Ethical Insights and Young People

Determining the appropriate age to consent being part of research projects constitutes a real challenge for the different stakeholders involved therein. Two elements need to be considered here. First, research practitioners must observe the legal jurisdiction of the county/town/state in which they are conducting their project – that is, students’ consent cannot override any legal obligation. Otherwise, researchers might end up being sued or underfunded for non-compliance with the law. Furthermore, from a social perspective, law-abiding projects are widely accepted and recognized. Secondly, the principles or tenets that inform ethics guidelines or ethics boards may have diverse sociocultural backgrounds. This is especially true in countries/towns/states that are geographically different from the research team’s background. Sensitive topics and issues indeed require careful consideration.

Now, a dilemma that clearly stands out is the professional/research ethics versus the best interests/care of the children. One necessarily needs to establish whose concerns will be given priority while being aware that serious differences might affect the research process. As a research practitioner, I do believe ethics plays a paramount role in the practices and procedures of the inquiry. With this in mind, can interpretative researchers be trusted when taking decisions that might affect the youth? The answer is clearly yes. Of course, measures ought to be taken to ensure validity and reliability within the process. Generally speaking, researchers should situate themselves within an epistemological approach and a political stance so as to avoid biases. Likewise, power conflicts might emerge when considering the dynamics of the research process. All these tensions and their implications have to be taken into account and foreseen from the outset.

Moreover, power dynamics and confidence might be the reasons linked to the incorporation of novice researchers into the whole research endeavor. Would a teenager talk about and share private matters such as sexual-related concepts with a figure of authority within a formal environment? This is not likely to happen as it depends on the sociocultural setting. In that sense, data may be altered – that is, biased results and information can only lead to serious misinterpretations. Conversely, I am concerned with the quality standards that YCRs would bring to the inquiry. Is engaging in “in-depth” training enough to handle all the subtleties and implications of qualitative research and ethical constructs? So I guess that a price needs to be paid to train co-researchers.

With that in mind, whose interests should prevail when conducting research: the parents’ or the children’s? It hinges on one’s perspective. As a father, I do not believe that waiving parental consent should be considered. I am conscious that this practice might deter teenagers from contributing in significant research projects. As a research practitioner, all ethical possibilities need to be taken into account to get results and data. Given the topic’s relevance, ethics boards and ministries of education need to reach a healthy, logical and ethical consensus in this continuum.

Reference

Chabot, C., Shoveller, S.A., Spencer, G., & Johnson, J.L. (2012). Ethical and Epistemological Insights: A Case Study of Participatory Action Research with Young People. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 7(2), 20-33.

Some Disorganized Ideas on Participatory Action Research

Accountability and ethical behavior are definitely major constructs of educational research. Likewise, validity from the community/group that is being studied is pivotal for Participatory Action Research (PAR). In that sense, I do believe researchers are accountable to the different stakeholders for both, the nature of their research and the conclusions that might arise from such inquiry. I am not implying that researchers are not entitled to academic freedom; my viewpoint is that validity confirms and legitimize the results and conclusions of interpretative inquiry. Moreover, balancing accountability and freedom constitutes a real challenge for qualitative researchers – that is, ethics is a must for researchers.

In general terms, PAR and constructivism share some subtleties that are inclined to social changes and development. I believe that the communicative space is a must to fully comprehend a specific reality. Given its commitment to meaningful societal changes, PAR provides the theoretical framework for solidarity and social justice. In that sense, I find PAR to be inclusive as it fosters critical analysis and might embrace different stances and approaches (Indigenosity, CRT and Transformative Learning, among others).

Likewise, PAR is an exciting approach to research.  From a qualitative standpoint, it offers concrete possibilities for practitioners to have an impact on communities thanks to positive changes based on theoretical tenets – that is, it makes science accessible to the communities and the researchers within those communities. This reality offers new outlooks on power dynamics for policy makers, politicians and communities/groups under study.

Moreover, the teacher-researcher can be empowered by PAR. In any event, there is a lot of room for improvement in our educational systems and teacher-researchers can come up with ground-breaking decisions sustained by theoretical tenets. It is a foregone conclusion that teacher-researchers are accountable to themselves and the communities/groups they work with. It is precisely this validity from the groups and the different stakeholders that legitimize societal changes and concerns.

Furthermore, ethics is pivotal to interpretative inquiry. Situating oneself within an epistemological construct and recognizing biases constitute the most relevant steps from the outset. I can figure out academic scenarios with tenure discussions and workloads where results and data might be manipulated to “please” specific authority figures, which I have to acknowledge, is likely to happen. Again, ethics is a must for teacher-researchers.

Reference

Image taken from www.google.com.

Can We Really Ignore The Elephant In The Living Room?

There is no doubt in my mind – if one fully wishes to grasp the term Verstehen, history needs to be considered as it plays a pivotal role in understanding the philosophical tenets of a research approach. I did enjoy going over the golden age and the healthy criticism that ethnography has been through. From my viewpoint, history consolidates interpretative research designs that foster an in-depth understanding and analysis of people’s life and meaning-making, action-research, case studies and non-western approaches, for example. Building on this concept, history does represent a fundamental construct that provides underlying tenets for modern educational systems. Its disavowal might end up in disastrous organizations devoid of any theoretical framework whatsoever. Heretofore, qualitative inquiry has started to be recognized as science per se (one has to recognize that in several countries and in some research realms, qualitative inquiry is nothing but soft science).

On the other hand, can we really ignore the elephant in the living room? Having spent most of my professional life as a qualitative practitioner, I have found Denzin’s ideas compelling and thought-provoking, indeed. Qualitative approaches provide unique opportunities to describe and discuss realities from an interpretative standpoint. To illustrate this concept, Denzin (2017) has posited “Our empirical materials can’t be fudged, mis-represented, altered or distorted, because they are life experiences. They are ethno-dramas” (p. 151). Consequently, reality encompasses multifaceted subtleties and sub realities. Further, as social entities, educators must be on the lookout for neoliberalist practices that might jeopardize our standards of living, being the audit culture one of them. Do not get me wrong, warrantability, measurement and transparency are significant constructs in our money-driven world. It is just that there are, by far, much more relevant aspects to take into consideration. Respect for human dignity and solidarity for non-traditional ways of learning and understanding constitute underlying elements that societies should consider to perpetuate their living systems.

An idea that has been rattling around in my head for some time is that there may be several types of validities and truths. Within qualitative inquiry, teachers and professors are stakeholders in the process. The stance they assume and their biases are relevant to the outcomes of the project – specifically perceptions and beliefs. Thus, qualitative inquiry aims to provide a holistic understanding of multifaceted situations – that is, the assumptions and background of the practitioners are also significant. Partisan views and conceptions might jeopardize Vivéncia and its implications on the research process.  Given its relevance to qualitative inquiry, researchers ought to situate themselves within the approach and, most importantly, within the community/group that is being “observed”. Validity from the community/group is the hallmark of interpretative approaches.

References

Denzin (2017). The elephant in the living room, or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Image taken from www.google.com.

Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher

Like everything in life, extremes are excellent ways to not consider other possibilities and realities. A significant takeaway when going over these readings revolves around the idea that when one considers a perspective, other viewpoints may not be taken into consideration – that is, when possible solutions, theories, allegations, and conceptions are appraised, other equally relevant or perhaps even better inferences, attitudes, tenets, and explanations may not be pondered. This has attached implications regarding the theories, methods, methodologies, and research paradigms to be considered when doing research. Researchers ought to take into account a whole series of aspects to perform their task, while not paying attention to the methodological divide. Research paradigms and epistemological constructs offer nothing but tools and philosophical orientation that support a research endeavor. First and foremost, researchers need to focus on the problem and the sociocultural subtleties attached thereto.

I do believe in a serious rapprochement where solid argumentations are offered to validate the underlying principles of research paradigms. Words and numbers are not opposites whatsoever, they are complimentary. I am not saying that all research projects need to favor mix-method approaches, do not get me wrong. I am just saying that qualitative inquiry might benefit from statistical analysis and computer-assisted data assessment. Furthermore, the concept of validity is going over a transformation in which no single truths stand out. We are certainly in a new era with many different and valid “truths”. Research represents a continuum where practitioners of different approaches necessarily need to contemplate other people’s knowledge and ways to discuss, collect, represent, examine, and present data. Doing so would enable Verstehen and will limn new perspectives of collaboration possibilities. Further to this concept, Onwuegbuzie and Leech have pointed out that “… pragmatic researchers are more likely to be cognizant of all available research techniques and to select methods with respect to their value for addressing the underlying research questions…” (p. 385).

Pledging allegiance to a specific research paradigm could bring about devastating results of one’s perception regarding educational research – that is, the world of research deals with a whole variety of multifaceted realities and perspectives that cannot be addressed with a single approach whatsoever. Words and numbers requiring in-depth analysis can certainly benefit from different tools and research tenets. Likewise, subjectivity is a natural part of research. There is no such thing as an “objective” instrument or interpretation. The researchers’ background, context, age, beliefs and fears permeate the inquiry with particular and specific viewpoints and considerations.

Building upon these ideas, I also believe that some overarching concepts demand a more philosophical and theoretical analysis to fully engage readers in the benefits of incorporating mixed-method approaches. Furthermore, it is always advisable to include voices against the concept that is being advocated so as to shed a light on the “hidden side”, if any. Finally, I would like to comment on a colleague’s statement, “I had always imagined the goal of research to be exploration of a problem, for the purposes of the researcher to influence change at some capacity.” Change is definitely a keyword here. Change for the better, change to understand, change to transform lives. All things considered, might change not foster more equality and justice in people’s life? It is a thought-provoking question, indeed.  For my part, I firmly believe that change is to bring uncountable benefits to better understand people’s life and, hence, their true needs.

References

Image taken from www.google.com

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.

Some Thoughts on Qualitative Research

Having a solid understanding of research paradigms and being aware of quite a few historical subtleties is a must when it comes to educational research. Because of the nature of my profession, an in-depth explanation of the teaching-learning phenomenon seems to be appropriate so as to fully comprehend the myriad of elements involved in the educational construct and its implications. To this end, qualitative research offers a variety of methodological possibilities and practices.

History, politics, criticism, features, tensions, and the future of qualitative research are present in this book summary. There are several concepts that are definitely sitting with me. This first chapter has reinforced the multilayered reality and complexity of qualitative research. Building on this concept, Denzin and Lincoln have pointed out that “The field sprawls between and crosscuts all of the human disciplines, even including, in some cases, the physical sciences” (p. 13). This is thought-provoking, indeed. 

Qualitative research nurtures from a variety of social disciplines in order to explore the nuances of a given reality. Likewise, the role of a qualitative researcher constitutes a major concept. I do agree with the authors in the sense that “research is an interactive process shaped by one’s personal history, biography, gender, social class, race, and ethnicity and those of the people in the setting” (p. 12). There is no such thing as a non-personal, non-biased observation or interpretation whatsoever. As a matter of fact, researchers ought to clarify their stances and situate themselves with regards to these concepts from the outset of the process. Next, I have to admit that I do not feel quite comfortable with the term “bricoleur”, though. My belief is that it somehow belittles the scientific notion of qualitative research. I think I understand the authors when they try to convey the idea of pragmatism and flexibility, but another terminology is required, a more scientific or professional one.

References

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2017). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5^th ed., pp. 1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Image taken from www.google.com