Print

Print


Thanks Alan,

So a possible solution would be for the action research advisors to be made
members of  IRB.  Then we would be official as opposed to doing it as part
of the program.  If the issue arises, I will suggest that we be made member
of the IRB board just for reviewing expedited  action research.  That would
work, thanks.  But so far, this is not a problem.

Margaret

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Alan Markowitz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> We have a process called an "Expedited IRB" where a single member of the
> Board who is familiar with Action Research reviews the proposals to ensure
> that:
>    -it is part of the normal work of the educator
>    -the rights of those involved in data gathering are protected.
>    -all involved are aware and have consented.
> What also helps to to insist that the researcher follow the specific
> policies of the school(s) in which data are gathered. Hope this helps.
> Alan
>
>
> Dr. Alan Markowitz
> Director, Graduate Programs in Education
> (973) 290-4328
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Margaret Riel <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been thinking about the ethics issue and the Institutional review
>> board (IRB) and I am curious what is done at other institutions.  Our
>> arrangement, which was decided many years ago, was that action research was
>> done as a class project and publication was not the a part of the process.
>> Therefore,  the chair of the student group is responsible to make sure that
>> all human subject guidelines are followed.  This is, of course, is not
>> always clear in action research.  We say that if the researcher is doing
>> what they normally would do, as a part of their work, they generally do not
>> need to get consent but should inform those they are working with that they
>> are doing action research.  If they are collecting data, they need to be
>> sensitive to issues of privacy and protection and this might involve
>> collecting consent forms.   This IRB arrangement was made when students did
>> not formally publish their work.   And those who did publish, often did so
>> after receiving their degree, so this arrangement seemed to work   Students
>> now all  publish electronic portfolios<http://mindmaps.wikispaces.com/c-12+Action+Research>which are presented at a
>> conference <http://mindmaps.wikispaces.com/c-12+Action+Research>  before
>> a live and online audience (happening this Thursday and Friday if you want
>> to come).  The best projects are published on the Center for
>> Collaborative Action Research <http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar>.    I
>> have been reluctant to bring this back up to the review board as they 1)
>> take too long to make decisions (2) do not have a concept of research as
>> iterative and 3) have an overly aggressive view of risk.  But I worry that
>> at some point we will need to review our arrangement.  I would love to know
>> what is being done at other places for M. A action research thesis.
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As a new thread:
>>>
>>> I've been wondering if readers might be able to share e-sources, access
>>> to e-libraries for folks without easy access to a good library, particular
>>> for those in more isolated regions.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Dan Woodrow <[log in to unmask]>
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Sent:* Sun, 13 June, 2010 15:42:57
>>> *Subject:* Re: living theory research
>>>
>>> Thank you Joan and Pip, for your discussion it helps me frame my own
>>> particular situation.
>>>
>>> Although each situation is somewhat different I noticed that ethical
>>> reviews of proposals are becoming somewhat more strict and there continues
>>> to be a lack of understanding of particular research endeavours that are not
>>> 'run of the mill'.  I suspect Living Theory research might fall into that
>>> category.  We like Pip, do use departmental reviews at the behest of the
>>> ethics committee but the purpose is to exam potential student academic
>>> related research learning activities that might have human ethical
>>> considerations and is course related.   Research done outside of course work
>>> done by students goes directly to the ethics committee. Another ethical
>>> influence that I would consider is the journal's scholarly review process
>>> although I have not published much my peers who publish in health and
>>> nursing related journals are quite concerned about this process and meeting
>>> the ethical standard of research being considered by an ethics committee.  I
>>> wonder if this might be different for educational journals where there is
>>> possible an appreciation of Living Educational Theory.
>>>
>>> I wonder if this might be true.  If we are to add to the body of
>>> knowledge and involve others in the process then an ethical review might be
>>> necessary.  If we are to exam our lives in relation to our being, knowledge
>>> and influence it may not require a ethical review.
>>>
>>> BTW a great evaluation project Joan, continue your great work.  It is
>>> similar to my interests.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joan Walton <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:11 am
>>> Subject: Re: living theory research
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> > Hello Dan and Pip,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your response, Dan - and for your very interesting
>>> > question.  I
>>> > (albeit rather late in my working life!) - wrote this essay as
>>> > part of an HE
>>> > qualification in Learning and Teaching - mainly because, though
>>> > for many
>>> > years being involved in the education of professionals, I have
>>> > not done so
>>> > in an HE research-based context, and had not engaged in
>>> > dialogues with
>>> > others around the academic side of learning and teaching.
>>> > Registering for
>>> > this qualification gave me the opportunity to do so.
>>> >
>>> > The essay was intended to be a 'small scale evaluation study of my
>>> > teaching'.  Although it was suggested that it be undertaken
>>> > within an action
>>> > research context, the idea was that you give the students the
>>> > opportunity to
>>> > evaluate your teaching, and then demonstrate how you use the
>>> > findings to
>>> > modify what you do.  There seemed to be an assumption that
>>> > the evaluation
>>> > was a ‘one off’ event – examples of what might be considered included:
>>> >
>>> >    1. ‘Start’ ‘stop’ ‘continue’ – an open-ended form
>>> > with three sections on
>>> >    it which students can complete
>>> >    2. The learning objectives questionnaire (see appendix)
>>> >    3. Asking students to write a letter to the next
>>> > cohort of students about
>>> >    how they might best learn from the way you teach.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I felt this was a very unsatisfactory way of evaluating a
>>> > programme - and in
>>> > seeing myself as developing what I do as 'living theory', I
>>> > wrote the essay
>>> > I did.  But the initiating reason for the essay was to
>>> > evaluate a programme,
>>> > hence (although we were encouraged to use an AR framework to
>>> > structure our
>>> > reflection and changes in practice), it was not seen as
>>> > 'research' as such,
>>> > and hence it was not necessary to go to the ethics committee.
>>> >
>>> > However, given my 'mission' includes encouraging practitioners
>>> > in all kinds
>>> > of contexts to see themselves as 'knowledge creators', I think
>>> > the question
>>> > of what goes to an ethics committee and when is a relevant one,
>>> > and may
>>> > become increasingly so.  Perhaps because I am so new in the
>>> > university, I do
>>> > not have an answer at the moment, but I do think it is a
>>> > question I need to
>>> > address quite urgently.   I am currently working with
>>> > 20 managers and
>>> > practitioners from day nurseries working in collaborative
>>> > inquiry into how
>>> > they might improve their practice.  My role is to
>>> > facilitate their learning
>>> > and development - so in that sense, I am still in a 'teaching
>>> > and learning'
>>> > role; and as part of that,  I am 'teaching' all group
>>> > members about action
>>> > research: living theory; and encouraging them to engage in a
>>> > living theory
>>> > approach to how they might 'improve their practice'.  I
>>> > also make it clear
>>> > that I am engaging in a similar inquiry process in relation to
>>> > how I work
>>> > with them; so we recognise and acknowledge our different roles and
>>> > responsibilities, but I am very clear that we have equal
>>> > significance in
>>> > being co-researchers and co-subjects.
>>> >
>>> > So this is more than reflective practice - because they are
>>> > being asked not
>>> > just to reflect on their experience and learning', but also to
>>> > account for
>>> > their learning, and to provide evidence for any claims to
>>> > knowledge that
>>> > might emerge from their practice.  In fact, a hoped-for
>>> > outcome from those
>>> > who are interested / committed enough to do so would be to
>>> > create an outcome
>>> > similar to the essay that I wrote - or at least similar
>>> > 'ingredients' - i.e.
>>> > clarity about their values, how they put their values into
>>> > practice, the
>>> > issue that they were motivated to inquire into, what they did
>>> > and what the
>>> > outcomes were, with evidence to support that the outcomes were
>>> > as claimed to
>>> > be, etc.....  Hopefully, there will be all kinds of
>>> > imaginative ways of
>>> > providing 'evidence' of claims to knowledge, including multi-media
>>> > representation as Jack encourages; but also I think feedback
>>> > from others is
>>> > one of the most valuable forms, if you can create ways of
>>> > encouraging honest
>>> > and detailed feedback (which is what I was trying to do with my
>>> > group of
>>> > students).  So from early on in the inquiry, I am
>>> > encouraging these group
>>> > members to look at how they can gain such feedback.
>>> >
>>> > It is the role of 'evidence' and the relationship between theory and
>>> > practice that differentiates reflective practice from living
>>> > theory, I
>>> > think.  Someone can be a good reflective practitioner,
>>> > without feeling they
>>> > have to engage with or contribute to a development of theory -
>>> > without,indeed, seeing themselves as researchers / knowledge
>>> > creators - whereas
>>> > (certainly as I interpret it) living theory is a research method
>>> > in that it
>>> > seeks to add to an existing body of knowledge, providing
>>> > evidence of claims
>>> > to knowledge in the process.  But if that 'research' is
>>> > integrated into
>>> > someone's daily practice - in a sense, *is* their practice, then
>>> > the issue
>>> > in terms of when is ethical permission required, becomes far more
>>> > uncertain.  I have not sought permission to 'live my life
>>> > as enquiry' -
>>> > however, I know that if I plan (going to the opposite extreme)
>>> > to put videos
>>> > on youtube, permission will need to be sought.  But given
>>> > our university
>>> > does have an ethics committee that requires all research
>>> > projects to be
>>> > brought before it, I have not quite answered the question about
>>> > when I need
>>> > to bring either my own enquiries, or those of the practitioners whose
>>> > enquiries I am facilitating, before the ethics committee.
>>> > I think the way
>>> > it has been agreed in Pip's department is a very pragmatic one,
>>> > and seems a
>>> > reasonable compromise.
>>> >
>>> > Other people's views on this would be very welcome.
>>> >
>>> > Best wishes,
>>> >
>>> > Joan
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 13 June 2010 08:17, Pip Bruce Ferguson
>>> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Dan and Joan
>>> > >
>>> > > This is a very good question that you ask, Dan. When I ran an action
>>> > > research course in my role as staff developer at a local
>>> > polytechnic some
>>> > > years back, my participants had the same type of question.
>>> > "Does the work
>>> > > that we'd normally engage in as reflective practitioners now
>>> > have to get
>>> > > ethics approval, because we're doing it formally in a course
>>> > that's called
>>> > > 'action research'?" The institution, to resolve the need to
>>> > avoid having the
>>> > > ethics committee getting bogged down in lots of small,
>>> > practitioner-based
>>> > > research projects, decided the issue by requiring staff to
>>> > submit their
>>> > > proposal to their Head of Department, who in turn decided
>>> > whether it was
>>> > > sufficiently different to 'normal practice' to require ethics
>>> > approval.>
>>> > > I'll be interested to hear what Joan says. Meanwhile, Joan, I have
>>> > > forwarded your essay to a nursing lecturer who's just
>>> > completed the first
>>> > > reflective task of a course called Postgraduate Certificate in
>>> > Tertiary> Teaching, as I know she will find it really valuable
>>> > to know that the kinds
>>> > > of questions she investigated in her task are being replicated
>>> > elsewhere in
>>> > > the world. Are you okay about her citing this work in her next
>>> > task, if she
>>> > > finds it relevant? Thanks so much for the sharing.
>>> > >
>>> > > Warm regards
>>> > >
>>> > > Pip Bruce Ferguson (teaching developer, New Zealand)
>>> > >
>>> > > On 13/06/2010 3:04 a.m., Dan Woodrow wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> Hello Joan,
>>> > >> I enjoyed reading your essay and I was so impressed with the
>>> > thoughtful>> student comments.  You must feel proud of
>>> > their adoption of a teaching and
>>> > >> learning approach that was probably very foreign to
>>> > them.  I look forward to
>>> > >> reading the article one day.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The research you have done reminds me of our own nursing program
>>> > >> curriculum where we actively promote a community of learning
>>> > and later a
>>> > >> community of practice for our students.  I am always
>>> > excited when our
>>> > >> teachers and learners co-construct the curriculum and come
>>> > from a place of
>>> > >> unknowing.  There seems to be so much more learning
>>> > which occurs on the part
>>> > >> of the student and the teacher.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> As I am new to Living Theory (which I think I might live
>>> > through may daily
>>> > >> reflective practice as a practitioner and teacher) could you
>>> > help me
>>> > >> understand the separation between program evaluation and evaluative
>>> > >> research.
>>> > >> For instance did your institutional ethics committee consider
>>> > a research
>>> > >> proposal or would this be considered program evaluation
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Thanks again for the article which reinforces my own beliefs about
>>> > >> teaching and learning.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> ----- Original Message -----
>>> > >> From: Joan Walton <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > >> Date: Friday, June 11, 2010 4:58 am
>>> > >> Subject: Re: living theory research
>>> > >> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > Hi Juin Ee,
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > I have not long completed an essay on  taking a living
>>> > >> > theory approach to my
>>> > >> > teaching of  a group of second year undergraduate
>>> > >> > students.  I sent it off
>>> > >> > list to Brendan and Geisha, but as there seem to be a
>>> > number of
>>> > >> > people with
>>> > >> > similar queries, you and others may also find it useful.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Best wishes,
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Joan
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Dr Joan Walton
>>> > Faculty of Education
>>> > Liverpool Hope University
>>> > Hope Park
>>> > Liverpool
>>> > L16 9JD
>>> >
>>> > Phone: 0151 291 2115
>>> > Email: [log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>>
>>> Dan Woodrow
>>> Comox BC CA
>>>
>>> As when the golden sun salutes the morn,
>>> And, having gilt the ocean with his beams,
>>> Gallops the zodiac in his glistening coach,
>>> And overlooks the highest-peering hills.
>>> Shakespeare
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Margaret Riel <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sr. Researcher, Center for Technology in Learning SRI-International
>> Co-Chair M. A in Learning Technologies Pepperdine University
>>   Phone: (760) 618-1314
>>   http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/mriel/office
>>   BLOG: http://mindmaps.typepad.com/
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margaret Riel <[log in to unmask]>
Sr. Researcher, Center for Technology in Learning SRI-International
Co-Chair M. A in Learning Technologies Pepperdine University
  Phone: (760) 618-1314
  http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/mriel/office
  BLOG: http://mindmaps.typepad.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~