supporting tiriti-based curriculum delivery in mainstream early ...

3.4.2 Do No Harm and Avoid Deceit
To insure that no unintentional harm came to participants, the
questionnaire and case study research were discussed with the Māori Advisory
Committee. This enabled me to have a group of peers (other than the Ethics
Committee) consider the research and whether or not it was being approached in an
ethical manner especially in regards to matters pertaining to Māori. Respondents to
the questionnaire were able to choose which questions they answered, and not
everyone did in fact opt to answer every question; this, therefore, enabled them to
safeguard themselves. Likewise with the action research, co-researchers were in
charge of their own level of participation.
The study design precluded any need to deceive participants throughout
the process of the research. Potential participants were given information forms
and all had an opportunity to ask questions about the research before consenting to
take part. Being open and honest with participants as we collaborated as co-
researchers enabled the processes to be transparent.
3.4.3 Anonymity
Tolich and Davidson (1999) consider anonymity to be when the
“researcher cannot identify a given response as belonging to a particular
respondent” (p. 76). The respondents to the questionnaire were not able to be
recognised, as no names or identify features were included on the survey form.
However, Zeni (1998) notes that in action research, issues such as
anonymous informants and disguised settings “may defeat the action researcher‟s
goal of open communication” (p. 10). Zeni believes that educators in their own
settings are often recognisable. When I considered how I would address issues of
anonymity it became clear that this was neither assured nor even desirable,
especially if I were to practise what I believe with respect to power sharing and my
belief that some or all participants would wish to publicly own the research as well.
With the case study participants, therefore, I informed them it was their
decision as to whether or not their names should be kept anonymous or made
public. In Case Study Two the parent/teacher committee also wanted clarification
about anonymity (although they named it confidentiality) in the final report and it
was agreed that before any information was published they would be given an
110