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.