: showing care for the other during the analysis, and because she had given the participants opportunity to know and respond to her interpretations before they became public.

When reading and reflecting on participants’ reactions, Chimentão (2016) classifies them in relation to the validation and refutation phenomena that her interpretations received from the participants. In parallel, the author identified these reading positions of the participants when interpreting and commenting on the research report: decoders, analytical-technical and critical.

The predominant phenomenon was validation, evidenced by excerpts that corroborated the author’s interpretation. The decoder position gathered excerpts in which the participants only point out their identification with excerpts and/or analysis, express opinions of agreement, pertinence and/or appropriateness of the analyses or use of the data, and to confirm the informed and described in the research report as being faithful to the relationships and practices they had experienced. The analytical-technical position demonstrates that the participants make considerations pertaining the analytical categories of Chimentão (2016), thus exercising analytical or technical thinking with respect to the methodological and scientific rigor of the research. The third reading position, namely, the critical one, happened when the participants were no longer restricted to the aspects circumscribed to the research (e.g. rigor, trustworthiness), that is, when they brought elements that transcended the research report (the text). In other words, the critical position portrays moments in which the participants somehow leave the research report aside and refer to their positions of the (then) past, with the thinking of now (present) or, yet, illustrate their critical capacity when they take distance from the research and suggest (future) actions.

Table 2 is a summary of the classifications of readings made by the research participants in the return phase:

Table 2
– Reactions of the participants and their post-analysis positions

	Decoder	Analytical-Technical	Critical
Validation	SARA: “I agree with all points presented, because I can see the relationship between the excerpts and their analysis”; SARA: “I do not disagree with any point”; ÚRSULA: “I agree with everything I’ve read”; VICTOR: “I agree with all the interpretations”; ZÉLIA: “I totally agree”; SARA: “I reread on the text and saw that nothing of what is said in your speech as a researcher is outside the excerpt that was used to illustrate the situation”; VICTOR: “I recalled several times [my experience] in the teacher education program and I assert that I had all those gains”;	SARA: I consider the analysis of the perception of the “yes”, and even more the perception of the “other”, where only two student teachers expressed concern about the students. VICTOR: “As an example: hierarchy of the group (I agree with all definitions), lack of emancipation (really that was scarce in students-teachers)”; ZÉLIA: “At the time, PIBID served to reinforce my desire not to be a teacher, but I believe that this was because of the context in which we work, because, despite being a differentiated, collaborative stage, I was aware that, in fact, I would not feel good assuming a class of elementary school with more than 35 students “; ÚRSULA: “The topics (SELF x OTHER, etc.) show us more clearly what most participants thought/think about PIBID and how it affected each of us”; SARA: “I think the text is well illustrated and its support for analysis is well done”;	VICTOR: “At the moment, I’m sure that I want to continue working as a teacher, specifically, in the context of a public school”; ZÉLIA: “However, in the last year of college, I chose the internship in the context of early childhood education (outside of PIBID) and that’s when I discovered that I wanted to teach English, but [I wanted to teach] children. Today, as an English teacher, I work in the area of early childhood education and I can say that I am very happy with what I do “; SARA: “I realized after reading that I cannot remember exactly what I said years ago, I think that over time I have changed my view of some things or behaved differently.” ÚRSULA: “Before reading, I was trying to remember what I said during the interview at that time so I could compare it to what I think today. During, I could notice that my opinion on PIBID has not changed in hardly anything. I still think that this program is essential in teacher education and I hope that many student teachers will have the chance to participate [in the program]”;
Refutation	SARA: “I also tried to identify myself through the speeches exposed in the text, and, for some reason, I could not identify myself”; SARA: “I could not see myself in any speech.”

Source:Chimentão (2016

In general, the content of the participants’ responses to the return of the researcher indicates that the analysis was pertinent and that agreement with the interpretations was predominant. Therefore, there were no signs of rethinking and/or editing of the analysis required.

In this investigation, participants exercised their powers to refute and, mainly by the majority, to validate the analysis with different reading positions. They demonstrated appropriateness, reflection, and analytical and critical position in regard to the constructed interpretations.

The return of the researcher to the participants, as a stage of the research concerned with ethics, enabled her to recognize the scientific and methodological rigor of the research, through the validation she obtained. However, we emphasize that validation and rigor also result from ethical care.

At the conclusion of this section on methodological procedures adopted Chimentão (2016)’s research, aiming at emancipatory ethics, we would like to point out that the ethical challenges experienced by researchers and participants in qualitative research represent two different intertwined epistemological perspectives: the ethics of the negotiated critical awareness research depends on the unfolding of the ethics process in research involving the participants and the researchers. Therefore, both the participant and the researcher contribute equally to the transparency of the ethical process and add value to the construction of methodological and ethical rigor to research (ALUWIHARE-SAMARANAYAKE, 2012).

Final considerations

In this paper, our objective was to illustrate ways to distribute power and incorporate participants’ voices in the practice of research. We understand that an investigation vested with principles of emancipatory ethics can be supported by methodological procedures along the research process.

In order to achieve this aim, we reported on a concrete initiative of power sharing power in research practice. We reiterate that power has been diluted through the opportunity offered to participants for them to add points to the research agenda and to experience the roles of designers of research tools and of interviewers, rather than merely providing data to others. Furthermore, we consider pertinent to the research concerned about emancipatory ethics that the participants have access to the analysis for purposes of edition, corroboration or refutation of the analysis prior to the publication of the results. Therefore, we understand that the power experience individuals go through can afford their empowerment.

Thus, we share Reis (2014, p.150, our translation)’s critical position in regard to ethical issues:

[…] ethical consideration goes beyond giving a pseudonym or code to the other [the participant], inserting biographical data for the proforma purposes, or attaching [to the report] transcriptions of the original data as material proof. Trust in research seems to be more important than reliability. The consideration of the other, in my view, is that which relativizes my certainties, my possibilities, which makes me rethink starting points and ways of putting myself in the unfinished search movement ²² .

This mode of relationship between researcher and participants, hereby expressed and translated into methodological procedures, illustrates an emancipatory research - research on, for and with the participants (CAMERON et al ., 1992). This type of research differs from the ethical research on the subjects; and advocacy research (research on and for) (CAMERON et al ., 1992, p.22). According to these authors, emancipatory research implies: (a) use of interactive or dialogical methods; (b) consideration of the participant’s agenda; and (c) feedback and sharing of the knowledge produced. All of these aspects were considered along the research trajectory herein reported. Besides, we understand that reflection on ethical challenges experienced by researchers and participants contributes to building a critical awareness framework (ALUWIHARE-SAMARANAYAKE, 2012).

In conclusion, hopefully our report on methodological procedures and ethical care of emancipatory nature and purposes adopted in the doctoral research in focus may contribute to drawing researchers’ attention to the importance of going beyond the bureaucratic ethics (REIS; EGIDO, 2017). As a consequence, in the near future, hopefully, power distribution and incorporation of participants’ voices become stable features of research practice (REIS; EGIDO, 2017).

REFERÊNCIAS

• ALUWIHARE-SAMARANAYAKE, D. Ethics in qualitative research: a view of the participants’ and researchers’ world from a critical standpoint. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Canada, v.11, n.2, p.64-81, 2012.
• BRASIL. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Resolução nº 196/2012 . Resolve aprovar as seguintes diretrizes e normas regulamentadoras de pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos. Disponível em: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf . Acesso em: 20 out. 2015.
  » http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2012/Reso466.pdf
• CAMERON, D. et al . Introduction. In : CAMERON, D. et al. Researching language: issues of power and method. London: Routledge, 1992. p.1-28.
• CAMPOS, A. G. Arqueologia, genealogia e ética em formações discursivas de organização profissional docente. 2017. 258f. Tese (Doutorado em Estudos da Linguagem) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2017.
• CELANI, M. A. A. Questões de ética na pesquisa em linguística aplicada. Linguagem & Ensino, Pelotas, v.8, n.1, p.101-122, jan./jun. 2005.
• CHIMENTÃO, L. K. Entre quatro binários: um estudo sobre desenvolvimento profissional docente. 2016. 357f. Tese (Doutorado em Estudos da Linguagem) – Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2016.
• CHRISTIANS, C. G. A ética e a política na pesquisa qualitativa. In: DENZIN, N. K.; LINCOLN, Y. S. (ed.). O planejamento da pesquisa qualitativa: teorias e abordagens. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2006. p.141-162.
• COHEN, L.; MANION, L.; MORRISON, K. Research methods in education. London: RoutledgFalmer, 2000.
• CONNOLLY, K.; REID, A. Ethics review for qualitative inquiry: adopting a values-based, facilitative approach. Qualitative Inquiry, Quebec, v.13, n.7, p.1031-1047, out. 2007.
• CORADIM, J. N. Ciclos reflexivos alternativos. 2015. 348f. Tese (Doutorado em Estudos da Linguagem) – Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2015.
• CORADIM, J. N. Leitura crítica e letramento crítico: idealizações, desejos ou (im)possibilidades? 2008. 130f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos da Linguagem) – Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2008.
• D’ALMAS, J. Leitura crítica: um estudo da aprendizagem do aluno-professor no contexto de educação inicial. 2011. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos da Linguagem) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2011.
• DENZIN, N.K. Interpretive ethnography: ethnographic practices for the 21st century. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1997.
• FRANCESCON, P. K . Práticas de leitura (crítica) de alunos do ensino médio. 2014. 140f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos da Linguagem) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2014.
• FREIRE, P. Pedagogia da autonomia: saberes necessários à prática educativa. 18.ed. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1996.
• GUILLEMIN, M.; GILLAM, L. Ethics, reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, Australia, v.10, n.2, p.261-280, abr. 2004.
• HEWITT, J. Ethical components of researcher–researched relationships in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, Swansea, v.17, n.8, p.1149-1159, oct. 2007.
• JASNIEVSKI, C. C. Insatisfação e mudanças: identidades sobre o real e o ideal nas bases de conhecimento do professor. 2013. 130f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos da Linguagem) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2013.
• LEVINAS, E. Otherwise than being or essence. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981.
• LUNARDI, V. U. Tempos e tempos: narrativas de duas leitoras e professoras de Língua Inglesa. 2011. 136f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos da Linguagem) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2011.
• MATEUS, E. Ética como prática social de cuidado com o outro: implicações para o trabalho colaborativo. In: MAGALHÃES, M. C. C.; FIDALGO, S. (org.). Questões de método e de linguagem na formação docente. São Paulo: Mercado de Letras, 2011. p.187-209.
• MATEUS, E. F.; EL KADRI, M. S.; GAFFURI, P. O que se pode ver da janela: uma análise do subprojeto de Letras-inglês do Programa PIBID. Signum: Estudos da Linguagem, Londrina, v.14, n.1, p.363-386, jun. 2011.
• MOONEY-SOMERS; J.; OLSEN, A. Ethical review and qualitative research competence: Guidance for reviewers and applicants. Research Ethics, Australia, v.13, n.3-4, p.128–138, 2017.
• NODDINGS, N. Caring: a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkley: University of California Press, 1984.
• REIS, S. Sentidos de letramentos em identidades de alunos professores de inglês: um estudo cognitivo-discursivo. In: REIS, S.; CAMPOS, A. G.; SILVA, J. O. Construções discursivas de identidades educacionais. Londrina: EDUEL, 2014. p.129-153.
• REIS, S. Learning to teach reading in English as a foreign language: an interpretative study of student teachers’ cognitions and actions. 2005. 268p. Tese (Doutorado) – Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, 2005.
• REIS, S.; EGIDO, A. A. Ética burocrática em estudos da linguagem. In: REIS, S. Profissionalização docente: história, políticas e ética. Campinas: Pontes, 2017. p.227-250.
• ROOT, M. Philosophy of social science: the methods, ideals, and politics of social inquiry. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
• SCHWANDT, T. A. Três posturas epistemológicas para investigação qualitativa: interpretativismo, hermenêutica e construcionismo social. In: DENZIN, N. K.; LINCOLN, Y. S. (ed.). O planejamento da pesquisa qualitativa: teorias e abordagens. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2006. p.193-217.
• SENEFONTE, F. H. R. Gírias em aulas de inglês? percepções de professores do ensino médio. 2014. 166f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Estudos da Linguagem) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2014.
• SILVA, J. O. Uso e ousadia do professor em sua relação com o livro didático: uma análise discursiva de identidades em (re)construção. 2014. Tese (Doutorado em Estudos da Linguagem) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina, 2014.
• TELLES, J. A. É pesquisa, é? Ah, não quero, não, bem! Sobre pesquisa acadêmica e sua relação com a prática do professor de Línguas. Linguagem & Ensino, Pelotas, v.5, n.2, p.91-116, 2002.

• 1
  Text derived from the first author’s doctoral research done under the advisory of the second author, through the Language Studies Graduate Program at the State University of Londrina.
• 2
  In the original: “[...] enquanto marca da natureza humana, enquanto algo absolutamente indispensável à convivência humana .” (FREIRE, 1996, p.19-20)
• 3
  The acronym in Portuguese stands for National Health Council.
• 4
  Available at: http: www.uel.br/comites/cepesh/pages/resolucoes.php .
• 5
  In the original: “[...] os direitos e deveres que dizem respeito aos participantes da pesquisa, à comunidade científica e ao Estado .” (BRASIL, 2012, p.2).
• 6
  CEP (acronym in Portuguese).
• 7
  CONEP (acronym in Portuguese).
• 8
  In the original: “[...] incorpora, sob a ótica do indivíduo e das coletividades, referenciais da bioética, tais como, autonomia, não maleficência, beneficência, justiça e equidade, dentre outros […]” (BRASIL, 2012).
• 9
  In the original: “ a) respeito ao participante da pesquisa em sua dignidade e autonomia, reconhecendo sua vulnerabilidade, assegurando sua vontade de contribuir e permanecer, ou não, na pesquisa, por intermédio de manifestação expressa, livre e esclarecida;
• b) ponderação entre riscos e benefícios, tanto conhecidos como potenciais, individuais ou coletivos, comprometendo-se com o máximo de benefícios e o mínimo de danos e riscos;
• c) garantia de que danos previsíveis serão evitados; e
• d) relevância social da pesquisa, o que garante a igual consideração .” (BRASIL, 2012).
• 10
  In the original: “ O evento ainda evidenciou a necessidade de serem produzidas resoluções específicas paras as áreas de Ciências Sociais e Humanas sem prejuízos à Resolução CNS 196/96. ” (BRASIL, 2012).
• 11
  In the original: “ ética na prática ” (GUILLEMIN; GILLAM, 2004, p.264).
• 12
  In the original: “[...] a investigação social é uma prática, e não simplesmente um modo de saber. Compreender o que os outros estão fazendo ou dizendo e dar forma pública a esse conhecimento envolve compromissos morais e políticos. ” (SCHWANDT, 2006, p.207).
• 13
  In the original: “[...] assumir essência humana fundada no com implica compreender que somos constituídos por aquilo que é externo a nós mesmos. ” (MATEUS, 2011, p.190).
• 14
  In the original: “[...] se (re)produz socialmente no fluxo das interações mediadas por relações de confiança e de valorização das diferenças [...] , forjada no interior de nossas ações com o outro .” (MATEUS, 2011, p.190 -191).
• 15
  Reported in 2.5.3 section of Chimentão (2006)’s thesis.
• 16
  Reported in Chimentão (2016)’s thesis (chapter 5). In general, it is the ethical commitment that enables participants to express their responses in terms of agreement, refusal, clarification and/or suggestions of adjustments of the interpretations.
• 17
  In the research context, Lilian Kemmer Chimentão also performs the role of coordinator of a federal pre-service teacher education program (viz. PIBID- Institutional Program for Scholarships to Initiate Professorship).
• 18
  English language public school teacher and member of the PIBID program.
• 19
  Undergraduate students from the (English language and literature) Letters course.
• 20
  Available at: http://dgp.cnpq.br/dgp/espelhogrupo/9107014824739065 .
• 21
  In the original: “[...] definir ética como prática social implica, portanto, viver ética e recriar seus sentidos continuamente na medida em que são recriadas as relações com o outro. ” (MATEUS; EL KADRI; GAFFURI, 2011, p.191).
• 22
  In the original: “[...] consideração ética vai além de dar um pseudônimo ou código ao outro, de inserir dados biográficos à guisa de cumprimento formal, ou de apensar trancrições dos dados originais como comprovação material. Confiança na pesquisa parece ser mais importante do que confiabilidade. A consideração com o outro, a meu ver, é aquela que relativiza minhas certezas, meus alcances, que me faz repensar pontos de partidas e modos de me colocar no inacabado movimento de busca. ” (REIS, 2014, p.150).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Dec 2019
• Date of issue
  Sep-Dec 2019

History

• Received
  28 May 2018
• Accepted
  17 Nov 2018