I found the readings on ethics to be a bit discouraging this week. I realize that as a novice researcher I do not have the experiences to understand the realities of working with institutional ethics boards and so I am tempering my disappointment with the belief that Berg and Lune (2017) are offering advice and caution. The biggest thing that stood out to me was the challenge of balancing privacy and consent. I felt affronted at one point in the readings and felt strongly that if a researcher was doing ethical work, they have nothing to fear from an ethics review board. As I continued the readings I had to confront my naiveté. The biggest thing that I hadn’t considered is the difficulty in finding participants when you are studying something that is perceived as deviant or unconventional. It would be difficult to access people who are living in fear or hiding a part of themselves and gain their trust.

Accessing participants actually made me question snowball sampling techniques. Knowing that participants should be voluntary and not feel coerced can be tricky when working with youth and asking your participants to identify other potential interested parties. My current plan for recruitment involves snowball sampling by starting with self-identified individuals and requesting that they reach out to friends or classmates with similar experiences.

I read the information on the University of Northern British Columbia’s (UNBC) ethics review process that was posted for this week, and it is very similar to the process at the University of Victoria (UVic). All grad students at UVic are required to take a mandatory course in research ethics that stands apart from our methods courses. It is a free, approximately 3 hour course that results in certification. UVic researchers cannot apply for ethics review without the completion of this certification. It appears that UNBC also provides free access to and encourages their graduate students to complete a responsible conduct of a research course.

I have already been in contact with UVic’s ethics board because my topic will require working with youth who have left public education. I also hope to work closely with a youth co-researcher as a way of reducing power-over perceptions for my participants. As a public school teacher I am very aware that my role could impact my participants and result in tempered responses. Working with a youth co-researcher is a novel approach has not been addressed at UVic, so it was important to me to begin asking questions early in order to facilitate a robust application when I am ready. I feel supported through this process and I am hopeful that guidance will be offered as opposed to outright rejection.