supporting tiriti-based curriculum delivery in mainstream early ...

Despite my concerns about possible coercion of participants by those in
positions of power, ultimately, they were responsible adults. I had to trust that they
willingly agreed to be involved in the research and to honour that decision – to do
otherwise would be disrespectful to them as people and invalidate the principle of
voluntary participation. Given the subject matter of this research – Tiriti-based
pedagogy – teachers wanted to find solutions to their dilemmas about how to
include this in their teaching. They perceived their participation in this research as
an opportunity to discover how to do this. My perception was they understood
what they were agreeing to do when they signed the consent forms. If this was not
so, our discussions would have continued.
3.4.7 Data Analysed and Faithfully Reported
In considering the ethics of analysing and writing up the research I was
conscious of MacNaughton‟s (2001) perspective on final reports. Because action
research generates a large quantity of information, the final report is highly likely
to be biased on account of the researcher‟s selections. Due in part to the
accessibility of audio recordings in this study it meant all of “these moments were
privileged over other moments. Many thoughts, conversations and actions that
may have been important…were, therefore, silenced” (Glenda MacNaughton,
2001). Through the use of reflective journals (my own and those of the
participants) I have endeavoured to broaden data beyond those which were
recorded by audio tape. Participants were able to check my interpretations and
“minimise the risk of misinterpretation” (Sumsion, 1999, p. 458) by checking
transcripts, observations, and draft reports of findings. Importantly, participants
were invited to challenge my research perceptions and this gave them power in our
relationships.
In considering the ethical issues around power, however, I also needed to
be mindful of Zeni‟s (1998) point about possible actions if participants disagree
with interpretations. She advises researchers confronted with divergent
interpretations from participants that “[you] may revise your views; quote their
objections and tell why you maintain your original view; or invite them to state
alternative views in an appendix” (Zeni, 1998, p. 17). This seemed an appropriate
action. Indeed there were some changes made in Case Study One where, although
the centre supervisor said “I know those are the words I said because they were on
115