Research and the Theoretical Field - Pauldowling.me

More documents

Recommendations

Info

93 Further Reading Basset, E. H. and K. O'Riordan (2002). ‘Ethics of Internet Research: Contesting the human subjects research model.’ Ethics and Information Technology 4: 233-247. Bier, M. C., S. A. Sherblom, et al. (1996). ‘Ethical Issues in a Study of Internet Use: Uncertainty, Responsibility, and the Spirit of Research Relationships.’ Ethics and Behaviour. 6(2). 141-151. Marx, G. T. (2001). ‘Murky conceptual waters: the public and the private.’ Ethics and Information Technology. 3. 157-169. Thomas, N. and C. O'Kane (1998). ‘The ethics of participatory research with children.’ Children & Society. 12. 336-348. Van Den Hoonaard, W. C. (2003). ‘Is anonymity an artifact in ethnographic research’ Journal of Academic Ethics. 1. 141-151. Introduction: Research Ethics This is an online course, so I can be fairly confident that everyone participating on it owns or has regular access to a computer—probably quite an up-to-date model—and a good level of internet access. In my own case, I have the latest and highest specification Apple MacBook Pro, the latest operating system, LAN and WLAN broadband connection to the internet in my office, at the IoE, at my apartment in London, and in the house in Shinyokohama, where I spend several months each year and I have the IoE internet service, another run by the Japanese company, So-net, and a .Mac internet account and a number of email addresses and websites. I have been using email as my principal, non-f2f means of communication since 1987 and I am so completely tied in to this technology that it feels like an extension of myself and I cannot imagine life without it. On the odd occasion when my machine has broken down and I’ve had to leave it for a couple of days at the Apple Centre in Ginza, Tokyo, for repair, I have felt desolate. Indeed, now I take two computers with me wherever I go, just in case. Perhaps many of you know what I mean. Now, of course, not everyone has access to this kind of technology. Some people tend to shy away from technology, but very many others just could not possibly afford even a low-end computer and telephone internet connection. I wonder how such people, having no real experience of this kind of connectivity would make use of it. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to run a research project to see. If we found that it substantially improved people’s quality of life, then we could perhaps motivate for government support to increase internet access provision for low income groups. We could apply for funding for the purchase or hire of equipment and, say, six months internet access for several volunteer families. We could arrange for technical support etc. And we could interview family members at various points during the period of the research. We would obviously need the consent of the families taking part; what would we tell them RESEARCH & THE THEORETICAL FIELD
94 Melinda Bier and colleagues (1996) describe a research project that is very similar to the one that I have described. It is not irrelevant that it was carried out over ten years ago, when internet access was far less common than it is today. The researchers were very careful in ensuring that their participating families were fully informed about the project and their part in it, presumably they would have explained about the processes of data collection and, most importantly, how their privacy would be maintained both during the project and afterwards, especially with the publication of results and so forth. Unfortunately, something happened that the researchers did not predict, though they might, were the research being carried out today. Essentially, the lives of at least some of the participants became very substantially changed for what they saw as the better. However, this involved the development of a dependency upon the technology, which, come the end of the project, they were expected to return. Being low income families, they were certainly in no position to replace it: As one participant put it, only half tongue-in-cheek, “ Oh yeah, you university people are worse than the dope peddlers; now that we’re hooked, you’re going to take it away.” They feared they would not be able to maintain the daily routines they had established on this ideal Internet access. In addition to losing Internet access, they feared the loss of positive personal transformations they had undergone as a result of their Internet experiences. Specifically, participants feared losing their newly acquired sense of identity, education, and community. (Bier et al, 1996; pp. 146-7) This story had a happy ending, in the sense that the researchers were able (and willing) to extend indefinitely the loan of equipment and internet access. The principles of informed consent and avoidance of harm are well enshrined in the tabernacle of research ethics. There is a clear basis for this in the ‘human subjects’ interpretation of research. This interpretation subordinates the rights of the researcher to those of the researched subjects (see, for example, Basset & O’Riordan, 2002). Deciding just what ‘rights’ human subjects should be able to claim is itself not without its problems. But, as my illustration suggests, whatever one decides, there remains the difficulty that researchers cannot guarantee to be able to anticipate all possible implications of their research activities, however well-intentioned they may be. Indeed, even the most routine of guarantees offered to most participants in research— the guarantee of anonymity—may be impossible to deliver and may be seen to be substantively undermined at every stage of the research process (see, for example, Van Den Hoonaard, 2003). Furthermore, social—and this includes educational—research clearly feeds on the lives and activities of people who are not themselves always in a position to benefit from it and, even if they are, may not feel that the ends justify the means. Academic careers are routinely measured by the number and influence of publications, rather than by their contributions to individual or social quality of life, however altruistic researchers may consider themselves to be. Clearly, something similar might be said of any social activity: professional footballers are, presumably, in it for themselves—the elaboration RESEARCH & THE THEORETICAL FIELD
Page 2 and 3:
Master of Research (Online) Researc
Page 4 and 5:
3 Introduction Only theoretical obj
Page 6 and 7:
5 another very interesting experien
Page 8 and 9:
7 one or two hours of work, but thi
Page 10 and 11:
9 • the term ‘problematic’ (c
Page 12 and 13:
11 Your examination essay should me
Page 14 and 15:
13 Chapter 1 Towards Theory Week 1
Page 16 and 17:
15 Each definition sets up a cluste
Page 18 and 19:
17 literary modes or, as is usually
Page 20 and 21:
19 Chapter 2 The Theoretical and Em
Page 22 and 23:
21 Introduction: The Theoretical an
Page 24 and 25:
23 Having made a start in the field
Page 26 and 27:
25 other. He engaged members of the
Page 28 and 29:
27 organised as well-defined subjec
Page 30 and 31:
29 Activity 2.2 This activity may c
Page 32 and 33:
31 discussed in your teams. You sho
Page 34 and 35:
33 a performance of Shakespeare’s
Page 36 and 37:
35 research performance is responsi
Page 38 and 39:
37 Bakhtin) are really theoretical
Page 40 and 41:
39 Essentially, this is the second
Page 42 and 43:
41 Chapter 4 Generating a Question
Page 44 and 45: 43 problematic—cleared a space—
Page 46 and 47: 45 measurement protocol (Balmer/pho
Page 48 and 49: 47 Douglas’s ‘cultural theory
Page 50 and 51: 49 3. reversing the order of the so
Page 52 and 53: 51 e. Practical issues (such as acc
Page 54 and 55: 53 production. The organisation of
Page 56 and 57: 55 Babbedge et al report that ‘th
Page 58 and 59: 57 He is referring to research by a
Page 60 and 61: 59 Answer the following questions i
Page 62 and 63: 61 Introduction: The use-value of r
Page 64 and 65: 63 If the culture of the teacher is
Page 66 and 67: 65 32. It is important, too, that t
Page 68 and 69: 67 This is precisely because of the
Page 70 and 71: 69 You should spend 4.5 hours on th
Page 72 and 73: 71 Core texts for this chapter Crot
Page 74 and 75: 73 is precisely itself a metadiscou
Page 76 and 77: 75 what is agreed to be ``true'', w
Page 78 and 79: 77 us that disciplines are unreal t
Page 80 and 81: 79 by ‘great men’). He is also
Page 82 and 83: 81 Postings to Board B17, Philosoph
Page 84 and 85: 83 write and probably impossible to
Page 86 and 87: 85 distribution of these modes will
Page 88 and 89: 87 amongst the collaborators. Indee
Page 90 and 91: 89 Institutionalisation I + I - Dis
Page 92 and 93: 91 research in order to identify an
Page 96 and 97: 95 of their skills, glory in compet
Page 98 and 99: 97 ... I and many sociologists spen
Page 100 and 101: 99 literary studies that is concern
Page 102 and 103: 101 3. Investigate the procedures f
Page 104 and 105: 103 Bernstein, B. B. (2000). Pedago
Page 106 and 107: 105 Geertz, C. (1973 (2000 Edn)). T
Page 108 and 109: 107 and academically able students:
Page 110 and 111: 109 Discussion Boards Week B0 Gener
Page 112 and 113: 111 Week 7 Week 6 Week 5 Week 4 Exp
show all

Research and the Theoretical Field - Pauldowling.me

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?