Archive

Archive for the ‘Shifting research’ Category

The ethics of researchers researching research

February 12th, 2010

Following our recent research announcement about writing a conference paper about shiftingthinking.org, it’s been exciting to see some of our shiftingthinking community members post comments of encouragement and interest. As promised, we’d like to keep blogging about this process as it evolves, and I hope that at least some of you will keep reading and commenting over the next few months!

So, what’s been happening lately? You’ll see from our research announcement that one of the first things we’ve had to think about is the ethical implications of our proposed AERA paper. Those of you who’ve done any kind of formal research will know that seeking ethical approval is a normal beginning-stage part of the research process. Those who haven’t perhaps don’t know very much about the kinds of ethical considerations that researchers need to take into account at each stage of the research process. I won’t go into too much detail here – as there are dozens of good textbooks and whole university courses that teach about research ethics – but I just wanted to write a bit about the ethics process “behind” our AERA research announcement because it was a little different to the usual.

At NZCER, as in most universities and other research organisations, we have a group of people drawn from within the organisation that meets to review research ethics proposals – our ethics committee. The normal process goes something like this:

  • For every new project, the project leader(s) write an application that explains the research, including quite a lot of detail about exactly what the researchers are proposing to do, how various kind of ethical issues will be addressed, and often copies of interview questions or survey questions or whatever other research tools are going to be used, etc.
  • A small ethics committee, drawn from a wider pool of researchers not directly connected with the proposed project, reviews all this material, has a discussion about any potential ethical issues they can see with the project.
  • The committee’s discussions and recommendations are conveyed back to the project leader in writing and a verbal summary, so that he/she can revise their project plans, research instruments, information letters, etc. to a point where the committee is satisfied and gives approval for the research to go ahead.

So the question is, what constitutes an ethical issue in research? And how is an ethics committee supposed to decide what is an issue and what isn’t? Broadly speaking, there are at least two ways a committee might approach this. The first is to be quite rule-based or guideline-based – i.e., having a checklist of all the different areas where there might be ethical issues, and asking project leaders to demonstrate how each and all of these will be addressed, and then having some kind of rule or guideline that the committee can use to decide whether the researcher’s plan is up to scratch or not. The second approach is to deal more at the level of ethical principles. This approach takes ethical thinking to a higher level, where the committee is working hard to uncover and critique the ethical principles that underpin a researcher’s proposed approach, and decide whether those principles – and the way they are being expressed in the project –are consistent with our organisation’s values etc, and whether they are the kind of principles we would want to carry forward into our future work.  Over the years, NZCER has been moving away from the former approach, towards the latter, and the depth and quality of discussions we’ve had about ethics in our organisation have increased as a result.

It’s lucky for Jennifer and me that all this has been happening, because our AERA ShiftingThinking research project could be seen as a bit of a curveball for an ethics committee. Firstly, the AERA paper asks us to turn the spotlight back on ourselves as researchers in a way that most of our other research projects don’t. Our AERA paper says we want to look at how this website has evolved “as a qualitative research methodology”. But we (and our colleagues) are the ones who generated this site, and a great deal of its content, in the first place! We’re both researchers AND research subjects. Further than this, shiftingthinking is a project that has involved the input of so many different people WITHIN NZCER, that there is an inevitable overlap with the constitution of the ethics committee that reviewed our application. In other words, some people are both researchers and research subjects, others are both research subjects AND members of the ethics committee that has to decide on the ethics of the proposed research, and so on.

Since this project is unusual and involves so many people within our organisation, our ethics committee decided to take a slightly unusual approach. Instead of having a small committee, the ethics convener invited all the people who have played a significant role in the ethics committee’s ongoing evolution to be part of the meeting. Instead of the project leader being absent from the meeting, I (as a project co-leader) was invited to the meeting to be involved in the discussions. And in those discussions, we talked about both the particular ethical issues that we could see within this proposed project (you can read how we address some of these issues in our research announcement), AND the wider implications of this project for our ongoing thinking about, and approaches to, research ethics within our organisation.

One of our colleagues commented that a key consideration for our ethics thinking ought to be to deeply examine what each project claims to be doing, and to evaluate the ethical principles  it instantiates in relation to these claims. In the case of the AERA shiftingthinking research project, our project claims to (at least attempts to) “shift the boundaries” around our own thinking about how and why we do (qualitative) research. It seems appropriate that it opened up an opportunity for us to reflect on and re-examine the boundaries of our ethics processes.

Shifting research , , , , ,

Research announcement

February 3rd, 2010

We would like to share some important news with all our shiftingthinking readers and community members. Please read this announcement carefully as it may be relevant to you.

We (Rachel Bolstad & Jennifer Garvey Berger, supported by other NZCER team members) have successfully submitted a proposal to present a paper at the 2010 American Educational Research Association (AERA) conference, to be held from April 30- 4 May. The paper is called “Shifting thinking about qualitative research methods: Conversations and co-construction from the bottom of the changing world”. The short abstract for our paper appears at the bottom of this posting.

The objective of our AERA paper is to explore and discuss the development of this website – shiftingthinking.org – as a tool, methodology or way of “doing” (and thinking and talking) about qualitative research. We are very excited to have this opportunity to do some thinking and writing that will help us to take stock of our journey so far with shiftingthinking.org, and to consider the directions that we might go with this site in 2010 and beyond.

To write this AERA paper, we intend to collect and analyse various kinds of data. This will include at least two kinds, which we will call “private data” and “public domain data”.  Private data is any data that is not publicly visible (e.g. data that is not on the shiftingthinking website). This may include:

  • Field notes from in-person meetings we had at NZCER about shiftingthinking.org, where we discuss methodological and practical issues, as well as our own our learning.
  • Emails between NZCER researchers, or between researchers and research participants and/or members of the changing on-line community.
  • Research journals kept by the investigators as they explore the variety of methodological and other concerns and delights over the course of the project.

“Public domain” data is anything that is openly visible to a visitor to Shiftingthinking.org, e.g.

  • Web-based blogs and comments already posted, or which will be posted, on this website.

Ethical issues

Below, we explain how we plan to deal with ethical issues that might arise from this process.

In the case of private data generated by people outside NZCER, (such as emails people have spontaneously sent us, comments people have made to us in person, etc.), we will consider each piece of data on a case-by-case basis. Any such data we use would not be linked by name or personal description to the individuals who sent it to us. (For example, we may quote an email from a tertiary student asking how to properly reference the shiftingthinking website in a university paper, or paraphrase comments people have made to the researchers in passing about the site). If we use any private data that is more personal or identifiable than the two examples above, we will contact the person directly to check that they are happy for us to use their data.

In the case of “public domain” data – i.e any blogpostings, pages, and comments published on the shiftingthinking site–we will not contact individuals to seek their permission to quote from postings or comments they have made on this website, as this data is already publicly available. We may attribute any or all comments or posting we cite to their authors using the username that the author used on the website when they made that entry or posting.  However, in the spirit of ethical research practice, we are posting this research announcement to inform registered members of, and visitors to, the shiftingthinking website about our project, and to invite your comment on it.

So, if after reading this announcement, you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact us. We will treat all messages confidentially and conscientiously. Please contact us directly. Our email addresses are:
Rachel.bolstad@nzcer.org.nz
Jennifer.GarveyBerger@nzcer.com

You may also leave comments on this blogposting, if you would like your comment to be publicly viewable.

Keep track of our research paper as it develops

We plan to write blogpostings about our research process over the next few months in the “shifting research” blog category. We invite all readers to contribute to our shaping of this AERA paper by posting their comments, thoughts, ideas, and other responses to these postings.

Once the paper is completed and has been presented at AERA, we will provide electronic copies to any registered shiftingthinking community members who requests this.

2010 AERA PAPER PROPOSAL DETAILS

Shifting Thinking about Qualitative Research Methods: Conversations & Co-construction from the Bottom of the Changing World

Abstract:

This paper discusses the methodological implications of an innovative, 21st Century approach to data collection, analysis, and reporting. Breaking away from a 20th century paradigm of “filter then publish”, we put a variety of research projects undertaken by our organization inside a single web-based “ecology” where the boundaries between data collection, analysis, and reporting were intentionally blurred, and invited a range of people to engage in thinking about their implications together with us. This paper is another step in the development of a novel methodology designed to reshape our research and research knowing and helps us reconsider the way research can act on the world when we step away from our familiar 20th century processes and cycles for investigating and disseminating findings.

Shifting research , , ,

Arts-based educational research

November 12th, 2009
Sure, it's creative. But is it art?

Sure, it's creative. But is it art?

For the last few months I’ve had an article buried under piles of paper on my desk waiting to be read. With the Shifting Thinking conference now over (Acts I-III at least!), I’ve had a tidy up and finally got a chance to look at it:
Barone, T. (1995) The purposes of arts-based educational research, International Journal of Educational Research Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 169-180

A workmate pointed me in the direction of the arts-based research literature earlier this year during one of our journal writing group meetings. I’ve long been interested in experimenting with different mediums and modes for conveying ideas, and  I’ve had lots of opportunities at NZCER to try out some of these ideas as we’ve developed different ideas for disseminating research. Over the years, we’ve dabbled in digital storytelling, and various kinds of writing and image-based techniques (not to mention blogging!).

This year I’ve had two particularly enjoyable writing opportunities that I think relate well to Barone’s article on arts-based educational research. The first was collaborating with some of my colleagues to write the “scenario cards” that feature in NZCER’s Kickstart Resource on Participating and Contributing (which I blogged about  a while ago). The second was writing the script for This is School: Or, Changing the Script, the play that we performed dring Act III of the Shifting Thinking Conference.

In both cases, I integrated various ideas inspired from my work as an educational researcher. Some were drawn from direct experiences, such as  conversations I have had, or things I have seen or heard in schools. Others were drawn from things I’ve read, or ideas I’ve wanted to write about but never had the opportunity to.  In both cases, I was able to weave these ideas together into a story, rather than a non-fictional essay or academic argument. In both cases, the end result was a piece of fiction, inspired by real life, that was designed to provoke conversation and open up space for readers/viewers to pick apart any or all of the ideas bedded into the story (or introduce their own ideas in their “reading” of the story)

I’ve been wondering where exactly such semi-fictionalised pieces belong in the realm of educational research.  It doesn’t seem quite right to call them “research” – at least not that way that I think about what constitutes “research”. But could they be called “research-based?” or “research-inspired”? Should an educational researcher be writing stories in the first place?

Thomas Barone’s article has given me some new ideas for thinking about the space for arts-based educational research (and I am keen to start a conversation with anyone else out there who’s interested).  One idea he suggests is that arts-based research is, and should be, seen as distinct and different from research that is grounded in a social science approach. I really like his idea about viewing this distinction in terms of what each does in relation to “uncertainty” He says:

Projects of social science aim to reduce uncertainty, to seek literal truth within a particular paradigm, framework, or worldview……[Whereas] good art…can be said to promote the enhancement of uncertainty. Art makes a different sort of “truth claim” than does science; it engages in the second fundamental purpose of human inquiry: to promote doubt about the desirability of the values and interests associated with knowledge in a particular paradigm, framework, or world view (Barone, 1995, pp. 171-172)

I love the idea of thinking about research as sometimes enhancing uncertainty, rather than always trying to reduce it, and I certainly think that’s what the two story-based pieces of writing  I’ve mentioned above were trying to do (even if I hadn’t quite articulated it in that way).

I’m not saying we should do away with uncertainty-reducing research – and neither is Barone -  that kind of research is still as crucial as it ever was! But Barone finishes by saying:

I believe it is time to encourage and honor non-scientific researchers, including novelists and other storytellers, who pursue the noble aim of getting the reader to ask important educational questions (p. 178)

What do you think? Are you interested in exploring the space for arts-based educational research with me?

Shifting research , , , ,

Beginning to unpack my research assumptions

September 7th, 2009

This learning conversation outlines some of my thinking in undertaking a small, exploratory research project.  Throughout the process of conducting this research, I was forced to consider deeply the contradictory and ambiguous intersections between different research and knowledge traditions in ways that challenged me to push the boundaries of my own thinking about research, my position as a researcher and what research is supposed to look like and to whom. 

Unpacking some of the often hidden assumptions in my own thinking often felt like invasive surgery.  My attempts to hold onto and most importantly to learn to let go of my own limits of not knowing, was at once disruptive, uncomfortable and unsettling – yet in retrospect strangely made sense.  One of the insights that I remember being particularly surprised to learn of was my natural tendency to want to reconcile many of the tensions that I faced so that they would ‘fit’ within my own social and cultural understanding.  I also often felt torn between maintaining a sense of professional loyalty to the organisation alongside a deep seated cultural obligation to provide research that would be useful to the kura and their whänau community. 

Interrogating the many different spaces I held at any one time beyond reflection and adding to my existing experiences and ideas, encouraged me to reconceptualise not only how to change my own practices and thinking about the work that I do and in the questions that I ask, but also to think about how to collectively engage and negotiate in the discourse of research in more different and meaningful ways.  This is because doing what we’ve always done to get us here won’t get us there, so I invite you on a journey to come to the ‘edge’.

Shifting literacies, Shifting research

Generating knowledge and possibly wisdom

August 20th, 2009

I’ve just read an article by Chris Dede in the May 2009 Issue of Educational Researcher (reference details at the bottom of this posting) and it’s really struck a chord for me, particularly regarding my ongoing thinking about this shifting thinking communitywhat it is for, who it is for, and what it could do if we give it a chance.

If you’ve spent any time looking around this site you’ve probably picked up the idea that its key purpose is shifting our thinking about learning and education for the 21st century. We write a lot about how we think teaching and schooling will need to shift in order to be relevant and purposeful for today’s (and tomorrow’s) world. The teachers’ work thread speculates about what this means for teachers and teaching, and our community engagement thread asks how we might engage communities in this whole process of rethinking and redesign.

Scarier than this rollercoaster? (c) Rachel Bolstad 2007

Scarier than this rollercoaster? (c) Rachel Bolstad 2007

However, recently we’ve had a few in-house conversations about also needing to turn the spotlight back onto ourselves – the education researchers – to ask how we might need to shift our thinking about ourselves and our roles now and in the future.  In short: What does it mean to be a “21st century educational researcher”? What kinds of ideas and practices might we need to let go of, and what new ones might we need to embrace? You might be surprised to learn that this is difficult and sometimes scary territory for many of us (we can talk about why some other time)!

All this is a long way of getting to the proposition in Dede’s article, which is about the use of web 2.0 to support educational research. He suggests it is time to move beyond the use of web 2.0 tools to enhance current scholarly practices for producing knowledge (e.g. communal bookmarking, professional networking, wikis, etc), and instead, move towards:

… initiating a new form of professional dialogue: sponsoring communities that attempt to generate “wisdom”.  I am aware that this suggestion is provocative, controversial, and risky; nonetheless, I believe such an experiment is worth conducting (Dede, 2009, p. 261)

Dede imagines a potential infrastructure for generating wisdom comprising:

An interconnected suite of web 2.0 tools customized for research would provide (a) a virtual setting in which stakeholders of many different types could dialogue, (b) about rich artifacts grounded in practice and policy (c) with a set of social supports to encourage community norms that respect not only theoretical rigor and empirical evidence but also interpersonal, experiential, and moral-ethical understandings. For example… teachers could bring the “wisdom of practice” into such a community, and community representatives could articulate social and cultural norms reflective of their diverse values. These three capabilities of a research infrastructure seem essential for a community attempting to generate wisdom about educational issues; only in the past few years has ICT made these affordances widely available, practical, and inexpensive (Dede, 2009, p. 262).

I don’t know what you think, but I feel like this is what shiftingthinking is trying to achieve. Whether we’re on the right track with our tools and approach so far remains to be seen (but we do see shiftingthinking as a work in progress – and in addition to the web-based part, we also have the upcoming Shifting Thinking conference….hint hint)

Dede has some more to say about why such an “experiment” could seem risky, unwise, and perhaps downright foolish to some educational researchers – but if you want to know exactly what this is about, you should read the article :)

Dede, Chris. (2009). Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom. Educational Researcher 38 (4) pp. 260-263

Conference: November 2009, Shifting research , , , , , , , ,