Ethics

Since persons and groups being moved by basing their action on research should be able to rely on the results, several of the above markers of quality (e.g., credibility, coherence and transparency), relates to the ethical aspects of qualitative research (Brinkmann, 2015). In this regard, ethical problems are evaded by reflexive awareness of one’s assumptions and values as a researcher and clarifying how they affect one’s actions and interpretations.

Resonating with pragmatism, and the perspective taken on creativity in this PhD thesis, the traditional ethical principle of universal utilitarianism regards doing research that may produce outcomes entailing “the greatest good for the greatest number” of people (Palmer, 2016, p. 317). Further, reflecting the focus on a worthy topic (section 6.2.1.), my pragmatist position is ethically grounded in that it highlights the need to challenge traditional mechanical and dogmatic practices that may limit creativity, growth and flourishing of individuals and communities, and the need to project future actions that may enhance such aspects (section 3.5.), which work as a moral compass for pragmatist research. Therefore, in the design stages of the three sub-studies, I considered how the given study potentially could entail improved human conditions. Among more, these aspects are part of the introductions and conclusive remarks in SS2 and SS3. In this regard, it would be unethical to prescribe exactly what coaches should do to promote creativity, thus disrespecting their circumstances. Instead, the idea was to form adaptable principles and examples, that could guide rather than dictate actions. Also, the results are intended to may nuance dialogues about creativity in sport, and to highlight potential consequences of different perspectives and approaches.

Drawing on Brinkmann (2015), the above could primarily be regarded as macroethics, that is, the wider interests served and considerations about how knowledge may spread in the wider society and affect communities and individuals when published. I return to this issue after outlining the microethics of this PhD thesis, that is, more specific considerations regarding the participants and our relationship in the research situation.

6.3.1. PROCEDURAL ETHICS

Procedural ethics regards ethical actions necessitated by governing organs such as doing no harm, avoiding fabrication and negotiating informed consent (Tracy, 2010).

Since Danish qualitative researchers are deemed capable to make ethical judgments at all steps before, during and after their value-laden activities in the field (Brinkman, 2015), and since the sub-studies did not involve confidential material (e.g., health-related, ethnical, religious or sexual issues), they have not been submitted to or evaluated by national or institutional research ethics committees (i.e., only mandatory for studies involving human biological material or clinical treatments). However, I did apply ethical guidelines.

All coaches voluntarily participated in the sub-studies, and informed content was gained from all (direct and indirect) participants. In SS2, the coaches’ consent was recorded on a Dictaphone after I informed them about the purpose and potential consequences of the study, reaffirmed that they participated willingly, were not forced

to answer questions, and had the right to withdraw at any time. Further, after I ensured that their names would not appear in any part of the research material, all coaches approved that the name of the club would be used in the dissemination of the results.

Reducing the need for gaining the informed consent from the players in SS2, I was not seeking personal information during the observed training and it could be argued that it occurred in the public domain.

This was also the case in SS3, but since the AR process affected the content of the training sessions and was video-recorded, an e-mail was sent to all the players’ parents to inform about myself and the aims, methods and intended outcomes of the research, including potential benefits and risks. The content of these e-mails will be provided upon request. Also, the players were informed in the beginning of the first training session of the AR process, where I spend considerable time clarifying who I was, why I was filming (i.e., to analyse Adam’s coaching activities and that the video was only used in the analysis), and how I collaborated with Adam to develop new exercises.

Adam’s consent was gained at the start-up meeting, where the AR process was outlined and the first potentials were envisioned. Also, after reviewing the results, he agreed to have his identity disclosed. His readiness not to be anonymized was fortunate since removing coach characteristics from SS3 would have weakened the analysis greatly and e.g., reduced the resonance.

6.3.2. SITUATIONAL AND RELATIONAL ETHICS

Situational ethics regards ethical practices emerging from considering specific contextual circumstances and from reflecting on whether the “means justify the ends”, that is, the appropriateness of exposing certain methods and data (Tracy, 2010, p. 847).

Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) argued that ethics regards seeing and judging particulars to be morally proficient in the concrete research situation. Accordingly, focus should be on how ethical principles are applied in the situation rather than merely following formal guidelines. For example, Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) argue that ethical objectivity regards “letting the objects object to what we as researchers do to them and say about them” (p. 170). Hence, the participants should be allowed to “frustrate one’s investigations” (p. 170). Among more, this was done in SS3, where the AR did not necessarily aim for agreement, but to explore possibilities and limitations of creativity and thereby uncover assumptions. Also, talking about creativity was not expected to install any undesired changes in the coaches’ practices or self-perception and my questions did not challenge their views.

According to Tracy (2010), relational ethics “involve an ethical self-consciousness in which researchers are mindful of their character, actions, and consequences on others”

(p. 847). When interacting with participants in SS2 and SS3, I focused on treating others as I prefer to be treated myself, and with respect for interactional routines in the context. Hence, I acted with honesty, integrity, responsibility, clear intent and with respect for those around me. Specifically, in SS3 this regarded taking the role a friendly outsider (see section 2.4.2.). Also, in SS2, ethical considerations to avoid deception and keeping the door open for follow-ups were part of the reason for conducting interviews before observations (section 2.3.3.). One could argue that it was unethical not to inform about the topic of creativity beforehand. However, this

would eliminate spontaneity in the conversation and involve the risk that the meaning of creativity had been negotiated. Instead, each interview was ended with a through debriefing (Brinkmann, 2015).

6.3.3. EXITING ETHICS

Exiting ethics regards how the scene is left and how the research is shared, which may both have consequences for one’s participants and the wider society (Tracy, 2010). In terms of preventing bad microethical consequences, I carefully followed the principle that the participants should be able to read the paper without feeling misused, misunderstood, tricked or overanalysed when writing up the manuscripts. Hence, to prevent ethical problems, I wanted to authentically represent participant voices (Palmer, 2016) through contextualized and temporalized thick descriptions (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005), and to transparently describe how my perspective and values affected the results (especially in SS3), while opening up for different interpretations of the results (Brinkmann, 2015), so participants are enabled to judge the work. Also, in SS2, it was important that the coaches did not feel like others could identify them directly from quotes, since we agreed on anonymity. Here, caring for the single coach was more important than exciting results.

In this regard, besides expanding the metaphorical analysis through member reflections, the act of taking the results back to the participants before submission of SS2 was based on ethical considerations. Not to withdraw my ethical responsibility for the analysis upon acceptance or to verify the results, but to promote mutual respect and deal with the risk to breach confidentiality through deductive disclosure (Smith

& McGannon, 2018). This was a good opportunity to help coaches understand qualitative research, e.g., how the of results are context, time and mind-dependent.

Thus, as advised by Smith and McGannon (2018), member reflections were used as

“a practical opportunity to acknowledge and/or explore with participants the existence of contradictions and differences in knowing” (p. 108). Also, it enabled me to give something back to the coaches who had helped me in the interviews. In this regard, an additional seminar on creativity and its application in football was also held in the club (after the AR process).

Sharing experiences and exploring findings (e.g., for gaps or similarities in interpretations) through member reflections can reduce ethical problems such as perceptions “that the researcher has unfairly used their power to expose vulnerabilities” (Smith & McGannon, 2018, p. 108). Hence, to preserve Adam’s dignity when reviewing the draft for SS3, he had the possibility to object if the results did not reflect his experience. However, he felt that it represented his views and ideas in appropriate ways, and expressed that the coach description “sounds like me”. He did not disagree with the findings and they did not hurt his feelings, so he opted for the possibility to be named. If not agreeing with the findings, I planned to engage in dialogue with Adam whether this disagreement could be disclosed in the final version of the paper. In this regard, ethical problems may have been evaded in both SS2 and SS3 since both incorporate differential interpretations of creativity.

In terms of macroethical consequences, it is important to consider whether governing bodies of sport, unions, leaders, coaches, etc. could apply the results in unjust,

unintended or inappropriate ways, and since these often arise in unexpected and uncontrollable ways, one should consider how to prevent this (Brinkmann, 2015;

Tracy, 2010). Other than not acting on the results at all, some might choose to use a single metaphor from SS2 to confirm their preferred view about creativity, and others may choose not to work with creativity due to the complexity of the concept and the difficulties of working with it in practice. In the final parts of SS2, I stressed the importance all metaphors to prevent such cases. Also, to avoid misuse of the sub-studies, I focused on clarifying their intended use, but without closing down other ways to apply the results.