International Portal of Teacher Education

Source: Studying Teacher Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, August 2012, 183–191
(Reviewed by the Portal Team)

In this article, the authors examine how the extrapolation and examination of one critical incident in the process of conducting self-study research challenged their ethics as researchers and led them to new understanding and knowledge. Their focus is on the initial acknowledgment of what they considered to be an ethical dilemma as it had rattled their cage.

Methods
This research provides an analysis of an ethical dilemma that arose during a study involving six primary teachers and two teacher educator researchers in a regional Australian city during 2008.
In conducting the self-study of their own learning and teaching, the authors engaged in weekly conversations with each other, maintained journals (using critical incidents, interactions), conducted interviews with teachers and a principal, transcribed interview data and examined the transcripts of the interviews for key themes, and maintained and analyzed written notes of interviews.

In conducting the self-study of their own learning and teaching, the authors engaged in weekly conversations with each other, maintained journals (using critical incidents, interactions), conducted interviews with teachers and a principal, transcribed interview data and examined the transcripts of the interviews for key themes, and maintained and analyzed written notes of interviews.

Analysis of critical moments recorded during the authors' self-study supports Ernst’s (2009) contention that ethics in educational research must extend further than conventional adherence to ethical standards. Ernst argues that ethical practice needs to underpin publications and public conversation related to the findings of the research. Although they had ensured that, as researchers, they engaged in public conversation about their research, they learnt that they had not paid due attention to the importance of involving the teachers in this public conversation. This was complicated further by the fact that the teachers remained anonymous in their presentations and publications, when in fact they may have liked their identity to be known, as they were proud of the impact of their work.
Ernst (2009) also highlighted the importance of reciprocity in research. Although teachers, students, and researchers gained from the experience of this research, and in this regard the research outcomes were reciprocal, this was not so with respect to the perceived kudos arising from publication of the findings. In this regard, the authors felt they had failed the other in their research (Ernst, 2009) and were deficient in our ethical conduct. The authors recommend that debate and research about how ethics shapes and is shaped by self-study research be deliberate and ongoing.

Ethical Praxis
Identifying and analyzing critical incidents, events, and interactions during their self-study enabled us to understand more about the way that ethical practices affect others. New understandings about ethics have led to new learning and this has influenced their practice as self-study researchers. The authors define ethical praxis as an active, anticipated, and awaited researcher response to ethical issues arising as a result of self-study research, and these ethical issues may too often be unforeseen and un(der)explored. Ethical praxis demands more than conventional adherence to ethical standards for researchers. The authors contend that it is important for self-study researchers to collect data about the ethical issues and dilemmas that arise and to include analysis of these data as part of the research design.

Overall, the analysis of data related to an ethical dilemma has made them better researchers in several ways. Now the authors are more aware of developing and implementing strategies that focus on the reciprocity of the research process and research findings for the participants and research partners and we now build this into the research design.
Second, they are mindful that the pursuit of knowledge is but a secondary feature of a more basic ethical duty to the other, and they outline this ethical duty to all participants at the beginning of the research.
Third, they plan with their research partners about how they might collectively add to the public conversation about the area of their research and plan who might be responsible for different aspects of this conversation. The teachers’ roles may relate to discussions with children, teachers, parents, and principals within their school, while the researchers may be responsible for engaging in broader conversations about the findings and their implications for other contexts.
Participants in the research typically provide permission for publication upfront, prior to the conduct of the research.

Here, the authors have learnt that they need to explain clearly and upfront the different roles that participants play in the publication and presentation of the findings, and the anticipated outcomes of these roles.
For the authors as researchers, a key goal was to generate new knowledge and to add to the public conversation about the research and the research findings related to teaching and learning. This required writing articles and making conference presentations.
For the teacher participant, the goal may be to become a more effective teacher and, as a result, for their individual students to learn more successfully. These different outcomes are not contradictory, but it is beholden on researchers to assist participants to understand how the researcher’s purpose may be different from their own, and how their individual roles benefit each other. After further consideration of our dilemma and their analysis, the authors conclude that there is research that does not disturb or unsettle, is conducted from a distance, has minimal personal impact and is, therefore, without ongoing personal engagement or relationships. In contrast, research such as self-study can rattle cages, intrude on a system, or disturb with the aim of creating something better.

Finally, the authors learnt that collecting data about critical incidents related to the ethical dilemmas that arise in conducting research is an important aspect of self-study research. Thus, they recommend that self-study researchers: (1) collect data about ethical dilemmas that arise during (and following) research; (2) explore and systematically analyze these dilemmas; and (3) work toward resolving these as an integral part of any self-study research. Ethical issues need to be addressed explicitly, not just at the outset of the research but during and at the end of a study.
The authors contend that ethical praxis is an important lens that can help self-study researchers to understand practice better and needs to be articulated more explicitly and addressed as an important aspect of self-study methodology.

References
Ernst, P. 2009. “What is first philosophy in mathematics education?”. In Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Edited by: Tzekaki, M., Kalrimidou, M. and Sakonidis, H. Vol. 1, 25–42. Thessaloniki: PME.