Ethical considerations

The most obvious ethical considerations prior to the start of both the pilot study and the main study concerned access to the research sites and participants. As both studies were undertaken in Austrian state primary schools permission had to be obtained from the local education authority and the schools concerned. Consent from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of The Open University was also required.

Ten ethical procedures were undertaken during the study and post-study. They were as follows:

• protection of participant identity through pseudonyms • guarantee of confidentiality to the participant

• assurance that participants could withdraw from the study at any time

• contact details of the researcher provided for the participants in case any questions might arise

• identification of the researcher and the university involved • identification of the research purpose

• safe storage of the data collected for analysis • identification of the type of participant involvement • identification of the data collection methods

• identification of participant benefits from the research. For example, new knowledge to assist teaching for learning.

In order to gain access to the case study research sites and participants for the main study, a written application and the necessary documents had to be sent to the relevant local

education authorities.

In the first case study school, permission for the school and the case study teacher to take part in the study had to be obtained from the school director, who, in the first instance, had to be contacted by the authorities. Permission to undertake the research in the second case study school was given directly by the school. Letters of permission containing

information and requesting consent for their children to participate in the study were then issued to all parents at both schools.

In Austria, at the time of this study and currently, it is not necessary to gain pupils’ consent to participate: parental permission is sufficient. Nonetheless, the proposed study was explained to the pupils and their consent sought. If any child had requested not to take part, this would have been respected despite parental permission having been obtained.

Permission from education authorities was not necessary for interviewing additional study participants and for teacher surveys, as these were undertaken in private settings. The ten

ethical procedures described above were adhered to at all times and for all study participants.

Other areas for ethical consideration are the bias involved in researching an area close to one’s own field of work and – more generally – the research should assist the development of knowledge and provide information to the academic and educational community to improve education further. Critiques concerning researcher bias with regard to the wording of questions and coding of responses (Fontana and Frey, 2005) were also carefully

reflected upon. Interviewee feedback concerning any corrections or changes to the responses given in both the pilot and the main study meant that misinterpretations by the researcher were avoided (Maxwell, 2009, pp. 244–5).

Often, contradictory responses are given by an interviewee to the same or similar question, which researchers (Campbell, 2009; Yin, 2000) consider is a component of the research process. Therefore, it is necessary that the researcher seeks explanation and clarification of the contradiction from the respondent. The findings can only be considered valid when no further contradictions are found. The search for ‘discrepant evidence’ is also considered to be a vital procedure by researchers and all such evidence needs to be tested and explained (Patton, 2002, p. 553; Rosenbaum, 2002, pp. 8–10). Therefore, debriefing of the interview participants was undertaken to ensure the accuracy of the data collected (Berg, 2001). The qualitative ethnographic methods of data collection applied in the classrooms required sensitivity to the setting at all times. Awareness of researcher presence during the lessons was observed at the start of the study but decreased as the observations progressed.

Maheux and Roth (2012), in a discussion concerning conducting classroom observations in qualitative research, question ‘the role of researchers in relation to education and

educational practices’ (p. 1). Ethically, the researcher’s role should be to contribute to the production of knowledge in order to assist the development of education policy and practice. Therefore the purpose of the study creates an ethical responsibility on the part of

the researcher towards the observed. Hence researcher bias needs to be carefully reflected upon, not only during the classroom observations but throughout the data collection and analysis procedures of the study.

Maheux and Roth (2012) also argue that the separation of the observer from the observed is not a simple undertaking and also is not entirely possible. To make distinctions, it is necessary to have a conscious awareness of our own identities which through interaction in diverse social contexts with others are constructed and developed. It is not possible to reduce the pupils and teacher observed in a learning/teaching context during class time to unknown objects, as we ourselves are the same objects (human) but in a different position, i.e. researcher. However, contrasts between prior knowledge of the known

(teacher/pupils/classroom context) and relationships to the observed (classroom practice) enable distinctions to be made for the development of new knowledge.

Cresswell (2009) discusses how dissemination of the final report also involves ethical issues that are concerned with the type of language used. Discriminating or biased

language is to be avoided at all times and purposeful inaccurate presentation of the findings is totally unacceptable (Neuman, 2000).

We now turn to Chapter Four for the explanation, description and discussion of the data analysis procedures and methods used in this study.