FULLTEXT01

and that one always has the option to withdraw without any further
explanations and under no circumstances negative consequences. In a
collaboration project of the kind that I participated in, it is accustomed that
research principals and research managers ensure that this kind of information
is communicated in advance, and that informed consent is established between
the representatives of the various parties involved. It should also be agreed that
involvement takes place within normal working hours (Swedish Research
Council, 2011). However, even so, there might be a dilemma when it comes to
the informed consent requirement. If individuals among the school personnel
oppose to participate in such an effort, that is, although the project is said to
proceed within normal working hours, it may to some extent, be labeled as a
problem, rather than respected as the reasonable consequence of the consent
requirement. A further dilemma is that despite necessary information has been
given about a research project, it may be difficult for participants to predict the
consequences of one's own participation, such as how it can affect one to
subsequently find himself quoted in an academic context (Wehterell, 2001).
Participants must be assured confidentiality for example by me changing their
names, and also excluding information in the text excerpts and statements
which in any way may identify people (Swedish Research Council, 2002;
Wetherell, 2001). However, it can be difficult to fully meet the requirement to
remove information that might identify the participants. Foremost it can be
difficult in an extensive co-funded, collaboration project with many actors
involved. For all those who have been part of, or who have had information
about the project in question, and these are quite a few people, it can be rather
easy to deduce various facts to specific municipalities, authorities or even
persons in the project. Examples would be data that is of great value to the
actual study, but which, for those familiar with the case, can be traced to any of
the actors involved. Therefore, it must, be emphasized that the purpose of this
study is to highlight the ideological implications of the discursive practice. The
purpose is by no means to identify in which extent individual „actors‟ may
contribute to this, or to in any negative way, point out one or the other.
As an ideology analysis of the kind I conduct is more of a generative process,
the way to understand research data cannot be overseen from start. Even if it
was possible, it is not necessarily relevant to in detail and continuously inform
the participants about the theoretical outline and objectives of the study
(Wetherell, 2001). According to the Swedish Research Council's (2002) Research
ethics recommendations, the value „of the expected knowledge contribution should
180