I have started to realise, that this blog is a mind map of not just my thoughts, but key moments in my education journey, and being able to upload PDFs, will allow me to keep a digital track of the information I have been reading.
Ethical reading to my understanding, is liberating and protecting both the investigator and the participant in the simplest formats. It allows both party members to be honest and open about the investigation and how they are participants, which are key data retrieval in obtaining evidence to conquer queries or problems researchers face within their work.
“Educational researchers aim to extend knowledge and understanding in all areas of educational activity and from all perspectives, including those of learners, educators,
policymakers and the public.” pg 3
This citation is extremely rewarding to read and shows how inclusive this guideline is for educational researchers, the wording is very inclusive and welcoming to those who aren’t academics and brings a sense of clarity to the field while studying the PGcert. (Something like this would be good to see amongst the pgcert workshop days, using inclusive language to support all educational staff that participate in teaching and learning).
The Guide Lines – I have taken the opportunity to dive in and question the first section of the guideline mostly based on participants, as this part I feel most fearful, On one hand, I am exhausted from the hierarchy system, the language used solely focused on academics and the routes of progression offered to technical staff members.
“1. The British Educational Research Association (BERA) believes that educational researchers should operate within an ethic of respect for any persons – including themselves – involved in or touched by the research they are undertaking. Individuals should be treated fairly, sensitively, and with dignity and freedom from prejudice, in recognition of both their rights and of differences arising from age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, class, nationality, cultural identity, partnership status, faith, disability, political belief or any other significant characteristic.” pg 6
- Is my question, harmful towards any of these differences?
- How do I come across as sincere and sensitive when investigating?
- How do I elevate my question to reflect a technician’s position?
“2. The Association expects researchers to be mindful of the ways in which structural inequalities – those, for example, associated with ‘race’, gender, LBGT+ issues and socioeconomic status – affect all social relationships, including those that are formed in the course of research. Where relevant, attention should be paid to the ways in which such
inequalities specifically affect children and young people, and their relationships. Sensitivity and attentiveness towards such structural issues are important aspects of researchers’
responsibilities to participants at all stages of research, including reporting and publication.” pg 6
- Are there already Social structures at play within the hierarchy of Creative education?
- Rapport relations between students and academics versus technicians?
- Navigating the political side of a technician’s position to challenge standards?
“3. Participants in research may be actively or passively involved in such processes as observation, experiment, auto/biographical reflection, survey or test. They maybe collaborators or colleagues in the research process, or they may simply be implicated in the context in which a research project takes place. (For example, in a teacher or lecturer’s research into their own professional practice, students or colleagues will be part of the context, but will not themselves be the focus of that research.) It is important for researchers to take account of the rights and interests of those indirectly affected by their research, and to consider whether action is appropriate – for example, they should consider whether it is necessary to provide information or obtain informed consent. In rare cases – for instance, in some politically volatile settings, or where researchers are investigating illegal activity, including suspected abuse – covert research may be defensible. In such cases approval must be obtained from an institutional ethics review committee.” pg 6-7
- As my question deals with the greater learning opportunities for students, how do I navigate guideline 3?
- My professional practice is halted at Level 4, Level 5 technical roles are management and not necessarily ‘professional practice’ in education but more directed towards managing people and resources.
- How do I reflect the need to progress technical roles and in fact share a curiosity with evolving student learning with current times/needs of the industry?
“4. Where research draws on social media and online communities, it is important to remember that digital information is generated by individuals. Researchers should not assume that the name given and/or identity presented by participants in online fora or media is a ‘real’ name: it might be an avatar. This avatar could represent a human or a bot, but behind either will be one or more human creators responsible for it, who could therefore be regarded as participants; whether and how these potential participants might be traceable should be considered. Where an organisation shares its data with researchers, those researchers have a responsibility to account for how and with what consent that data was gathered; they must also consider the authorship of that data and, consequently, whether it is necessary to independently approach the relevant individuals for consent concerning its use. Researchers should keep up to date with changes in data use regulations and advice.” pg 7
- This guideline is interesting, solely on the focus on technical roles becoming more digital based and corresponding with the hybrid learning curves of how to manage and balance work commitments, teachings, studio managing, health and safety, registers, supervised studio, maintenance, online bookings, machine handling, ordering, digital learning resources and of course now teams, the work communication and database tool.
- Data use would be from physical participants in a real-life focus group (the desired research method). Although questions will be on digital learning and upskilling, automation and craft versus digital making.
- As this is a voluntary participating group, I will provide consent forums indicating that the answers provided are truthful and honest and will be showcased with anonymity within the research e.g. Technician 1, ” 25 years in the business etc etc”…
“5. Researchers have a responsibility to consider what the most relevant and useful ways are of informing participants about the outcomes of the research in which they were or are involved. They could consider whether and how to engage with participants at the conclusion of the research by, for example, debriefing them in an audience-friendly format, or by eliciting feedback on the findings. Should conflicting interpretations arise, researchers should normally reflect participants’ views when reporting the research. Researchers may wish to offer them copies of any publications arising from projects in which they have participated, or to produce reports specially tailored for the research context, taking into consideration potential subsequent uses of this material, including by the participants’ institutions. Where the scale of the research makes such a consideration impractical, alternative means such as a website could be used to ensure that participants are informed of the outcomes and the ways in which they are able to engage with them.” pg 8
- The research information document seems to be fitting for the purpose of the research I am trying to conduct in order to see a change in technical routes?
- I think I will offer a debriefing or a review of the peer observation during my presentation to see how it can progress.
- As this is a small-scale methodology, offering participants an opportunity to regroup and reflect on my findings could be interesting and add to the value of the research. Is there a name for such methodology or is it still considered qualitative?
“6. Researchers also have a responsibility to consider how to balance maximising the benefits and minimising any risk or harm to participants, sponsors, the community of educational researchers and educational professionals more widely – while again recognising that irresolvable tensions may need to be addressed. At times, some benefits to participants may be compromised in order to achieve other gains or goals, but these compromises should be justifiable and, where possible, explicitly accounted for.” pg 8
- My research is about benefiting the technical teams as well as focusing on retention and career longevity. navigating this balance mentally seems quite easy, but maybe I am being naive in the presumption that everyone will see that benefit.
- I have selected a small group of deans and managers to interview, if willing to see how the prospect of these findings is connected to my idea of technical pedagogy and its future with teaching and learning specialists.
“7. Researchers should not undertake work for which they are not competent.” pg 8
- How do we value competence in research?
- Am I competent because I am currently in that position?
- Am I competent because I am conducting a theory of idea for a small research project?
- Am I competent as I feel my future in a career, changes my desired outcome.
In total, there are 85 guidelines, which is an extreme amount of guidelines to consider and follow, something that I am grateful to have and to read back on. Over time, I will blog more about certain topics, more reflectively when it comes to nature with my research proposal. I think reading all of the sections at once, will hinder and make my research less honest, as I feel I will procrastinate over these guidelines, rather than correcting them later.