critiquing the literature
Post on 20-Jan-2017
82 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Introduction
In this paper, I critique two studies conducted by gathering data from people and analysing
the results by Taylor (2009) and Ryan (2009) in terms of ethical considerations and the
validity of their research studies.
“Knowing what constitutes ethical research is important for all people who conduct research
projects or use and apply the results from research findings” (University of Minnesota, 2003.
P. 6). Ethics are related to values, moral behaviours and human rights. Menter, Elliot, Hulme,
Lewin and Lowden (2011) point out that ethics cover some principles such as respect for the
person, knowledge, democratic values, justice and equity, quality of educational research and
academic freedom. All researchers should be aware of these basic ethical principles, and be
familiar with and understand all the policies and theories that have been designed to
guarantee the safety of the research subjects. If the researchers do not apply these policies,
their research would not be considered ethical research (University of Minnesota, 2003).
Ethical dimensions of educational research include informed consent, right of withdrawal,
confidentiality and anonymity, identifying potential harm, conflicts of interest and access to
participants. These ethical issues need to be addressed when researchers design their study,
and applied before, after and during the project study (Menter et al., 2011).
Informed consent
Informed consent means that the people who are asked to participate in research must know
how they will be involved in the project before they commit to participating. The participants
should not be forced or influenced to participate, but they must consent to be involved in the
project as a subject (University of Minnesota, 2003). This free and informed consent must be
gained from the participants in a manner that is appropriate to the culture and society
(University of Waikato, 2008). Completing a research ethics committee form is one of the
major priorities of processing qualitative research conducted with human subjects (Guillemin
& Gillam, 2004). Wilkinson (2001) indicated that the basic idea behind informed consent is
that if you want to do research on people, you should ask their permission first” (p.16).
According to the University of Waikato (2008), informed consent is required from schools,
pupils, children and their parents or other responsible adults for all research and research-
related activities relating to these subjects.
Right of withdrawal
Another ethical consideration is the participants’ right to withdraw from participating in the
research or any part of the project. Also they have the right to withdraw any information they
have provided for the researcher during the project. Even if their data has been analysed, the
researchers should accept their decision (University of Waikato, 2008).
Confidentiality and anonymity
Maintaining the anonymity of participants is another ethical principle that researchers must
take care to apply (University of Waikato, 2008). Anonymity means that the researchers are
committed to presenting the participants’ responses/data without using their real names
(Menter et al., 2011). In addition, research information must be kept confidential and should
be presented in a way that does not allow any individual’s information to be identified.
Participants’ data should not be identified in public without their explicit consent. Even
parents do not have the right to access their children’s data, and this issue should be clearly
clarified for parents and children or young people before requesting their consent (University
of Waikato, 2008).
Identifying potential harm
Ethical research refers to gathering data without doing harm or injuring someone (University
of Minnesota, 2003). Harm to participants can be physical, psychological, social, economic or
cultural. Harm includes emotional distress, stress, pain, fatigue, exploitation and
embarrassment. A researcher must identify any potential harm and the negative consequences
of the risk before seeking people’s consent to participate (University of Waikato, 2008).
Conflicts of interest
Researchers should declare any potential conflict of interest between them and the
participants. A conflict of interest arises when a researcher is likely to gain an unfair or
inappropriate advantage, or when participants try to impact the researcher’s impartiality. It
could also occurs where a researcher is likely to seek direct or indirect benefits such as
money, services, information or relationships (University of Waikato, 2008).
Access to participants
The researchers need to seek agreement from the participants before starting the projects by
giving them a letter that provides details about the study will be conducted and what the
participants will do. Also accessing to the participants need to have the agreement of the
manager of a community or institution that the project is conducted in, such as lecturers and
principals, as well as parents if the participants are children (Menter et al., 2011; Orb,
Eisenhauer & Wynaden, 2001). Connolly (2003) indicated that the researchers must invite the
participants to take part in their study, meaning researchers should not force the participants
to be involved in the study; instead, they have to explain to the participants that they will be
involved as volunteers and they have the right to decline to participate in the research (Orb et
al., 2001).
Validity
Validity is required for both quantitative and qualitative research, but it is addressed
differently in these two research methods. In qualitative data, validity might be improved
“through the honesty, depth, richness and scope of the data achieved, the participants
approached, the extent of triangulation and the disinterestedness or objectivity of the
research” (Winter, 2000, as cited in Cohen, Manion, Morrison, 2007, p. 133 ). However, in
quantitative research validity might be examined “through careful sampling, appropriate
instrumentation and appropriate statistical treatments of the data” (Cohen et al., 2007, p.
133). Ethics are an integral part of internal validity; therefore, research is not ethical before it
is valid because both factors influence the research’s outcome, and the research should be
beneficial, fair and culturally sound (Lincoln, 1995).
Taylor’s research
Taylor’s (2009) study aimed to explore the effects of and specifically distinguish between
active learning pedagogy and studio space in terms of their impact on teaching and learning.
The writer discusses situations presented by some researchers where traditional classrooms
were converted into studio spaces, in order to facilitate active learning, which became
significant in colleges and universities.
Taylor’s data-gathering methods involved quadrature: she collected data from four surveys
and interviewed faculty members and students four times during the semester. I think that
Taylor’s success in using these resources to gather data could have resulted in a valid method
for exploring others’ experiences and their perspectives about specific topics. However, if
Taylor had used a triangulation method including observation it would possibly have been
better, especially for investigating students’ attitudes and how their achievements changed. If
she herself observed the students in the schools, it would have been more reliable and valid
because, according to Cohen et al., (2007), adopting ‘triangulation’ can ensure confidence in
the data and increase trustworthiness as well as ensuring that the trustworthiness of the data
equals reliability in quantitative research. One limitation of the methodology was the large
variation between the two groups studied, as there were 25 participants in the astronomy
course, but only nine students in the genetics course who responded to her survey.
Taylor’s (2009) study was conducted ethically to some degree: “All faculty and students
involved in the study signed consent forms, and all human subject guidelines were followed.
[Also] this study had been approved by the institution’s human subjects review board”
(p.220). However, this study was not ethical in other aspects. The author must explicitly
explain the project to the participants and make sure they have understood their role within
the project and the subject must freely express interest in participating. (University of
Waikato, 2008). In addition, Taylor should have explained, as part of gaining consent, to the
participants that they would be involved in the project more than once (University of
Waikato, 2008).
The use of “will be called” in the report gives the impression that the writer is trying to
protect the participants’ real names because he called the two faculty members Jenny and
Jim. So Taylor has considered the ethical issue of maintaining the anonymity of participants.
The researcher must maintain the anonymity of participants because it creates trust between
the researcher and the participants (Menter et al., 2011; University of Waikato, 2008).
However, the two faculty members are likely to be identified because Taylor referred to them
as the genetics professor and the astronomy professor. Because it was small-scale research
project, Taylor should not have presented their personal information in order to maintain the
confidentiality and privacy of these participants in order to prevent harm to their reputation.
Moreover, the writer did not provide information to the participants about what would be
done with all the information/data collected, and whether records would be kept or destroyed.
Taylor should have informed the participants about the form the findings would be published
in, the duration and security of storing their information, their right to change any personal
information and to withdraw any information they have provided (University of Waikato,
2008). Also he should have explained to the participants that they had the right to freely
express their decision to participate, namely their interest in being involved in the study, or
their decision to decline to participate in the project.
The writer did not show us how she managed the results and came up with these numbers/
percentages. Also we do not know the type and formula of the questions that were applied in
this study. Consequently, identifying these missing issues might affect the reliability and
validity of this study. Taylor stated that some specific questions about the use of the studio
space were changed from survey to survey, but he did not said how these questions changed
and what the reasons were for this change, so we cannot fully trust that these questions
explored the same aims as the first survey. This might lead to some loss its validity. Finally,
because of the lack of references and discussion in Taylor’s study, we could question whether
we can trust this article and use it for other research. Shenton (2004) stated that to trust such
research, sufficient information must be provided to enable the reader to transfer this
information.
The reliability of this research study was obvious, in investigating the effect of studio space
on students’ learning and the faculty’s teaching, and allowing for a distinction to be made by
separating the effects of studio space on learning and the effects on pedagogy, because the
aims of this study were achieved successfully through the tools used.
Ryan’s study
The purpose of Ryan’s (2009) project was to explore the opinions and perceptions of pupils
with special educational needs and disabilities about the inclusivity and exclusivity of places
in the school. It also aimed to investigate the differences between pupils with special
educational needs or disabilities and pupils with no special educational needs, in terms of
their views about inclusion. The value of Ryan’s study is that he discusses issues that have
not often been considered in the literature. However, he fails to compare the two types of
pupils, as he focuses on the views of pupils with special educational needs, which may affect
the reliability and validity of this study, because some of the aims of this research were not
achieved.
The participants in this project were children, teachers and classroom assistants from 15
schools. The method used to collect data was two meetings held in the participating schools
that included the use of a digital camera, PowerPoint, a video presentation and verbal
feedback. These various pieces of equipment may are very useful in figuring out the real
issues that face pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools.
Ryan’s project was ethical because ethical considerations about taking photographs in the
schools and concerns about protecting children from harm were considered. In addition, more
details about the project were provided to the participating schools. However, Ryan said only
that these schools expressed their interest in participating, but did not mention that the
schools signed the informed consent form. A letter that explained the project was sent to the
participants' parents, seeking parental permission. However, Ryan needed to explain the
project to the children participating in this project because the validity of research requires
children to really understand their participation in the research (Hurley & Underwood, 2002).
Children need more explanation about the project than adults (Finch, 2005). On the other
hand, working with pupils with disabilities and special learning needs presents more
challenges when applying ethical considerations because the researcher has to be confident
that these students really understand what is explained to them (Menter et al., 2011). In
addition, no consent forms were signed by the pupils in Ryan’s research. According to Finch
(2005), although children and young people’s consent to participate in research is necessary,
it is not sufficient, and parental consent is required. Moreover, Ryan should have explained
the procedures in the study to the children, along with their right to withdraw at any time of
the study and the likelihood of the risks that they may face during this project (Hurley
&Underwood, 2002).
Ryan should have provided information about the conditions and the period that any personal
information, including photographs, PowerPoint and video presentations, were to be stored
(University of Waikato, 2008). Research data must be kept confidential, but Ryan may have
failed regarding this ethical consideration because he named the participating schools by their
real names; instead, he should have named them in a way that prevented identification of
these schools (University of Waikato, 2008).
Ryan’s role in gathering the data was not shown in this study, as he relied on the participants.
He mentioned that the participants, including pupils and staff members, collected information
for this study: photos were taken by pupils and the findings were presented by the staff
members and a video presentation was conducted by one pupil. Ryan’s function was only to
present the findings in his research. Therefore, the reliability of this study may be affected by
this factor.
Ryan (2009) expected that this project would encourage schools to take the voice of pupils
with special needs into consideration regarding reasonable adjustments. I think his
investigation is quite helpful in developing the structure of the school environment to meet
pupils’ needs. However, I suggest it might have been more reliable if the author had
investigated whether inclusion or exclusion affected pupils’ learning outcomes or not.
Summary
Both Taylor (2009) and Ryan (2009) discussed the school environment. Taylor showed the
effective impact that studio space had on students learning, while Ryan concentrated on
students’ voices and views about their inclusion in places in the schools and the environment
they needed for their learning. Both these studies were ethical to some degree, which was
obvious because of the ethical considerations which were described by the two authors, but
Ryan considered more ethical issues than Taylor did. However, the criteria of validity in
Taylor’s study are more evident than in Ryan’s project. Taylor was more successful in
exploring what her study aimed to reveal, while Ryan failed to address the second purpose of
his study, which was to explore the differences between the views of the pupils with special
educational needs or disabilities about their inclusion and those of other students. One
limitation in both Taylor’s (2009) and Ryan’s (2009) studies is that there is no discussion
section in the papers. This means they do not present a link or a comparison between the
findings of their studies and other previous research, which could lead a reader to doubt their
validity.
In my situation, when I do a thesis in mathematics in Saudi Arabia, the first ethical issue that
I need to cover is to seek ethical approval from my supervisor; this will be sent to the Saudi
Arabian cultural mission that supports my study to allow me working on other activities
related to seeking consent to start researching the thesis. Informed consent from participating
students is not required in Saudi culture; however agreement should be granted by the
principals of schools or the rectors of the universities that will participate in my research. In
addition, I will limit the participants to girls because allowing working females to work with
males considered immoral in Islam. Working directly with students will thus increase the
validity of my study.
References
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K.( 2007). Research method in education. In L.Cohen,
L. Manion & K. Morrison (Eds.), Validity and reliability (pp. 133–164). London and
New York: Routledge
Connolly, P. (2003) Ethical principles for researching vulnerable groups. Belfast: Office of
the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Retrieved from
http://www.paulconnolly.net/publications/pdf_files/ofmdfm_ethics_2003.pdf.
Finch, B. (2005). Considering pedagogies for consent with children. Waikato Journal of
Education, 11(1), 61–71.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and ethically important moments in
research. Qualitative Inquiry,10(2), 261–280.
Hurley, J.C., & Underwood, M.K. (2002). Children’s understanding of their research rights
before and after debriefing: Informed assent, confidentiality, and stopping
participation. Child Development, 73(1), 132–143.
Lincoln, Y. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.
Menter, L., Elliot, D., Hulme, M., Lewin, J., & Lowden, K. (2011). A guide to practitioner
research in education. London: SAGE.
Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in qualitative research. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93–96.
Ryan, D. (2009). ‘Inclusion is more than a place’: exploring pupil views and voice in Belfast
schools through visual narratives. British Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 77–83.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2009.00422.x
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75.
Taylor, S. (2009). Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: preliminary findings from
two case studies. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 217-228. doi: 10.1007/s10755-
008-9079-7
University of Minnesota, Center for Bioethics. (2003). A guide to research ethics. MIN:
University of Minnesota. Retrieved from
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/img/assets/26104/Research_Ethics.pdf
University of Waikato. (2008). Ethical conduct in human research and related activities
regulations. Retrieved from
http://calendar.waikato.ac.nz/assessment/ethicalConduct.html.
Wilkinson, T.M. (2001). The core ideas of ethics research. In M. Tolich (Ed.), Research
ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand concepts, practice, critique (pp. 13–24). Auckland,
New Zealand: Pearson Education.
top related